Roger Waters for president!

David Weigel | April 28, 2006

The automated pollsters at Rasmussen Reports have the results of a curious survey on immigration. They tested voters' preferences for a presidential vote in 2008, and Democrats led 44-32. Then they added a third option: "a third party candidate [who] promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority." This dynamites the two-party race as the Democrats get 31%, the Republicans get 21%, and Anonymous Border Wall Obsessive gets 30%.

This scenario's been inspiring immigration restrictionist fever dreams for a while.
Mickey Kaus is so impressed by the poll that he shuts up about Ron Burkle for five seconds. But Rasmussen's analysis downplays the impact of this number, which is really the only sensible thing to do. (To be fair, Kaus downplays it, too.) Americans have had the chance to vote for a candidate for wanted to build a border wall and make immigration crackdowns his #1 priority. He was a nationally-known figure who'd nearly won the Republican nomination in 1996 before leaving the party. He won $12.6 million in federal campaign funds and used them to run striking campaign ads. He was Pat Buchanan and he got less than half of one percent of the vote.

There are two possibilities. 1) The idea of building a wall along the Mexican border is 60 times more popular than it was in 2000. 2) A significant chunk of the electorate is frustrated by illegal immigration and when an automated pollster calls them and asks them if they would like a border wall, they say yes. There's probably significant overlap between these people and people who, if an automated pollster asked if they would like free ice cream and a pony, would say "yes."

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

|4.28.06 @ 9:23AM|#

There's a third possibility: While a third party sounds good in the abstract, once it gets down to crunch time most people strategically vote for a major party.

Google for "Duverger's Law." (And yes, I know, it isn't really a "law" in the sense of "laws" in the natural sciences, but I'm not the one who coined the name so don't bug me about it.)

|4.28.06 @ 9:27AM|#

The dumbocrats need to covertly fund some Buchananesque "close teh borders!" candidates. Immigration is grossly unpopular out there in the Heartland and it's all over for the Reps if it becomes a big issue. Even keeping lesbians from getting married (again) won't save them.

I figure when immigrants become a big issue, as they do periodically, it's a sign of bad economic times out there, government statistics regardless.

MP|4.28.06 @ 9:43AM|#

Considering the general contempt that Pat has for the current elected body of GOP blowhards, it would sure be fun to see him compete for the GOP nomination again.

|4.28.06 @ 10:05AM|#

Good god, this would add yet another party to the list of parties--including the American Communist party-- that have gotten more votes than the Libertarian party has ever mustered. What a bummer.

|4.28.06 @ 10:08AM|#

The problem with the poll is that the third party candidate is likely to have other ideas as well. I suspect "a third party candidate [who] promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority and is in favor of legalized abortion" and "a third party candidate [who] promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority and is in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade" would both poll much worse, as would candidates strongly in favor of or opposed to keeping troops in Iraq.

|4.28.06 @ 10:09AM|#

Or, it could be that Pat Buchanan was not merely a candidate who didn't like illegal immigration. His image was that he didn't like immigration at all, not just the illegal kind. Or international trade, for that matter. Plus, he came across as sort of a nazi.

You could easily see a reasonable, moderate Republican taking on the position that we need to stop illegal immigration at any cost, and this would definitely help win that candidate votes. The candidate just can't have the image of a complete nut-job...

R C Dean|4.28.06 @ 10:10AM|#

Bingo, phocion.

As Kaus might say, while Americans have had a chance to vote for Pat Buchanan, they have never had the chance to vote for a non-insane, non-racist candidate who proposed taking hard measures to stem illegal immigration.

|4.28.06 @ 10:40AM|#

I also think phocion makes a good point. You ask people how they feel about a high profile issue, and then you ask them if they'd vote for a guy who promises to do something about it, and of course you get a huge response. But then you show them a real candidate, with all of his quirks and all of his other stances as well, and it's a whole different ballgame.

|4.28.06 @ 10:50AM|#

"There's probably significant overlap between these people and people who, if an automated pollster asked if they would like free ice cream and a pony, would say 'yes.'"

Oh, so you're saying 2008 might be the break out year for the Free Pony and Ice Cream Party? (Yes, someone already registered the name.)

See: http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=832021

|4.28.06 @ 10:57AM|#

I'd say yes if offered free ice cream and a pony. Is anyone offering?

|4.28.06 @ 11:15AM|#

I'm using my $100 tax break to buy ice cream and a pony. The pony will help me save on gas mileage in the future too.

|4.28.06 @ 11:22AM|#

You could easily see a reasonable, moderate Republican taking on the position that we need to stop illegal immigration at any cost, and this would definitely help win that candidate votes. The candidate just can't have the image of a complete nut-job...

Uhmm....anyone who think that illegal immigration needs to be stopped "at any cost" is a nut job.

And uhm...really...who would say no to free ice cream and a pony?

|4.28.06 @ 11:23AM|#

I'd say no to the pony. Taking care of it would be way too expensive.

