we’ll still be bankrupt and going there even faster. it’s a fact that immigrants, legal AND illegal , use social services at a higher rate than others. we can’t even afford to support our born and raised American moocher class, let alone a whole class of poor with anchor babies.
you import more poor(into a welfare state) and you get more poverty.
"Slow path to progress for U.S. immigrants: 43% on welfare after 20 years"
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/8/slow-path-to-progress-for-us-immigrants/
http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011
Amnesty Will Cost U.S. Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1490.cfm
Nothing but government growth hormones.
About that...
"By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America."
“...with more than a few voices saying they are willing to rethink their views on immigration.”
Conservatives aren’t opposed to immigration.
Conservatives are opposed to illegal immigration.
Grant a little amnesty, then ok a few abortions, give away some free gov iPads, dis God just a little and what have you got? A SECOND DEMOCRAT PARTY. It isn’t just headed that way, it is partially already there.
The WSJ being the WSJ: Pro amnesty for illegal immigrants for cheap labor purposes, and it’s despite all of the problems that are connected with illegal immigration! There’s nothing new here with the WSJ!
Does anyone believe the coming amnesty, open borders and fast track to citizenship will be great for the Republican Party and conservatism? Can Republicans convince all these new Americans that we can give them more goodies than Democrats? We have a perfect example of where our immigration policies are taking us, and of which politics will rule as a result of those policies, ...California.
Name one state where large increases in the Hispanic population has bolstered Republican and conservative numbers and advantage. It doesn’t matter what kind of game we talk or how much we give up to appease illegals. Be it 70/30 or 60/40, losing ground is losing ground.
Sure, and we can reduce all crimes by simply making the crime no longer a crime, or just giving a much higher number of folks what they want so the don't have to commit a crime to get it. Just have a day per week where anyone can get anything they want from a retail store without paying. That'll probably eliminate shoplifting and all sorts of theft.
And if the WSJ wanted to provide some useful data about how illegals would vote, they could survey Latinos who are established and whose families have been in the US for many years, and then survey those recent arrivals and those who are first and second generation.
I think you'll find some very diffent party preferences between recent arrivals and established families, and that any amnestied illegals would go 80%+ for the Dims.
The WSJ is not an objective voice on this issue, but a tool of businesess who want a continuous supply of cheap labor.
What an incredibly bad editorial. For the WSJ to write something so illogical it must be duplicity IMO.
Illegal immigrants rely on welfare more than American citizens do—as do their offspring generations later. And a high-water mark for GOP voting is 40%, so that means they are natural Republicans?
Illegal immigrants naturally enter the country most aggressively in times of low employment. In those times, they both suppress wages of the native low-skill workers with whom they compete and retard the technological advance of those industries that most frequently hire them.
Then, when the downturn comes, they unquestionably compete with low-skill citizens for the opportunity to hold any job at all, even though the inflow of illegals also slows for the time and some may even return home.
I’m all for being optimistic, but we have to be constrained by realism. If you are going to tout that Dubya got 40% of the hispanic vote, then you must also note that he lost 60% of it! Therefore, for every 10 hispanic immigrants we admit, even under the best recent conditions, we are ending up with a net loss of 2 votes.
“Ronald Reagan was so eager to welcome Latinos to the GOP that he described them as ‘Republicans who don’t know it yet.’”
And apparently they still don’t know it. Nor will they ever, because they overwhelmingly have big government in their DNA.
How about this quote, not mentioned by the WSJ for some reason: “The amnesty was the worst mistake of my presidency.”
The WSJ has always pimped for illegals. Business likes the cheap illegal labor, while leaving us dumb taxpayers to pick up the tab for their housing, food stamps, education, illegal and uninsured driving, ad nauseum.
The hell with that crap. And screw the WSJ.
Today’s immigrants for the most part don’t come for ideological reasons. They are not fleeing oppression nor aspiring to the American ideal. Their motives are purely economic.
In such a scenario the party that goes around handing out cash will win everytime.
"If Washington still wants to 'do something' about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders."