The GOP's Self-Destructive Position on Immigration

Shutting the border because of affirmative action shows that conservatives will use any argument against immigration.

It’s hard to imagine how the Republican Party can make things worse for itself with Hispanic voters, yet it keeps trying.

Given the stakes, especially in crucial swing states such as Colorado, Nevada, and Florida, you would think that Mitt Romney, the great flip-flopper, would repudiate his own harsh anti-immigration rhetoric at least, especially his pledge to pursue policies that would cause unauthorized Hispanics to “self-deport.” He can’t because his party’s growing nativism has left him little room to maneuver.

Consider the revival of this old trope in some conservative circles: Thanks to liberal programs such as affirmative action (and welfare), the U.S. is attracting the “wrong” kind of immigrants—those who come for handouts, not opportunity. These newcomers, the argument goes, are a natural liberal constituency, which is why Democrats want more of them through open immigration. The only way for conservatives to take back the country from liberals and level the field for natives is by closing the borders.

Yes, Romney and some conservatives make a distinction between low-skilled illegal workers and highly skilled ones, advocating tougher restrictions for the former. But some Republicans are giving forums to the voices and organizations that want to stop all immigration, legal and illegal —at least temporarily—on grounds that the more multiethnic America becomes, the harder it will be to roll back racial preferences.

The argument is that the strong Hispanic presence has subverted the original intention of the Civil Rights Act. Instead of ending racial discrimination against blacks and creating a colorblind society, the law has been expanded to include ethnic preferences for all minorities. Restrictionists say that employers who would otherwise resist racial preferences—that is, if they had to hire black Americans—have become fans of such policies because they can hire cheaper workers and from a deeper labor pool.

Sealing the border to deal with affirmative action, however, is wrongheaded for many reasons.

If racial preferences are a problem for these conservatives, why not tackle them directly? Such policies might already be on their way out, given the tough questioning by Supreme Court justices this month at a hearing on Fisher v. University of Texas, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the university’s race-conscious admissions policies. 

Indeed, Asian Americans, who face reverse discrimination in college admissions, having to score higher than even whites to get in, have become opponents of affirmative action, lending a lie to the restrictionist claim that immigrants reflexively back these programs. The plaintiff’s brief in Fisher mentions Asian-Americans 22 times, arguing that they are victims of race-based admission practices.

To the extent that employers use affirmative action in their hiring decisions, it is partly to avoid risking action by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Conservatives can push to change the agency’s open-ended mandate, which is to make sure that hiring practices don’t have a “disparate impact” on minorities, to a focus on investigating actual cases of discrimination. But by and large non-white immigrants manage to succeed without preferences, demonstrating that systemic racism is no longer a major barrier to success in America, undercutting affirmative action’s core rationale.

What's more, you could argue, as Bryan Caplan of George Mason University does, that immigration restrictions themselves are the ultimate form of affirmative action—since they are intended to protect native workers.

The restrictionists have been using every argument they can lay their hands on. They claim that immigrants mooch off the welfare state when, in reality, the labor participation rate of undocumented men is 20 percentage points higher than that for native men while their welfare consumption is much lower. Restrictionists claim that the presence of illegal residents leads to more crime, when cities with a large number of them, such as El Paso, Texas, tend to be much safer.

Then there is the argument that government must crack down on this population for violating the rule of law. But the illegal presence in the U.S. is largely the result of a labyrinthine immigration system that offers few legal avenues for unskilled workers to enter and work in the country and none to obtain permanent residency.

The affirmative-action argument, however, exposes that restrictionism is an obsession in search of a rationale. It isn’t animated by an appeal to fairness or excellence or economic prosperity or any other similar lofty goal that conservatives tout. It is about opposing immigration for its own sake. This pushes Hispanics into the arms of Democrats, a political wave that some Republicans then want to stop by shutting the border, not by abandoning their anti-immigrant tirades.

Hispanic support for Romney is about 15 percentage points lower than it was for George W. Bush’s 40 percent support in 2004. In Colorado, a Latino Decisions poll shows that 69 percent of Hispanic voters favor President Barack Obama, with only 17 percent for Romney. In Nevada, the edge is 69 percent to 15 percent. In Florida, there is a 29-point gap.

This lopsided support for Obama is remarkable given how little attention he has paid to Hispanic concerns. He didn’t even try to put comprehensive immigration reform on the table, much less fight for it, even though a poll of Hispanic voters last summer showed that the issue is second only to fixing the economy as a priority they would set for him. The Obama administration has deported almost as many illegals in four years as the Bush administration did in eight. The president waited until the eleventh hour to push the Dream Act, which would allow illegal minors to stay in the country.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The more I look at this the more I am inclined to the belief that the Republicans are anti-illegal-immigrant because they are grimly aware that the one thing their Democrat colleagues will not let them do is reform the immigration laws to something rational. The present laws are a crock, and the Democrats (and their Liberal base) are determined to 'make exceptions' rather than reform the laws. If you point out to them that without the necessary reforms the 'undocumented' are at a permanent disadvantage and will be exploited they give you a blank state and change the subject.

    Closing the border isn't practical, but it is morally superior to allowing people in unhindered, who once in will live in a legal limbo. Also, there are indications that things other than cheap labor are moving across that border. Things we might want a better handle on.

  • John||

    The Dems had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency and did nothing. They don't want people here legally. If they are here illegally, they are more at the mercy of the government, less likely to full integrate. And as long as Dems can keep immigration alive as a political issue they can keep Hispanics from becoming Republicans. The Dems do not want a fair or rational immigration system. They want exactly what we have now because that is what benefits them politically.

  • Ted S.||

    Surely you know this was the fault of obstuctionist Republicans!

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The democrats didn't deal with immigration because doing so threatens their lock on blacks.

    A more interesting question to me is why libertarians think that importing socialist voters is a good thing.

  • ||

    That's a problem called democracy.

  • ||

    Agreed. Which is why The Founders put safeguards to prevent direct democracy at the national level.

  • ||

    But replacing their constitutional republicanism with a democracy is a priority, dude. How else can people vote for free shit and additional authoritarianism?

    WHOOHOO PROGRESS

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's a problem called democracy.

    Yes I agree. In a perfect world (or country) democracy would not exist as it has in the US since before the Civil War.

    Unfortunately we don't have that perfect country, probably never did and have been becoming progressively more 'democratic'* over the last 150 years.

    And increasing the number of socialist voters makes the reality of the situation worse.

    *democratic in the sense that ever more aspects of personal living are controlled by the government and politician with the specious justification that they are supported in some way by 50%+1 of population.

  • Cytotoxic||

    We don't want to cover the evil of democracy with the evil of immigration restrictionism.

  • ||

    This^

    When people like Zaytsev say "Oh we'd be importing socialists, so we can't reform immigration" they're just being political opportunists, doing what's easiest to win even if it means not reforming an unjust and unreasonable immigration system.

  • Calidissident||

    "A more interesting question to me is why libertarians think that importing socialist voters is a good thing."

    What does it matter if the socialist voters were born here or in a different country?

  • SIV||

    They claim that immigrants mooch off the welfare state when, in reality, the labor participation rate of undocumented men is 20 percentage points higher than that for native men while their welfare consumption is much lower.

    How much is the "welfare consumption" by "undocumented" men anyways?

    Why does reason employ Shikha Dalmia, a writer who advocates making welfare more available to immigrants of any status?

  • John||

    Maybe you think that letting unskilled labor in is proper as a question of fairness. And that is a rational point. But what is infuriating about Reason and Dalmia in particular is the idea that allowing huge numbers of unskilled laborers into your country is automatically an economic win and comes at no social cost.

  • Ted S.||

    As if the status quo doesn't have a social cost.

  • ||

    Goes to show the inherent flaw WRT direct democracy, and The Founders wrote quite on bit the inherent evil and immorality of it. Once a populous figures out they can extract and, more accurately, extort more money and bennies from their neighbour, that free society is pretty much screwed. It just takes a while to get there.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But what is infuriating about Reason and Dalmia in particular is the idea that allowing huge numbers of unskilled laborers into your country is automatically an economic win and comes at no social cost.

    Which is highly dubious to begin with but it ignores the fact that unskilled male laborers always eventually bring dependents in with them.

    Or to paraphrase a European politician wrt muslim immigrants: "We thought we were importing cheap labor when we were actually importing poor, unsocialized, families, an underclass".

  • Old Johnnie Goggabie||

    Whenever you the words "cheap labor" used as a rationale for anything, it's a dead giveaway things are not going to end well. Ever.

  • MWG||

    "Which is highly dubious to begin with but it ignores the fact that unskilled male laborers always eventually bring dependents in with them."

    Which is actually a result of our heavy restrictions on immigration. There was a time when male migrant workers would cross the border during part of the season to work, then go home to be with there families. As crossing the border got tougher, it became easier to just bring the whole family over at once and stay.

  • BarryD||

    Totally agree.

    And Dalmia is right: the men who come here to work don't tend to be a drain on the welfare state. Their families, once here, are far more likely to be. Living in the US is expensive, especially compared to third world countries, and "cheap labor" jobs don't exactly pay $150K/year.

    That needs to be our first step: a legal migrant work program. Those who think that will depress wages are unaware of what is going on illegally, right now.

    If anything, a legal program should improve things like workplace safety. Let's not fool ourselves: one real benefit of an illegal work force is that they can be treated in ways that legal workers would not be. It's cheaper not to worry about sanitation or injuries, which you can generally get away with with an illegal workforce.

  • BarryD||

    (By "benefit" I mean, to the unscrupulous employer.)

  • Cytotoxic||

    But what is infuriating about Reason and Dalmia in particular is the idea that allowing huge numbers of unskilled laborers into your country is automatically an economic win and comes at no social cost.

    IT IS an automatic win. Look up Singapore. They have had massive immigration and it has been all good for them. All the negatives conservatives associate with immigration are purely imaginary.

  • ||

    Not quite massive, and like most other nations, it is not a porous border.

    More on Singapore.

    Also, Cytotoxic, keep in mind that Singapore is not a huge place with tons of space available and can take only so many people.

    It's not a bad deal for expats, but UKR gave me a much better deal.

  • ||

    Even Singapore classifies all its immigrant workers, and has not been without its critics, and does place restrictions on their immigrant workforce.

  • ||

    I'm an open-borders-type guy, but this racialist bullshit is really starting to get to me.

    Can't we just be Americans, God damn it?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Nope.

    Assimilating immigrants is racist according to the socialists and their useful idiots.

  • ||

    In their scenario, non-progressives are the Borg, right?

  • John||

    If Obama has ignored Hispanics for the sake of his other priorities, such as health care, Republicans have singled them out as specific targets, turning immigrant bashing into something of a sport.

    Any citation for that besides the voices in your head Shika? I haven't heard Romney say much of anything about immigration.

  • ||

    Yeah, that kind of threw me. Excepting a few asshole Congressmen who shall not be named, I haven't seen any real immigrant-bashing. I'm not sure where this crap's coming from, to be honest

    Surely she isn't implying that nativism hasn't been a force among Democrats, is she?

  • John||

    Because nothing says open borders like Union.

  • ||

    Here's a crazy idea: Eviscerate the welfare state, and start allowing immigrants in. WOW OMG RADICAL ANARCHY WOW.

  • John||

    Friedman was right. You can have open borders or you can have the welfare state. But you can't have both. And since Americans are unwilling to give up the welfare state, that kind of narrows it down.

  • Lyle||

    I agree. Democrats are in a much worse position. It's untenable to support both the native working class and immigrants.

    Obama has tried to have his cake and eat it too though. The Democrats are the "pro-immigration" party, yet he has deported thousands of people. Amazing.

    Until wealth is about equal across the world the U.S. will always have an immigration problem. It's a never ending story... until maybe the whole planet is part of the United States.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I want the Ellis Island style immigration - please state your name, here are some immunizations and ID, go forth and make the best life you can.

    Instead we have a preference to hand out food stamps, WIC cards, direct people to the ER for "free" medical care when they have a cold, pay 100K per ESL instructor for the elementary school.

    This country has plenty of room, and needs to goose growth a bit more - but not at a net loss.

  • ||

    Ellis Island-style would be nice, and once they become citizens, purge all their personal information from government databases. All done.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    pay 100K per ESL instructor for the elementary school.

    WHAT? I taught ESL for 10 years. I've never heard of 100K salary for anyone in public school except, possibly a principle.

    Back in the day, my starting salary was 28,000.

    You can make your point without exaggeration, especially considering those of us in the ESL field are the biggest proponents of assimilation. It's kind of our job.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The neocons and "humanitarian intervention" types just got a huge boner. You're such a tease.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    (addressing lyle's final paragraph)

  • ||

    Anyway, if you want immigrant-bashing, turn to Europe, where Soviet-style mass-deportations are acceptable practice.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Oh, joy, so we can have even more poverty as American wages are undercut even further? Libertarians are idiots.

  • ||

    Who said I was a libertarian, dipstick?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    We need a Living Wage, and closed union shops, or the middle class will vanish! Increase the minimum wage!1!1!

    God forbid someone like your ancestors get a chance.

  • ||

    Protectioning union assholes don't know anything about American history, LTC. There's no reason they'll start giving a shit about it now.

    THEY TEWK ARE JURBS.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Since when is supporting closed borders the same as a living wage and closed shops?

    I guess in libertopia it is, but that doesn't really correspond to reality.

  • MWG||

    When you say shit like:

    "Oh, joy, so we can have even more poverty as American wages are undercut even further?"

    You're essentially bitching for a 'living wage' and 'closed shop'.

    There are plenty of 'legitimate' arguments for restrictions on immigration. Economic ignorance isn't one of them.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Because not allowing unskilled immigrants to flood the workforce is totally the same as government regulation and union cronyism. At least in libertopia.

    Do you by any chance have autism?

  • MWG||

    My god your an ass. Did you even read what you wrote?

    "Because not allowing unskilled immigrants to flood the workforce is totally the same as GOVERNMENT REGULATION and UNION CRONYISM.

    Restrictions on immigration are IN FACT government REGULATION largely supported by...UNIONS.

  • Rick Santorum||

    I support free markets, but I am against unions and unregulated immigration.

    Did I just BLOW YOUR MIND?

    P.S. Do you by any chance have autism?

  • MWG||

    "I support free markets..."

    Except in labor.

    "but I am against unions...."

    Except on the issue of immigration where you stand in lock step with unions.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Except in labor.

    I support freer markets, not open borders. I don't know why this causes so much anal devastation amongst libertarians.

    Except on the issue of immigration where you stand in lock step with unions.

    Unions don't want to eat poop. I don't want to eat poop. I guess I'm standing lockstep--LOCKSTEP, I TELL YOU!--with the unions on this one.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Free markets = open borders

  • Rick Santorum||

    Free markets = less government regulation and bureaucracy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Exactly.

  • Calidissident||

    No one is entitled to a specific job at a specific wage Ricky boy

  • SIV||



    If Obama has ignored Hispanics for the sake of his other priorities, such as health care,Republicans have singled them out as specific targets, turning immigrant bashing into something of a sport.19

    19.Various tweets,unsupported "opinion journalism" assertions, cocktail party chit-chat and disembodied voices in Shikha's head.

  • The Derider||

    "In the most recent Apollo Group/National Journal Next America Poll, just under half of whites said they considered the growing number of newcomers from other countries a threat to traditional American values. These whites preferred Romney over Obama by nearly 9-to-1. (Obama, by contrast, drew almost three-fifths support among whites who did not view the demographic change as a threat.)"

    http://www.nationaljournal.com.....2-20121102

    Racist whites vote republican, 9 to 1.

  • ||

    Believing more immigration isn't good for America /=/ racist. I'd say it's certainly a subset of immigration opposition, but conflating the two is idiotic, Joey.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Any citation for that besides the voices in your head Shika?

    Really? Clean your ears out. The whole conservative movement has gone insane with nativism over the last 15 years. 'Moderate' Romney wants employers to enforce immigration laws.

  • John||

    'Moderate' Romney wants employers to enforce immigration laws.

    And Obama hasn't? And since when is enforcing the law targeting hispanics?

  • Cytotoxic||

    Obama has and it's wrong.

    When the laws are asinine and based in hysteria over the immigration of a particular group, it's not hard to read between the lines.

  • ||

    Romney supports the DREAM Act and would change immigration policy compared to Obama exactly dick, so I don't know what the team red hate boner is all about. We've had employers enforcing immigration law since at least 1986 when the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed. With Republican support. Which included amnesty for around 3 million illegal immigrants. HURRR NATIVIST REPUBLICANS DURRRRRRR

  • White Rabbit||

    We are told there is this RACE problem. We are told this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

    The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them."

    We are told the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

    What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

    How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

    And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

    But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

    They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

    Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    No. Anti-Racist is a red herring. The Intellectual Class believe that they can rule by Divine Right of The Educated; that they don't need a structure of Laws. They are in favor of unchecked illegal immigration of dark people into light countries because they live in the light countries, think that dark people are easily herded peasants, and find their non-Intellectual Class light-colored citizens to be truculent and difficult to command.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's pretty much what they think and they are just about 100% wrong.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "the white race"

    Wait, what?

  • ||

    Race-mongering, that's what.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Only a lot, yes.

  • ||

    Got your white robes? TIME TO GO.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "Hey boys, lookie what I have over here!"

    "Where the white women at?"

  • Calidissident||

    Tiresome troll is tiresome. Seriously, get a life, I've seen you post this on at least half a dozen websites over the course of a few years

  • John||

    Bill Maher on HBO's Real Time Friday might have said one of the most disgraceful things uttered during the 2012 campaign season.

    "If you're thinking about voting for Mitt Romney, I would like to make this one plea: black people know who you are and they will come after you" (video follows with commentary):

    Wow is he a moron.

  • ||

    Can you imagine how many shiny, exotic new assholes a "right-wing" media man would have been given for such a remark?

  • John||

    You can't have a Republic when your entire media culture is tilted towards and exists to cover up for and promote one side. And that is what we have. There really is no hope for this country. Too many Bill Mahers and too many Americans who just mindlessly listen.

  • ||

    This'll probably put me on an NSA list, but fuck it: Lots of the people I've spoken to suggest (only half-joking) that parts of the country are becoming fundamentally incompatible, like the Northeast and the Midwest, or the South, and that separate nations/secession may be the way to go in the near future.

    These are patriotic, I-bleed-red-white-and-blue Americans I'm talking about here.

    Something to think about.

  • John||

    I don't know what you do with some of these people. You can't reason with them. What do you do with someone who will tell you with a straight face "you have to vote for Obama because he cares about people more than anyone else"? I am not kidding when I say I have heard that more than once.

  • ||

    Those people are probably the reason some Midwesterners and Southerners are thinking about Secession 2.0.

    Peak Retard is a frightening thing, John.

  • Lisa||

    I've heard that too. I just want to tell those people to start attending some kind of religious service, doesn't matter which one. It would be better for everyone. "oh, you mean there are moral systems that don't require brainwashing, coercion, and ruining the economy?"

  • Rick Santorum||

    A lolbertarian complaining about brainwashing?

    Repeat after me: "Taxation is theft."
    Repeat after me: "Taxation is theft."
    Repeat after me: "Taxation is theft."
    Repeat after me: "Taxation is theft."
    Repeat after me: "Taxation is theft."
    Repeat after me: "Taxation is theft."
    Repeat after me: "Taxation is theft."
    Repeat after me: "Taxation is theft."
    Repeat after me: "Taxation is theft."

  • ||

    Hey cumfart. Taxation IS theft. Or do you believe the government has a right to your money and/or property?

  • Rick Santorum||

    parts of the country are becoming fundamentally incompatible, like the Northeast and the Midwest, or the South, and that separate nations/secession may be the way to go in the near future.

    This is exactly why the Founding Fathers instituted the 10th Amendment. Unfortunately, the radicals decided that self-government was incompatible with social justice.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    that parts of the country are becoming fundamentally incompatible, like the Northeast and the Midwest, or the South, and that separate nations/secession may be the way to go in the near future.

    If only we had some kind of government system that provided for a common defense and market and then left most decisions up to the individual states.

    Maybe we could call it federalism or something.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Maybe we could call it federalism or something.

    Any argument with liberals that invokes "states' rights" will immediately turn into YOU SUPPORT SLAVERY.

    Of course, your typical liberal thinks that it's necessary for the federal government to overrule state governments.

    "Someone needed to say 'hey, that's unacceptable' in Texas." -- My libtard friend on sodomy laws.

    Wonder how these idiots would feel if President Santorum decided it was "unacceptable" for states to have abortion or gay marriage.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I am starting to think peaceful breakup is best for America and Canada. America has served a great and glorious purpose whilst incubating the new nations within her. Let them out before She is further corrupted.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Bill Maher on HBO's Real Time Friday might have said one of the most disgraceful things uttered during the 2012 campaign season.

    Not even close.

    There's an audio of Michelle Obama talking to a 10year old black girl.

    Michelle asks is she wants Barack to win.

    The girl says yes, because Romeny will send us back to the fields to pick crops if he wins.

    And Michelle says yes, that's right.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Here's the video.

    It's a boy not a girl.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....h5VPEoKG4A

  • ||

    I think I just died a little inside.

  • Ice Nine||

    Yes, it's a boy not a girl. And, uh, oh yeah, Michelle is neither seen nor heard in this video. Just a small detail, I know.

    Can I have a couple of those tabs you're chewing?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    My bad.

    I heard it on the radio yesterday and thought that it was Michelle talking to the kid.

  • Ice Nine||

    No prob. It didn't need Michelle in order to be appalling.

  • Skip||

    Libtard Excuse Maker: HE WAS JOKING! HE IS A COMEDIAN! ALSO RUSH LIMBAUGH IS NEVER JOKING WHEN HE SAYS SOMETHING BAD!

  • John||

    New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez had loud sex with different women nightly in his Washington, D.C., apartment, his former neighbor told the liberal gossip website Gawker.

    “We lived below him,” the former neighbor said, according to the website. “It was outrageous. When it started, we thought it was a one-time thing. But it went on for months — hours and hours of headbanging sex.”

    The report in the liberal Gawker comes on the heels of The Daily Caller’s early Thursday article about how Menendez allegedly paid two women in the Dominican Republic for sex.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/11.....ng-website

    If offends my sense of justice that a fat, ugly toad like him could be having sex with anyone let alone a different woman every night.

  • ||

    Yeah, I have to go pick women up, and that sucker can afford high-class hookers. Son of a bitch.

  • John||

    Those girls earned their money sleeping with that creature.

  • ||

    Yeah, those girls are heroes. Truly beyond the call of duty.

  • John||

    If he wasn't a danger to give it to someone else, i would sincerely hope he gets that new drug resistant form of gonerea.

  • Ted S.||

    It was probably Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein he was having sex with.

  • Ann Cap||

    Thanks for that image. Now I'll never be able to have sex again.

  • Chris Mallory||

    Of course if the Republicans would actually position themselves as the party standing up for traditional white Americans, the Hispanic vote would not matter. Immigration and diversity are killing liberty and freedom in this nation. The only way a multi ethnic nation can last is with an iron fist holding it together.

  • ||

    cant tell if serios

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I hear you - threads like this can attract MegaDerp.

  • ||

    I think Stormfront's recruiting flier distributors. They're testing the waters, I guess.

  • John||

    The problem is that people like Dalmia, by being such smug pricks to anyone who objects to anything short of open borders, cedes the field to assholes like this. That is why the hard right parties in Europe do so well. The political class has basically told the native working class to go fuck themselves. That is never a good thing.