Then again, I guess I could always take it and sell it to a glue factory.

lunchstealer|4.28.06 @ 11:25AM|#

I also wonder how much of this is spurred by the expansion of hispanic immigration into areas they have traditionally avoided. Specifically the rural south and midwest. The southwest and Florida have had high hispanic populations for decades, if not centuries. However, hispanic immigration is being felt in North and South Carolina, which have seen perhaps a ten-fold increase in hispanic population. So some relatively conservative (not just as in right-politics, but as in change-averse) parts of the country are seeing some bewildering ethnological changes. The last major migration into these areas were probably the wave of Scots-Irish immigrants in the 1800s. This is both mitigated and aggravated by the fact that the last social upheaval in these parts was the civil rights movement, which overturned long-standing prejudices and social conventions. This pre-shock in these areas leaves them a little pre-agitated, which is bad, but also a little more tempered to social change.

So anyway, people who used to be 'theoretically' opposed to immigration but largely uneffected by it are now seeing some real effects, so they're newly agitated.

They'll get over it, for the most part, but for the next generation or so, you're going to see some weird blow-back from time to time.

James Anderson Merritt|4.28.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Isn't immigration the process of coming here with the intention of eventually becoming a citizen? Wouldn't "illegal immigration" be the acquisition of "citizenship" by virtue of fraud or deception? How could coming here, evading the authorities, and taking no steps whatsoever toward citizenship or assimilation be seen as "immigration" of any kind, legal or illegal?

Just coming here to work, travel, or even live isn't properly "immigration," and I am wondering where our federal and state governments find authority to stop people from coming and going. Perhaps those who come by boat or airplane might need a "passport" to pass through the port, under federal port authority. But what about those who simply walk across the border?

What constitutional provision empowers the federal government to determine whether people can simply BE here? Has anyone found it?

|4.28.06 @ 12:05PM|#

I'm so disenfrachised with the party system, I probably would have said no to all of the above. There was a time that the candidate with the 2nd most votes became the VP, that created balance. Now one vote is actually two votes so that the running-mate gets th VP position. How is that Constitutional? (I forget which Ammendment pertained to Presidential Election.) Regan at least had the balls to run with an opposing party running-mate. Additionally, one's vote in the national election is only a suggestion to the electorate, who can vote against the popular vote of his district. Can a state be split in electorate votes, or do they all have to agree?

The candidates that I agree with the most never make it past the primaries, mostly because they don't stricly adhere to the party lines. When it comes down to it you get "the lesser of two evils" and I certainly won't vote for the one whose only apparent stance is "the other guy is wrong".

With presidential candidates getting progressively worse, might as well skip another 20-40 years of BS and write in someone really evil, like Saddam, so you know exactly what you are getting.

|4.28.06 @ 12:47PM|#

I'm smarter than the rest of you. I'll buy my own pony. I just want the government to pay its stable fees.

|4.28.06 @ 1:03PM|#

Wouldn't "illegal immigration" be the acquisition of "citizenship" by virtue of fraud or deception?

Yup. In a similar vein, there was a newsblurb regarding civil lawsuits against companies that get a competitive advantage by breaking laws, e.g. hiring illegal immigrants.

What constitutional provision empowers the federal government to determine whether people can simply BE here? Has anyone found it?

Kinda.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

And I found something else - the Constitution refers to both "citizens" and "persons," e.g.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

It sounds like citizens have rights, and persons, including citizens, can be arrested.

Larry A|4.28.06 @ 2:51PM|#

This dynamites the two-party race as the Democrats get 31%, the Republicans get 21%, and Anonymous Border Wall Obsessive gets 30%.

One additional possibility. People voted for "anyone who isn't a Democrat or Republican." Damn the issues; full speed ahead.

Kevin B. O'Reilly|4.28.06 @ 6:22PM|#

I agree that David's hypotheses could account for some of that 30 percent, but also take into account that Buchanan was not a blank slate, by any means. He was heavily associated with very conservative Republican social positions that aren't as broadly shared as anti-illegal immigrant sentiment.

James Anderson Merritt|4.29.06 @ 10:20PM|#

Mr. F Le Mur says, "Merritt: What constitutional provision empowers the federal government to determine whether people can simply BE here? Has anyone found it?

Le Mur: Kinda.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,"

Yes, of course that is there; I already knew about that, and it was the source of my earlier posting. That points out an error in my posting, however. I meant to say "naturalization" is the path to citizenship, as opposed to "immigration," which is simply the influx of population. Sorry for any confusion on that point.

As far as I can tell from reading the Constitution, the Federal government has the authority to control the process by which people become citizens (naturalization), but little or no apparent authority to tell anyone who hasn't committed any other crime that they cannot BE here, work here, or live here, as long as they aren't wanting to be citizens or participate in the aspects of civic life that only pertain to citizens.

I disagree with you that only citizens have rights. There are certain rights, enshrined in the constitution, which are said to reside "in the people." One might think that the reference is to "We the People" -- citizens -- of the US. Fair enough, but other guarantees of what we call "rights" are stated in terms of restrictions on government action (e.g., "Congress shall make no law..." "No cruel and unusual punishments..." etc.). Such "rights" are thus to be secured on behalf of ANY person in US jurisdiction.

cqGywfkXsZ|5.4.06 @ 12:33PM|#

KefRcdHkuL|5.4.06 @ 5:24PM|#

YegadhfyTN|5.4.06 @ 6:15PM|#

ywLRZAmGdN|5.4.06 @ 7:40PM|#

rDyjTsOlUt|5.4.06 @ 7:40PM|#

AbgMUIsrHT|5.4.06 @ 7:57PM|#

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements