Replies

The polling results compiled there are hardly discouraging to those who hold conservative views on immigration.

Majorities,pluralities, or near-pluralities usually support reducing legal immigration, and putting the military on the border if necessary, while they oppose amnesty and feel a bit uneasy about the overall effects of immigration.

More polls are compiled here, but in the interest of full disclosure, I should point out that since it is a site in favor of lower levels of immigration it only lists those generally favorable to that view;

http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/publicop.html

As to your suggestion that we try to present our side in a non-emotional way, free of fringe-wacko spokesmen: Well, do you really think that is the problem? One can go out of their way to be as dispassionate about it as they possibly can, and cover their remarks with all sorts of feel-good platitudes about immigration, but if they put forth that mass immigration is not good for the country, that the costs outweigh the benefits, then they will be demonized. It is simply easier for the Left, and sadly its allies on this issue on the Right (WSJ), to attack and demonize and demagogue people who dare try to give public expression to the popular discontent over immigration than it is to defend mass immigration on its merits, which are few.

You exhibit some of this yourself with the expression, "Anti-immigration crowd." Most people who favor a reduction in legal immigration, and who favors stronger attempts to deal with illegal immigration, and who oppose amnesty, and who suspect that the costs of immigration outweigh the benefits, are in fact not anti-all immigration, as 'anti-immigration' suggests. They are anti-mass immigration and anti-illegal immigration. There is a big difference. So not only is that generally an untrue characterization, but it is often used in an attempt to taint the message by demonizing the messengers. I mean, sure most people who actually hear what Buchanan says about a specific aspect of immigration will probably find themselves agreeing with him, but then again, its Pat Buchanan! Yuck! Right?

As to how we should deal with illegal immigration. First of all, large-scale deportation should not be taken off the table if necessary, but it probably wouldn't be. Removing the incentives and rewards for illegal immigration would convince many to deport themselves and voluntarily return home. I'm not optimistic enough to think we'll every actually do this, but not trying is not the same as being impossible.

"NumbersUSA.com's goal of reducing annual legal and illegal immigration to more traditional numerical levels enjoys broad based public support. Virtually every major poll that has been conducted in the past decade finds that a majority of Americans support lower immigration numbers. As"

Same way I would not rely on polling data present by the Democrat Leadership Council or Move On.org, I cannot take seriously numbers presented by a group that states the above as their goal on their website.

However, I think we can both agree on a couple of things.

1. An Anti-Immigration position is not the slam dunk vote getter that some elements of Conservative movement think it is.

2. To avoid the emotionalism that seems to rear up on this issue, I will assume that those who favor a tougher line on immigration are my political allies who I agree with much more then I disagree with and have legitimate concerns on this issue. Therefore, I will strive to avoid using value laden terms that may be offensive like "Anti-immigration crowd" or "Tancadeoites". However, I to have legitimate concerns about the position some of you are staking out. When I question those positions, I would expect a thoughtful statement of WHY you feel that way rather then the following.

"Dont be such a dhimmi dumbass.

Wait till the bombers hit LA, or NY. Then wait to control borders, we cant offend anyone while they are killing us.

Get bent.

If anything happens prior to '06, see who controls the house.

Security first, political correctness last.

I have plenty of Lard for the Muslims"

As long as those of you who favor a tougher line on immigration respond to anyone who questions the assertions and assumptions you present with the above, you are never going to build a political consensus to support your ideas. So, let's start back at the beginning.

What specific proposals do those who want tougher immigration laws have?

For example, one idea that offends my Libertarian heart but make sense to my brain, is the idea of prosecuting businesses that profit by hiring illegals. Since no amount of border enforcement is going to completely stop the flow of illegals we have to take steps to discourage the flow. The basic reason illegals come to the USA is work. The logic seems obvious, make it harder for them to get work that makes it less attractive to come here. How do you get businesses to stop hiring cheap labor? Make it more expensive, and legally painful, then it is is worth to hire illegals.