  • ||

    That's true, John, WRT to hard right parties over there. The thing there isn't so-called American-style racism (though it exists, and quite blatantly more than they would care to admit, actually), it's moreso classism and language culture that rules the roost, yet they like to push the notion that Europe as a whole is more tolerant and that is certainly not entirely true.

  • Old Johnnie Goggabie||

    Europe is tolerant in the same way everyone else is - they were tolerant when was somebody else's problem. Now that it's their problem too, they're recognized the price of tolerance has become prohibitive.

  • Old Johnnie Goggabie||

  • MWG||

    Reason is a libertarian magazine that believes in free trade in goods, services, AND labor. Should they censor themselves because of assholes like Chris Mallory?

    Do you argue for restrictions won trade with China because its hurts the working class?

  • BarryD||

    Stormfront's articles, insofar as I have seen much, bear a striking similarity to this one.

    They share the same unsupported statements, distortions about race, welfare, etc., and unhinged tone that just doesn't match up with reality as any sane person observes it. Most of all, like Dalmia's weekly immigration rant / gratuitous GOP bash article, Stormfront's shit all sounds the same, and repeating the same shit weekly adds nothing to intelligent discourse.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Great, so now it is Hit&Storm;?

  • ||

    Yeah, it gets tiring after a while.

  • MWG||

    "...unhinged tone that just doesn't match up with reality as any sane person observes it."

    You mean unhinged tone like, "they'll take our jobs and welfare!"

  • BarryD||

    Yes. Her tone is consistently as unhinged as that of those she opposes.

    That's the point.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Lots of mad nativists ITT...

  • The Derider||

    They're the republican party's core constituency.

  • ||

    And this IS, after all, a Republican party website, so your comment makes perfect sense.

  • Calidissident||

    Yeah Chris, immigrants are the sole reason this country is $16 trillion in debt, laws like the Patriot Act and NDAA are being passed, and we have a ridiculous foreign policy of perpetual war and occupation

  • BarryD||

    BTW, while I support opening up legal avenues for immigration, and opening them wide, what is wrong with "self-deportation?" Doesn't that just mean we've removed perverse incentives from our system?

    Also, when did Romney say he was targeting "Hispanics" to self-deport?

    Race-bait much, Shikha?

    Are we headed back to the last decade, where I didn't agree with many policies but found myself defending Bush anyway. The attacks could be so unhinged.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Another bullshit part of Shikha's narrative is the idea that "Hispanics" predominantly care about unrestricted immigration.

    It's an inherently racialist arguement - those people's biggest concern is bring in more of those people. Not that they are diverse individuals with the same range of concerns as everyone else in the country. And as such is serves the socialists purpose of dividing people on racial - ethnic lines for political gain.

    Which should disgust any individualist.

  • BarryD||

    Excellent point. I was trying to put my finger on why, while I want to reduce immigration restrictions, costs, etc., dramatically vs. current policy, I found this article (like its many brethren) disturbing on some deep level.

    That's it. I support individual opportunity; the articles assume a collectivist race war.

  • Rick Santorum||

    It's an inherently racialist arguement - those people's biggest concern is bring in more of those people.

    Do you really believe that Hispanic immigrants aren't going to vote for amnesty and looser restrictions on immigration, yes or no?

  • BarryD||

    So am I, and I'm not "Hispanic" (which is a made-up ethnicity not unlike Alpine -- Google that some time).

    I'm all for much more open immigration policy, and amnesty to bring those who came into the country illegally, under our current screwed-up system, into parity with those who enter under new, open policies.

    However... I tend to see border security, having nothing to do with immigration, as something necessary. See Switzerland, which is by nobody's measure some sort of fascist country.

  • Rick Santorum||

    I'm all for much more open immigration policy, and amnesty to bring those who came into the country illegally, under our current screwed-up system, into parity with those who enter under new, open policies.

    Nice dodge.

    Of course, I don't care about your whining about WE NEEED TO MAKE AMENDS FOR OUR SCREWED UP SYSTEM.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    It's mixed actually.

    There's no reason to suppose that people moving to an area are automatically going to want more people moving there.

    There's a common phenomenon of people moving to a new suburb in a formerly rural area and then voting en mass to prevent further development in the name of preserving the areas rural character.

    The thing about hispanic people is that they are not all 1st or 2nd generation immigrants and a lot of self identifying hispanics are against unrestricted immigration.

    The problem for the republican party is that the democrats and race baiters like Shikha have painted them as hispanic haters and not just opponents of unrestricted immigration.

  • BarryD||

    Precisely.

    Instead of a rational argument for more work visas, we have race-baiting. If I want that shit, I could just become a Union Democrat.

  • MWG||

    "Also, when did Romney say he was targeting "Hispanics" to self-deport?"

    In a debate during the republican primary. Oh, you thought he was talking about Japanese immigrants.

  • BarryD||

    You are either being disingenuous, or your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

    In neither case am I inclined to respond to your stupid post.

  • MWG||

    As a former conservative republican I began calling myself a libertarian back when Bush was trying to pass immigration reform and I saw the way republicans were framing the debate.

    The first restrictions on immigration were entirely race-based. Though the current debate is not nearly as bad, do up really think republicans would be using the issue to stir up their base if illegal immigrants came largely from Australia, Canada, or Western Europe?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Sure if Australian, Canadian or WE immigration was primarily poor people, with political activists resisting assimilation and in the mass that mexican immigration is happening.

  • MWG||

    Interesting that these same arguments were used against the Irish, Catholics, Chines, and Japanese at the beginning of the last century.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Right, the time period that corresponds with the destruction of the old republic(maximum personal liberty, limited government and Laissez-faire economics) and American progressivism giving us semi socialism.

    So again, why are libertarians in favor of importing a socialist electorate?

  • Cytotoxic||

    There's a correspondence so it must be a causation!

    Newsflash: it was the natives that elected progressives. MWG is absolutely right we've heard all this bullshit fearmongering before and it never came to be.

  • John||

    Sure Cytotoxic. Mexicans loves small government. That is why Mexico has never had a socialist government.

    Has it ever occurred to you that maybe Hispanics vote on issues other than immigration? Maybe they like big government?

  • The Derider||

    They're against big government restrictions on abortion.

    Maybe that's why they vote Democrat.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You really to be more careful John as I never said that.

    There's no reason to believe Mexicans would make America more socialist. Mexico itself is slowly moving in the right direction.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Anecdotally, I have a student from Colombia, and at the mere mention of Hugo Chavez, he files into a blind rage.

  • Ann Cap||

    I used to work with a guy from Argentina. The only politician he liked was Ron Paul.

    People flee from these countries because they are socialist countries.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    Exactly,

    It's because the immigrants were disproportionately catholics and eastern european jews. The native WASPS freaked out and implemented many "progressive" ideas today. Public school was meant to "de-catholicize' the newcomers who had a private school tradition, prohibition targeted catholics, abortion was implemented by progs because of the higher birthrate of these new immigrants and so on and so on.

  • Gorilla tactics||

    that was meant to be a reply about immigration reducing liberty-they didn't, not the first ones anyway, that was the native anglo-saxons. These new immigrants are gunna be indoctrinated by liberal arts depts about how America is a "coded" racist country therefore more and more gov regulations are needed to help them

  • ||

    do up really think republicans would be using the issue to stir up their base if illegal immigrants came largely from Australia, Canada, or Western Europe?

    And then:

    Interesting that these same arguments were used against the Irish, Catholics, Chines, and Japanese at the beginning of the last century.

    So which is it? Does whitey hate Mexican and hispanic immigrants uniquely because they are just irrational racist cunts who hate brown people, or are they xenophobes who have historically opposed immigration from white, Christian countries as well? You do realize there's a conflict in your racial narrative there, right?

  • ||

    You need to work on your history, PM. Used to be, the Irish weren't considered "white" by a lot of people. Neither were eastern Europeans, like the Polish. Not to mention that anti-Catholicism in America has, historically, been linked with racism.

