The Immigration Trap

http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2012/11/the-immigration-trap.html ^ | libertarian neocon

[libertarian neocon]

Since Romney lost on Tuesday, many Republicans, like Sean Hannity and John Boehner, have been promoting a change in the Republican views on immigration policy to attract more hispanic/latino voters.  Unfortunately, I think this is a trap that will make Republican electoral prospects worse, not better.

Just do the math, there are an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in this country.  Let's say you do what Sean Hannity proposes and give those already here a "path to citizenship".  Now, assume they don't magically become Republicans when they gain their citizenship and 71% vote Democratic like in the last election. That means that we'll have 7.8 million more Democratic votes and only about 3 million Republican ones, a potential gap of 4.8 million (I realize turnout wouldn't be anywhere close to 100%, which is why I used the term "potential").  Considering Romney just lost by 3 million votes, this number is not one to sneeze at and could effectively create a permanent Democratic majority, the exact opposite of what the Republican "path to citizenship" folks are trying to achieve.

Plus, what will stop millions more from coming into this country illegally now that they know they will just have to wait out any reticence from the US government to give them amnesty.  Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in 1986 and all we got from that was 11 million more.  Thus, the illegal immigration issue will never go away and trust me, the Democrats will always out-pander the Republicans on this issue. Simply, they know who the newly minted citizens will be voting for.

Also, there is really no evidence that the immigration issue is all that is keeping hispanics from voting Republican.  They have very good reason for voting Democratic en masse as they are the recipients of quite a few government handouts given their relatively low median household income.  Take a look at this chart of median household income by race in 2011 dollars:

As their economic condition is more in-line with that of the African-American community shouldn't their vote be relatively in-line with them too?  Romney won voters who made more than $50k a year and lost those making less than $50k and the average hispanic household is making well under $50k.  Seems pretty simple.  My guess is that Romney ran close to even or better amongst those in the top quintile or two though I have absolutely no data to support this.  By that logic, it would be far more effective to target this group of voters by championing ways to promote economic development in their local communities. Providing them with an easier path to the middle class would be what really can move them into the Republican column.


What about social issues?  There really is no evidence that the hispanic community will vote for "family values" and, if anything, are probably more attracted to the Democrats' socially liberal platform.  The illegitimate birth rate amongst hispanic mothers is 52%, nearly double the 28% we see with caucasian mothers.  That just seems like a population that will be more responsive to pro-abortion rhetoric and free contraception handouts than the opposite.

Hence, I think any switch by the Republicans on immigration/amnesty will make things worse for them, not better.  If the Republicans are really interested in fixing our immigration system, why don't they make legal immigration easier for qualified individuals?  Those with professional degrees and skills we need should not have to go through many hoops to come to this country.  They are the ones most likely to provide an immediate boost to our economy as well as its long term prospects.  They will find jobs the quickest and be the least likely to go on government assistance.  Don't we want more of those?

I'm sure some of you are thinking "so what should the Republicans do then?"  Well, how about for starters, next time there is a primary battle, don't run a scorched Earth campaign against the other candidates like Romney did.  With the help of the GOP establishment media, he was effectively able to eviscerate all the other candidates.  The bad blood in the party was really bad and obviously quite a few Republican voters decided to stay home because of it.  Even I had said "Screw the GOP" at one point.  I came back and loyally fought for Romney but obviously many didn't.  If it was a fair battle based on ideas, you wouldn't have seen that.  Instead you had Romney carpet bomb the airwaves with attacks about Newt's consulting business and laughable accusations that Newt was too liberal (a huge laugh coming from Romney).  And you even had the GOP establishment media (e.g. Fox News, National Review) obviously coordinate attacks effectively doing for Romney what the MSM does for Obama.  One last thing on this topic. What was up with Sarah Palin not speaking at the convention?  She's a rockstar with the base.  If she spoke and passionately supported Romney, I bet that would have helped heal some wounds.

Something else that would have been nice would have been to actually provide good ideas of how you will be different from Obama. Romney ran as a Democrat-lite or as what used to be called an 80%-er (a term for Republicans who generally believed in what the Democrats believed, just 80% of it).  This immigration argument seems to say that Romney was too conservative (!!!) and that we need to have a candidate who is even more moderate.  In the final months he was as moderate as they come.  There was no distance between him and the President at the third debate, they practically agreed on everything and there was no mention of how the President left Americans to die in Benghazi despite their 7-hour long pleas for help.  A viable tax plan would also have been nice.  I never wrote to defend it because I always knew it was a hunk of garbage since the primaries.  Why would I favor a program that might increase my taxes?  I don't give a rat's ass what the official tax rate is, I only care what my effective tax rate is and it was unclear for many that their taxes would be reduced by this plan.  Finally, the Democrats had a whole message about a fictitious "war on women", why didn't the GOP have a message focusing on the very real "war on Catholics"?  Or something?