  • ||

    But that's rather my point. "You only hate them because they're not European!" doesn't really wash when you then in the next breath (correctly) point to a group of immigrants from Europe who also faced animosity upon their arrival (and the Irish certainly weren't the only ones). I'm not saying the "ZOMG! XENOPHOBES!" premise is necessarily wrong, just the race hustling.

  • ||

    You only hate them because they're not European!"

    That's an oversimplification. It's more that they're disliked or distrusted for being different, with looks and culture evoking those feelings of difference. And the Irish, Catholics, "Chines",and Japanese have all gone through those "they're so radically different from us and don't fit in, we can't have them here" phases. It's just historical chance that the group facing that the most in regard to immigration opposition are Central and South Americans. So I don't see the mention of "Western Europeans" to be enough to justify your comment about "race hustling".

  • ||

    Case in point: the only times Dalmia mentions race in her article are in regard to affirmative action. She never says the GOP is racist, simply that the rationals against more immigration or immigration reform have no fundamental principle behind them. When one rational is shown to be untrue or in doubt, another one is switched to, with no underlying reason for being against immigration/immigration reform.

  • BarryD||

    No, but for reasons other than race.

    We have been happy to "brain drain" other countries. We take their educated and skilled. We have done that with Europe (my family), but we also do it with South Asia right now, with little objection or even mention in politics.

    The illegal immigration debate in politics is all about: "what do we do with the LOWER half of the IQ distribution, now that robots or foreign factories are doing a lot of what union factory workers used to?"

    Nobody is complaining about Mexican surgeons who move to the US. Nobody is giving that much thought.

    I'm not weighing in on one side or the other with this post; I'm just calling out the silliness of your race-baiting post.

  • BarryD||

    (I'm referring to the lower half of the IQ distribution, of people who are already here in the US, whether immigrant or born here. This question looms large in American politics. What do we do with people whose labor is no longer in demand?)

  • ||

    "what do we do with the LOWER half of the IQ distribution, now that robots or foreign factories are doing a lot of what union factory workers used to?"

    How about this? We don't "do" anything with them, we let them decide what to do with themselves.

    Really, it's like some of you guys have no faith in labor markets. Every OTHER sort of market? "Leave it alone, it will be fine." Labor markets? "Ack, if the government doesn't restrict competition it will all go to pot!"

    Not to mention you have this weird obsession with intelligence in regard to labor markets. It's inane and bigoted.

  • BarryD||

    Your reading comprehension is lacking, again.

    I specifically wrote that I am not weighing in about this, in this post.

    I am saying that this question looms large in American politics, not that it should. It does, though.

    The promise of secure, high-paying factory jobs (as often made by Obama and other politicians) is not aimed at the "best and brightest." It's intended to get the votes of people who aspire to working on an assembly line for their entire lives.

    Whatever we think of this whole issue, or whole non-issue, it's a big deal in American politics.

  • ||

    Your reading comprehension is lacking

    In this instance you are correct. My apologies.

  • MWG||

    "BTW, while I support opening up legal avenues for immigration, and opening them wide, what is wrong with "self-deportation?" Doesn't that just mean we've removed perverse incentives from our system?"

    Anytime you place restrictions on the free movement of goods, services, and labor, you're going to create perverse incentives. Current restrictions on legal immigration have led to the black market that is illegal immigration. Adding to and changing those restrictions is merely going to add/change to the current perverse restrictions.

  • BarryD||

    Restrictions on the free movement of goods, services and labor are inevitable.

    Interdiction of stolen goods, for example, still creates some perverse incentives. But the alternative is worse.

    So while your statement is true, it's not especially useful.

  • MWG||

    "Restrictions on the free movement of goods, services and labor are inevitable."

    and those restrictions should be opposed at envy turn by libertarians.

    "Interdiction of stolen goods, for example, still creates some perverse incentives. But the alternative is worse."

    Free trade in stolen goods is a contradiction as it involves the use of theft and force.

  • BarryD||

    Nice libertarian theory. I agree with the thing about theft and force.

    In practice, interdicting stolen goods requires some restriction of movement of all goods. The real world involves contradictions that we as grownups are challenged to try to resolve in the best possible way.

    To me, and to many others in places like San Diego, "open borders" mean "having my car stolen AGAIN." I don't support that. I support open immigration policy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    To me, and to many others in places like San Diego, "open borders" mean "having my car stolen AGAIN."

    What it means in reality is slightly lower crime rates. There is a slight negative correlation between immigration and crime rates.

  • BarryD||

    Proximity to the border, and the use of the border for transporting stolen goods, is not equivalent to immigration. These are entirely separate issues.

    That's my point.

  • BarryD||

    I.e. open immigration policy is a great thing. Open borders might or might not be, depending on the circumstances.

    In the same way, we'd all just as soon not have our neighborhoods crawling with cops -- unless our neighborhoods are crawling with violent street gangs.

    None of this has anything to do with race, or immigration. Our immigration policies are screwed up.

  • MWG||

    "Restrictions on the free movement of goods, services and labor are inevitable."

    and those restrictions should be opposed at envy turn by libertarians.

    "Interdiction of stolen goods, for example, still creates some perverse incentives. But the alternative is worse."

    Free trade in stolen goods is a contradiction as it involves the use of theft and force.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So eliminating subsidies now equals restriction on free movement?

  • MWG||

    I'm against subsidies, but if you think our current immigrations system doesn't involve massive restrictions, you're either delusional or you've never been through the process yourself.

    http://reason.org/files/a87d15.....116079.pdf

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Of course, the self deporting comment was referring to illegal immigration not legal immigration.

    It is possible to favor restricting the former and expanding the latter.

  • MWG||

    Ah, now we're actually getting somewhere. I could actually get on board with this idea so long as the restrictions are legal immigration where so limited that the act of being here 'illegally' would mean one of two things: either you've done something in your home country and are a fugitive, or your involved in criminal activity here and therefore wish to remain undetected.

  • Lisa||

    I'm glad to see most of the comments here are saner than the article.
    The idea that we should ignore any laws we disagree with is a bad precedent. I don't think I should pay entitlement taxes. That doesn't mean I should be considered a hero if I cheat on my tax return.

  • The Derider||

    So Obama's a hero for enforcing federal anti-marijuana laws?

    Do tell.

  • Ice Nine||

    Obama told the Des Moines Register that a big reason he will be elected to a second term is because “the Republican nominee and the Republican Party has so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community.” If he wins, he will be absolutely right.

    And if he loses he will be absolutely wrong. What a nonsensical, meaningless statement. Every time I read one of Dalmia's articles here I'm annoyed at myself afterward for having done so.

  • ||

    No, if he loses it could well be in spite of that. If Romney had a larger share of the latino demographics, his chances would be much higher.

  • Brian from Texas||

    As much as I hate to agree with GW Bush his idea is probably the most practical. Keep the illegals already here and greatly increase border security, both with technology and manpower.

  • OldMexican||

    It’s hard to imagine how the Republican Party can make things worse for itself with Hispanic voters, yet it keeps trying.

    One reason behind the animosity has to do with the fact that immigrants from Latin American countries tend to vote Democrat once they have the chance. This is mostly due to the total political incompetence of the Republicans to educate new voters on the advantages over the disadvantages of not looting everybody else's property, especially when the Repubs gleefully participate in the looting as well.

    The other reason has to do with economic ignorance. No matter what some here have posted, immigration helps to increase the labor pool and grow the economy through furthering the division of labor. The "they take 'em American Jebz!" canard is just evidence of this economic ignorance.

  • OldMexican||

    But another thing I'm seeing here is a total misunderstanding of what most immigrants are looking for, and that would not be voting or participating in politics. That may be their children or grandchildren, especially after passing through the political training camps you decide to call (with a very sick sense of humor) "public schools". But immigrants just want to improve their lot, and if that means being able to come to the U.S. to work, be able to go back home for the Posadas and the tamales and then return here to do further work, that is more than enough for most. But stricter border enforcement has made most immigrants risk bringing their families all the way up here because they know that coming back each time is increasingly perilous and risky.

    In other words, it has been the insanity of the stricter laws that have made the problem worse, not better.

  • MWG||

    This^

    Having worked in the past with many immigrants whose status was questionable I find the idea of immigrants as parasites invading across the border to live off our comfy welfare system laughable.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I've lived among, worked with, employed and befriended immigrants, legal and illegal, since the 70s and I've seen a definite sea change happen in the late 90s when the welfare state began actively recruiting new immigrant clients.

  • MWG||

    Do you make these same arguments in favor of the drug war?

    "As long as the welfare state exist, drugs must remain illegal."

    Are you against lower taxes?

    "As long as big government exists, taxes must remain where they are."

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Do you make these same arguments in favor of the drug war?

    I'm not sure what connection you make to think that the welfare state requires a war on drug users.

    As long as big government exists, taxes must remain where they are."

    non sequitur

  • OldMexican||

    Re: VG Zaytsev,

    and I've seen a definite sea change happen in the late 90s when the welfare state began actively recruiting new immigrant clients.

    So? What's true for some of them should hold true for other groups like blacks or rednecks. Would you want to also deport some of those?

    Just because the US has a screwy welfare system does not change these facts, VG:

    a) Immigration provided an economic advantage to the country by increasing the labor pool
    b) It provides an economic advantage purely out of comparative advantage, releasing more productive and better educated workers to produce goods of higher value
    c) It actually RAISES the standard of living by making most menial (but necessary) tasks still cheap.

    If you want to argue against the welfare system, I welcome that. Anti-immigration arguments are mostly rooted in economic ignorance, and I have the evidence of that just by showing how you confused supply and demand with "division of labor", just two posts ago.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    So? What's true for some of them should hold true for other groups like blacks or rednecks.

    I'm going to assume that the 2nd word should be That's and that you mean that welfare expanded across the board.

    Which is true, but in my experience illegal immigrants were "underserved" before then (mid 90s) and so had proportionately larger growth and that welfare became an attraction encouraging some illegal immigrants to move here where it previously had not been.

    Would you want to also deport some of those?

    Yes, if possible. In any case I want to cut them all off of the dole.

  • ||

    But immigrants just want to improve their lot

    Generalizations are always false (cwutididthar?)

    The line of bullshit that every person who jumps the border is coming to America in search of a sub-minimum wage job for the pure ecstatic pleasure of working hard labor because the only thing more important to them than their faith and their family is the American dream is every bit as dastardly and ignorant a canard as anything the other side puts out. There's lot and lots of illegal immigrants who come to America to smuggle counterfeit goods, drugs, and humans, or to participate in gang violence, or to mooch off of welfare, or for any number of reasons. To pretend you know the motivations of 12-20 million people is utterly and completely ridiculous whether they are whitey or one of whitey's nameless rabble of victims. You can't have an honest discussion when it's "THEY TERK ER JERBS!" vs. "Why do you hate brown people who want to pick your lettuce and give you a better way of life so they can scrape by with enough money to provide their sickly grandmothers with insulin shots while never taking advantage of welfare and paying taxes while still managing to give 10% to the church?"

  • ||

    Generalizations are always false (cwutididthar?)

    You're absolutely right PM, we shouldn't ignore all the immigrants who want to make their lives WORSE. That's TOTALLY why a lot of them come here.

    The line of bullshit that every person who jumps the border is coming to America in search of a sub-minimum wage job for the pure ecstatic pleasure of working hard labor because the only thing more important to them than their faith and their family is the American dream is every bit as dastardly and ignorant a canard as anything the other side puts out.
  • ||

    Stupid blockquotes. Here's the rest.

    The line of bullshit that every person who jumps the border is coming to America in search of a sub-minimum wage job for the pure ecstatic pleasure of working hard labor because the only thing more important to them than their faith and their family is the American dream is every bit as dastardly and ignorant a canard as anything the other side puts out.

    The point of her post is that they come here FOR MONEY. DUH. You readily admit this while simultaneously try to distort it.

  • ||

    There's lot and lots of illegal immigrants who come to America to smuggle counterfeit goods, drugs, and humans, or to participate in gang violence, or to mooch off of welfare, or for any number of reasons.
  • ||

    Ugh. Here's what that is supposed to look like.

    There's lot and lots of illegal immigrants who come to America to smuggle counterfeit goods, drugs, and humans, or to participate in gang violence, or to mooch off of welfare, or for any number of reasons.

    Smuggling drugs wouldn't happen without a drug war. Smuggling humans largely wouldn't happen with better immigration policies.

    As to the others, are you really trying to argue that most immigrants come here to break the law or mooch off of welfare? That's some pretty weak bullshit. How does punishing otherwise law-abiding immigrants along with criminals make any sense? How would trying to keep them ALL out make it easier to catch the criminals? Doesn't it actually make it harder?

    Your post is a horrid mess of distortions and false-assumptions about immigration.

  • ||

    That people come here for money was kind of the underpinning of my entire argument. I guess you just missed it. The point is that wanting money does not make you a sanctified creature. To pretend that no illegal immigrant has ever come to America to game the system or get benefits is as unbelievably stupid as pretending that no native-born American has ever done the same thing, and basing your entire worldview on that Pollyanaish premise is, to borrow a quote, a horrid mess of distortions and false-assumptions. As I said, you can't have an honest argument when one side is demonizing while the other is deifying. immigrants just want to improve their lot is a content-free statement that tells us absolutely nothing and contributes no substance to an argument (are there really people somewhere in the world who, as a general rule, do not want to improve their lot?). It's an emotional appeal. And emotional appeals are just as unconvincing and stupid as it regards immigration as any other topic. Or, stated perhaps more eloquently, That's some pretty weak bullshit. That was my only real point.

  • ||

    That people come here for money was kind of the underpinning of my entire argument.

    No. MY point is that's the underpinning of DALMIA'S argument. You just missed HER point AND mine.

    The point is that wanting money does not make you a sanctified creature.

    It also doesn't mean their purpose is somehow inferior, or that our government should impede their movement in order to "protect" American workers.

    To pretend that no illegal immigrant has ever come to America to game the system or get benefits is as unbelievably stupid as pretending that no native-born American has ever done the same thing

    And to act like that's one of the major reasons they come here is both unfounded and ridiculous.

    Pollyanaish premise

    The premise that most people looking for money aren't criminals? That's an.... odd thing to say.

    immigrants just want to improve their lot is a content-free statement that tells us absolutely nothing and contributes no substance to an argument (are there really people somewhere in the world who, as a general rule, do not want to improve their lot?)

    Her point is that impeding them on an ever-shifting roster of unsupportable excuses is stupid as all fuck, yet the GOP keeps it up.

    That was my only real point.


    Seeing as you miss HER point, your point makes no sense at all.
  • ||

    To elaborate, almost every single point in Dalmia's article is in response to an argument against immigration reform. The money one, for instance. For that, you say:

    To pretend that no illegal immigrant has ever come to America to game the system or get benefits is as unbelievably stupid

    Well no shit, sherlock. But if you're trying to tell me that's the major reason people come to this country, NOT looking for work, you're off your rocker. If not, how does that show the arguments against immigration reform make sense? All of the other reasons for coming here would be illegitimate even WITH immigration reform. It makes no sense to argue against allowing people to cross our border more freely.

    Which is the entire point of her article: the arguments against immigration/immigration reform don't make sense, and the people making them switch from one to another every time their chosen argument fails.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    One reason behind the animosity has to do with the fact that immigrants from Latin American countries tend to vote Democrat once they have the chance. This is mostly due to the total political incompetence of the Republicans to educate new voters...

    Yeah, it's a little hard for republicans to do that when the socialists get to propagandize theire kids for 12-16 years.