During this election season, Romney seemed to get everything backward.  He eviscerated his fellow Republicans then treated Obama like a gentleman, one who he agreed with on much but just differed on style.  Our next candidate for President not doing that would be a great start towards retaking the White House.

[umgud]

Amnesty won’t satisfy the situation. Open borders is the goal.

[yarddog]

I don’t think trap is the right word. Idiotic is more like it.

[Andy'smom]

Sean Hannity is not a Republican.

[Georgia Girl 2]

If we listen to O’Reilly, Hannity, Boehner and the rest of their ilk we are toast. Boehner is already on one knee to Barry trying to save his own little power position and salary. Prepare for a push by our own party for wholesale amnesty. And open borders.

[kabar]

Agree that the Dems. "moderate" Reps, the MSM, Dems, and Hispanic interest groups are trying to stampede the GOP into granting a blanket amnesty for the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country.

First of all, why is this such a priority given all of the other challenges facing this country? We have sequestration, debt ceiling, unemployment, entitlement reform, etc. that deserve immediate attention.

Do these talking heads understand what the impact of an amnesty would be?

Any legislation that legalizes the status of those who broke our laws by entering our country illegally and allows them to stay and work here is amnesty. We must not only prevent the Democrats and some moderate Republicans from hijacking the meaning of the word amnesty, but the public must be made aware about the true impact of an amnesty. The Heritage Foundation concluded that the cost of amnesty would be $2.6 trillion just for increased entitlement program costs. And the number of additional LEGAL immigrants who would join those who were the recipients of amnesty through chain migration, i.e., family reunification, would approach 70 million over a 20-year period, assuming there are only 12 million illegal aliens. We cannot assimilate such numbers. An amnesty would destroy the United States of America with the stroke of a pen.

If the public understood that legalizing the status of the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens would permit them to sponsor at least another 66 million more LEGAL immigrants, the poll results would be much different. On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration.

Conferring rights and privileges upon illegal aliens has a corrosive effect on the Rule of Law, the very foundation of our Republic. It is also a slap in the face to legal immigrants who have followed the rules and obeyed the laws. There are four million immigrants waiting their turn overseas to enter the U.S. legally and approximately 40 million immigrants living in the U.S., most of whom followed the law.

If you want to understand why the Dems are pushing amnesty, just take a look at this chilling 2009 video of Eliseo Medina, International Executive Vice President.

If the GOP approves an amnesty, I will never vote for a Rep again.

[libertarian neocon]

Thanks for the long reply! I agree with just about all. They seem intent on changing the character of this country. This country was based on the Western Judeo-Christian values of European immigrants. In the latest year only 8.5% of immigrants came from Europe. They come from places that dont really care for the rule of law and probably dont give a crap about the founding fathers.

[kabar]

87 percent of the 1.2 million legal immigrants entering annually are minorities as defined by the U.S. Government and almost all of the illegal aliens are minorities. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under in the U.S. will be classified as minorities and by 2042, half of the residents of this country will be minorities. Generally, immigrants and minorities vote predominantly for the Democrat Party. Hence, Democrats view immigration as a never-ending source of voters that will make them the permanent majority party.

Since the 1965 Immigration Act, our pro-population growth immigration policies have fueled major demographic changes in a very short period of time. In 1970, non-Hispanic whites comprised 89 percent of the population; today they are 66 percent; and by 2042, they will be 50 percent. The Democrats, under the banner of multiculturalism and diversity, have forged a political coalition that depends on individuals coalescing around racial and ethnic identities rather than the issues. The continuing and increasing flow of minority immigrants, mostly poor and uneducated, provides a natural constituency for the Democrats, which see them as their principal source of political power.

The nation’s immigrant population (legal and illegal) reached 40 million in 2010, the highest number in our history. The U.S. immigrant population has doubled since 1990, nearly tripled since 1980, and quadrupled since 1970, when it stood at 9.7 million. Of the 40 million immigrants in the country in 2010, 13.9 million arrived in 2000 or later making it the highest decade of immigration in American history, even though there was a net loss of jobs during the decade. Growth in the immigrant population has primarily been driven by high levels of legal immigration. Roughly three-fourths of immigrants in the country are here legally. With nearly 12 million immigrants, Mexico was by far the top immigrant-sending country, accounting for 29 percent of all immigrants and 29 percent of growth in the immigrant population from 2000 to 2010. The median age of immigrants in 2010 was 41.4 compared to 35.9 for natives.

[golf lover]

Create a Provisional Citizenship category with all rights except that the right to vote will only kick in after 10 years of residency.