  • John||

    And the only President who ever granted Amnesty was Reagan. And that got Republicans exactly zero support with Mexicans. Mexicans vote Dem because they love big government. They don't give a shit about immigration. If they did, they would have voted for McCain instead of Obama. Obama has deported more people than Bush did. Yet, Mexicans are ready to vote for him by the millions.

    Maybe they vote on issues other than immigration.

  • The Derider||

    George W Bush nearly got half of the latino vote because he actively campaigned for it, and supported a compassionate immigration policy.

    John McCain went hard right on immigration and lost said support. It's not rocket science.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Bush got 35% of the Hispanic vote in 2000 and 45% in 2004. McCain got 31% of the Hispanic vote in 2008. Romney is projected to get 30-35% this year.

    Bush campaigned on a more open immigration policy in 2000 than he did in 2004.

    So what's the trend there?

  • Redmanfms||

    Pretty sure you need to check your numbers and information, but you spouting unsubstantiated (and grossly false) nonsense doesn't really surprise.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The other reason has to do with economic ignorance. No matter what some here have posted, immigration helps to increase the labor pool and grow the economy through furthering the division of labor.

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    Free markets lead to ever greater divisions of labor, not an increased supply of labor.

    The more socialist our economic system becomes the more zero-sum it becomes and adding more laborers in a zero-sum economy decreases someone's living standard.

    The solution, obviously, is moving away from socialism. But we are not doing that.

  • ||

    ^THIS^

  • OldMexican||

    Re: VG Zaytzev

    Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

    You're confused, VG. Where's the fallacy in "Increase the Supply, Lower the Price"?

    Free markets lead to ever greater divisions of labor

    PEOPLE lead to greater division of labor - you need PEOPLE. What the free market does is increase the number of trades which increases the demand for labor, but only fertile and willing women (or immigration) can increase the labor pool.

    The more socialist our economic system becomes the more zero-sum it becomes and adding more laborers in a zero-sum economy decreases someone's living standard.

    You're conflating two totally different things. Increasing the labor pool actually lowers the cost of goods. The only way you can have a lower standard if living is if you INCREASE the cost of living, and that is achieved by higher tariffs, taxes, regulations, licensing laws, etc, but NOT because of immigration.

    The solution, obviously, is moving away from socialism.

    The solution is moving away from economic ignorance. At least that gives everybody a new starting point.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    PEOPLE lead to greater division of labor - you need PEOPLE.

    Which explains why Mexico, Latin America, India and China have always been economic dynamos.

    All you need is lots of labor, not free markets or economic liberty.

    Yep.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    India and China have always been economic dynamos.

    Well, in the long view of history, absolutely.

    You've heard of the Silk Road, yes?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    *not that I disagree with you about economic liberty.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Both areas have a very long history and had comparatively more economic freedom than other areas at various points in time.

    I meant to refer to the last 1-2 hundred years.

  • ||

    Our labor force participation rate in America is 60-ish percent. Clearly our problem is that our labor pool is too small! Poor platform for your argument.

  • db||

    There's way less DERP in the Gary Johnson thread.

  • زوجناكم||

    wow hard man

  • JJW14||

    According to Ms. Dalmia: "Obama told the Des Moines Register that a big reason he will be elected to a second term is because “the Republican nominee and the Republican Party has so alienated the fastest-growing demographic group in the country, the Latino community.” If he wins, he will be absolutely right."

    And if he loses, will Obama and Ms. Dalmia be absolutely wrong?

  • Killazontherun||

    Wasn't there a quote from him that Latinos and blacks are future people? I took it to mean that he is an advocate of time travel based segregation. Where does that leave us mulattoes, quadroons, Amerasians, and white Hispanics? Where does Barry go?

  • ||

    I'd say that if Obama loses it will show that waning enthusiasm did him in. But you can't say that if Romney had more support from latinos, and there's no reason that he couldn't pull it if he tried, he'd probably have much better odds to win.

  • JJW14||

    You may be right, but I doubt it. I think Latinos, like most other groups, primarily vote their economic interest. Being poorer than average, they vote for the party of the poor -- the Democrats.

    Therefore, the Republicans and Romney would gain nothing from supporting immigration except more anti-Republican voters. It would be a repeat of what happened to them with African Americans and the Civil Rights act.

  • BarryD||

    Obama told the Des Moines Register that.

    Then, the Des Moines Register endorsed Romney.

    So is the ordinarily supporter of the Democratic Party, the Des Moines Register, a bunch of anti-Latino racists? Or do they think that Obama is full of shit with his race-baiting crap like this?

    Hmmm....

  • BarryD||

    "ordinarily a supporter of"

  • ||

    But what is infuriating about Reason and Dalmia in particular is the idea that allowing huge numbers of unskilled laborers into your country is automatically an economic win and comes at no social cost.

    It's a win for the laborers, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't come here at such trouble.

    It's a win for the employers, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't employ those new laborers.

    It's a win for consumers, who get lower prices.

    Other than native unionized low-skilled laborers who have managed to extract monopoly prices for their labor, who is worst off?

    I have no idea WTF you mean by "social cost" -- do explain.

  • John||

    I have no idea WTF you mean by "social cost" -- do explain.

    Of course you do. Stop lying. The lower the skilled labor, the lower their wages the more likely they are to commit crimes, divorce, go on welfare, have children who are hard to educate and lower the quality of schools and so forth.

    Why don't go down to a place like Loreado Texas, where the population is 80+% low skilled immigrant and tell me there are no social costs.

    This is the kind of dishonesty I am talking about. Maybe having an open border is a bad that we should suffer for the sake of justice. If you want to make that argument, make it. But don't piss down my throat and tell me its lemonade.

  • Rick Santorum||

    Of course you do. Stop lying. The lower the skilled labor, the lower their wages the more likely they are to commit crimes, divorce, go on welfare, have children who are hard to educate and lower the quality of schools and so forth.

    This. But libertarians only understand their checkbooks.

    • Am I getting rich?
    • Am I paying less?

    THEN FUCK THE REST!

  • 11bravo||

    atta boy Rick!!

  • ||

    Shorter John: "We can't let the labor market work! Immigrant criminals would run rampant!"

  • The Derider||

    Unionized laborers who have monopoly power would be insulated from the effects of immigration.

    Non-unionized labor would be affected most, because they would be directly affected by lower wages.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: The Dehydrated,

    Unionized laborers who have monopoly power would be insulated from the effects of immigration.

    This is an obvious lie, more like wishful thinking. Unions are known for being anti immigrant for DECADES, for a very good reason: immigrants provide a pool of lower-cost workers, which contributes to the slow (but necessary) demise of unions.

    Non-unionized labor would be affected most, because they would be directly affected by lower wages.

    Another obvious lie. You ignore two very simple things: One, unionized workers tend to fix themselves to the one trade they know, whereas non-union workers are much more flexible. This is another reason why unions are suffering a slow and painful (and fun to watch) death. In the end, it is the UNIONS that would suffer more from immigrant labor, not the non-union workers who are less fixated with their trade or "career."

  • buybuydandavis||

    The first guy is right.

    Unions, and in particular guilds, suffer less from immigration in the short term and long term because of the legal barriers to entry into their profession granted by government.

    The long term erosion of their power has been a race between their power to erect more legal barriers, and market forces evading those barriers. Their diminishing power hasn't come through diminishing wages relative to non unionized labor.

    Union workers are still better off, and more insulated from competition, there are just fewer of them as a percentage of the work force, so the unions have less power.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's all native low-skilled workers who lose, not just unionized low skilled workers.

    That's the social cost - that part of society that loses.

    There is a fundamental injustice in capitalist societies - institutions of property that dispossess the equal rights of property to non-owners. See Thoams Paine and Agrarian Justice for details.

    When property Owners admit an immigrant, they gain a potential worker, but give up no property. They win. The Dispossessed face that competition, and lose.

  • KevinP||

    Checklist:
    Article free of citations: Check
    Article full of hearsay and cocktail party opinions: Check
    Free of verifiable facts: Check
    Conflating illegal immigration with legal immigration: Check
    Mischaracterizing opposition to unrestricted illegal immigration as racism: Check
    Ascribing the worst case motives to your opponents: Check

    This must be another Shikha Dalmia article!

    I am a brown skinned legal immigrant, naturalized citizen and am embarrassed by Shikha's articles. She is one of Reason's worst columnists. She would really be a better fit for MSNBC.

  • The Derider||

    Reason should be about criticizing Democrats and tacitly supporting Republicans.

    Doesn't she know that???

  • OldMexican||

    Re: KevinP,

    Mischaracterizing opposition to unrestricted illegal immigration as racism: Check

    You think the first image that would pop in the minds of most Americans when they hear the word "Illegal Immigrant" is not going to be of Juan Perez wearing a sombrero and a zarape? Don't make me laugh.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I tend to think of Juan Valdez, not Perez actually.

    Then I think that he should qualify for a "genius visa" because he makes damn good coffee.

  • KevinP||

    Congratulations! You've won a checkmark too!

  • Libertarian||

    We've had enough Dicks in the Whitehouse. It's time for a Johnson.

  • OldMexican||

    +1000000000000

    :D
    :D
    :D

    You made my day.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "What's more, you could argue, as Bryan Caplan of George Mason University does, that immigration restrictions themselves are the ultimate form of affirmative action—since they are intended to protect native workers."

    What is wrong with the government protecting citizens over non citizens? Should the federal government be the world's job agency, police force, justice system, welfare agency, forestry service,...

    Of, by, and for "the people". Are the people US citizens, or the entire world?

  • ||

    Should the federal government be the world's job agency, police force, justice system, welfare agency, forestry service,...

    No. It should be none of these.

    All that those for free migration are asking is that the government simply not violate individuals' unalienable individual rights -- whether citizens or not, whether residents or not.

  • 11bravo||

    So, life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness once they are deported right?

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The morality of unrestricted immigration is a religious belief for many libertarians.

    As such, the belief is immune to any evidence or logical argument.

    The funny part, is that those believers almost never argue for it on moral grounds and instead use specious economic arguments.

  • ||

    The morality of unrestricted freedom is a moral belief for many libertarians.

    As such, the belief is immune to any arguments that practicality should trump that morality.

    Fixed your post.

    Also, the economic arguments aren't specious, they're well-understood aspects of economics, like supply and demand. That you don't understand them is hardly a point against them.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You mean like an increase in unskilled labor causing a decline in the clearing price of unskilled labor?

    Oh no of course not - there's magic where labor creates it's own demand, irregardless of the larger economic environment.

  • Lisa||

    You must see private property as affirmative action too.

  • XM||

    I don't think I've ever heard nationally recognized conservatives advocate closing the borders just to prevent affirmative action. And conservatives are heartily on the Asians' side regarding their grievance on reverse discrimination.

    Opposing AA is a winning issue for the GOP. The nation does not like racial quotas. Voter ID and other tough immigration laws will probably pass in 40 states at least, if proposed. On the other hand, the Republicans proably realize that most Americans are open to some temp amnesty, and they don't want to see families broken up.

    Thus, Mitt Romney made the adjustment once he won the primary, which was acceptable for most Americans.

  • SIV||

    What about the GOP "WAR ON HINDUS"?
    Shihka has fully documented the anti-Hindu GOP based on an extensive gut feeling there should be an anecdote.

  • ||

    That's a complete distortion of her reasoning why Indian immigrants feel more comfortable with the Democratic party.

  • tagtann||

    Dude clearly knwos what he is talking about.
    www.u-privacy.tk

  • 11bravo||

    Sorry if the point has been made already. What is wrong with wanting immigrants to follow the rules. Why are we sooo past that point.Like this,"Sealing the border to deal with affirmative action, however, is wrongheaded for many reasons." Who the heck is talking about AA when it comes to illegals? Certainly not joe Public.
    Why can't we close the border? It is very easy and practicle. During WWII we moved 20 million men (and equipment), all over the globe in 4 years-and you think we can't build a damn fence?!!
    My wife has relatives in Ireland that sat in line for years, and paid a good penny to get over here legally, but since we have so many border crashers we just have to let them stay? Way to give up america.
    We do not need reform except for the numbers we let in, and from what countries. Other than that, just strickly enforce the laws we already have. Institute mandatory card check, increase fines on employers to $3k per violation, and double that for every subsequent violation until the company goes under. No State or Fed benefits (or public education) for illegals or their children other than ER care.
    The self deportation will begin almost immediatly-Romney is right! I didn't bring up anything about impacts on black employment, cost to the taxpayers, or any of those straw man arguments. How about it is just wrong and should be stopped ASAP!!?

  • ||

    What is wrong with wanting druggies to follow the rules.

    Fixed.

    Not going to address the rest of your abortion of a comment.

  • ||

    If your best argument in favor of open immigration is:

    "Your community can be as safe and robust as El Paso!"

    You're officially fucked in the head.

    Protip: You might want to actually drop in on flyover country sometime before you write about it. Otherwise the people who actually live there are going to think you're Pollyannaish at best, or a brain dead twat at worst.

  • ||

    If your best argument against her points is:

    "Border-city safety is her best argument for open immigration!"

    You're officially fucked in the head.

  • ||

    Right, because I'm totally the one who wrote an article with an uncited stat about crime rates in El Paso underpinning my argument that illegal immigrants make for safe communities.

    If she had a better argument, this would have been the place to make it. She didn't. So I'm fucked in the head because, what, I didn't make it for her?

  • ||

    Again, if saying that's her best argument is YOUR best argument (you act like it's her ONLY argument), there's something wrong with you.

  • Calidissident||

    Why is it that every time there's an immigration article there's a host of comments to the effect of "We can't have open borders because they'll vote Democrat and support big government policies!" As if natives, whites, and Republicans don't support big government?

  • Lisa||

    Whether or not we agree on how many illegal immigrants come here to work hard vs coming here to leach off the state, what actual incentives are in place? Just look at the country as a whole, and California in particular. In that state, for example, illegal immigrants are treated to in-state tuition. They also get free healthcare and welfare, mostly when children are American-born. Then, if you look at the percentages of households from the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Ecuador who collect public assistance...it's over 70% (over 80% for the first country) according to the Center for Immigration Studies. Obviously not all those households are illegal aliens, but even more obviously...We Are Not Talking About Cultures That Are Above Collecting Public Assistance. Even if all of the those households are legal. why the hell would we assume that illegal aliens from the same countries are somehow immune to the same incentives?

  • ||

    I have no idea WTF you mean by "social cost" -- do explain.

    Of course you do. Stop lying.

    That was an actual query because I didn't know what was going on in your head. Try not to be insulting to honest questions.

    The lower the skilled labor, the lower their wages the more likely they are to commit crimes, divorce, go on welfare, have children who are hard to educate and lower the quality of schools and so forth.

    Why don't go down to a place like Loreado Texas, where the population is 80+% low skilled immigrant and tell me there are no social costs.

    1) Move away to Laredo, TX to a different place where there is less crime if that bothers you.

    2) We shouldn't tolerate people who divorce? Are you advocating deporting me because I'm separated?

    3) I agree with you that we should do away with welfare.

    4) I agree with you that we should do away with public schools.

    Not really seeing any coherent argument here for becoming a statist and telling employers and employees that I will interfere with their right to engage in mutually beneficial exchanges of labor for money.

    This is the kind of dishonesty I am talking about. Maybe having an open border is a bad that we should suffer for the sake of justice. If you want to make that argument, make it. But don't piss down my throat and tell me its lemonade.

    You should quit mistaking inquiries about your weak arguments for reprehensible statist policies as "dishonesty".

  • nike001||

    It's like listening to a http://www.cheapuggsbootsforwomen.org/ story heard half of the back, but I do not want to know that people are not able to carry below. In http://www.cheapfootballcleatsmall.com/ addition, Mr. Wu was the second conversion is also very intriguing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement