"Racism and Xenophobia Are Not Republican Virtues"

David Weigel | June 28, 2006

Anti-immigration hawks were primed for a major victory last night, when businessman John Jacob was going to defeat Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah). Jacob had wrested the Republican party's endorsement from Cannon after whaling on the congressman for supporting a guest worker program. Polls showed the two candidates in a dogfight... but Rep. Cannon won, and by 12 points. The title of this post is a bit of gloating Cannon made in his victory speech.

What happened? Jacob made a stupid gaffe in the critial last week, when he apparently said Satan was working against him. The GOP establishment outside of Utah, including George Bush, endorsed Cannon - and Utah is one of those remote locations where Bush is still popular, especially among Republican primary voters. Also, if you believe John Derbyshire, Mormon Republican voters are less worried about Mexican immigration than Republicans whose holy book doesn't involve a lost tribe of Israel traversing the continent.

Comments

|6.28.06 @ 10:01AM|#

So, do you think that if Joseph Smith wasn't murdered, that he would have gotten around to telling his followers that he started Mormonism as a parody of other religions? That had to be his original intent.

|6.28.06 @ 10:12AM|#

Anti-immigration hawks were primed for a major victory last night,
Really? Either the 'anti-immigration hawks' were supporting someone who not anti-immigration, or it's just more of Reason's immigration obfuscation posing as "news" and "reporting."

http://www.electjohnjacob.com/2.0/issues-immigration.php
Immigration
First, we almost certainly don't need another task force to backburner this issue. Ronald Reagan said, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." The right and simple answer is to obey our laws. We wound our national conscience when we ignore the law. Let's first be true to ourselves, which will compel us to set to the work of crafting reasonable immigration laws that protect our security, strengthen our industry and prosper our economy.

|6.28.06 @ 10:13AM|#

I wouldn't have thought that Karl Rove had time to help out on Cannon's campaign.

|6.28.06 @ 10:15AM|#

This is good news coming out of Utah.

It is especially interesting given that, in my limited experience with visiting there, Utah is hardly an example of a "melting pot". Basically, there are white people and there are latino immigrants.

|6.28.06 @ 10:17AM|#

Racism and Xenophobia Are Not Republican Virtues

That's entirely correct. Racism and xenophobia are more like the glue of the republican party.

|6.28.06 @ 10:28AM|#

Of course, you forgot the fact that a dude running on an anti-illegal immigration platform shouldn't illegally hire Chilean students on a student (not work) visa. That's generally a bad idea.

|6.28.06 @ 10:31AM|#

"Racism and Xenophobia Are Not Republican Virtues"

Of course not. They are the Democrat's party platform.

|6.28.06 @ 10:34AM|#

Mr. Lemur,
So Reagan thought that all the agents chasing around illegal immigrants helped to 'prosper the economy?' I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars is taken out of our pockets, transfered to the goverment's belly, to chase all these illegals around, tighten our borders, etc. Then the millions of dollars extra taken from us for jail and extra holding cells for illegals when caught, or for hospital bills for illegals whose lives are made more dangerous running run the Feds, whose health and safety is compromised (and thus are more likely to wind up in hospitals or in crime and then back to hospitals) because of subpar living and working conditions because they must be always on the look out from the government agents, and thus take jobs that pass under the radar of the law, of normal health and safety conditions. How many wind up in gangs which thus takes more police force to track them, costing us more money.

This is no surprise coming from Reagan, the man who bulked up the muscles of the police power to fight the Drug War and also thought this was good for American society, but like alchohol prohibition before, only has transfered billions of dollars out of the public's hands into fighting this war, killing and incarcerating millions of people, leading to a more dangerous and corrupt society all around. Tens of billions of dollars is taken from our pockets for fighting all sorts of consensual activities - from drugs, to prostitution, to gambling, to people wanting to come here to live and work, with additional untold costs for all of us. Yeah, it makes sense to cite Reagan here. He didn't start it all, just has helped to make it so much worse. Some libertarian president.

|6.28.06 @ 10:54AM|#

So Reagan thought that all the agents chasing around illegal immigrants helped to 'prosper the economy?'
Obviously I didn't make that claim; I corrected Weigel's false "anti-immigration" statement by providing Jacob's stance on immigration. I'm definitely not a Reagan fan and my personal stance on immigration is largely the same as those of T. Jefferson, T. Sowell, and M. Friedman.

Two things I don't like are dishonesty and obfsucation, and claiming that "anti-illegal-immigration" is the same as "anti-immigration" or "anti-Mexican" is dishonest obfuscation, analogous to claiming that someone who support basic driving laws is "anti-driving" or that driving on the right side of the road is "biased against left-handed people."

|6.28.06 @ 11:21AM|#

"Utah is one of those remote locations where Bush is still popular, especially among Republican primary voters."

Dum dum dum dum dum!

|6.28.06 @ 11:21AM|#

I was hoping for more Mormon bashing. You guys are going soft.

|6.28.06 @ 11:32AM|#

Le Mur:
As long as we're on the topic of obfuscation, why can't we agree that, to a certain extent, the "anti-illegal immigration" crowd is just a politically broader cover for the straight "anti-immigration" beliefs? Given that we've enticed the mass migration, and then looked the other way for decades as it happened, I have a hard time seeing a huge difference between anti-illegal immigration and anti-immigration. Are there separate camps for the anti-illegal folks? Such as one camp for the "deport all the little brown people" folks and another for the "don't deport the gardener" folks?

I think you make an implied point: that the difference between the anti-illegal people and the anti-immigration people is a huge, unbridgable gap. I'm not sure it's necessarily true. So, while you're not guilty of obfuscation, the charge you direct at others isn't as strong as you might think.

|6.28.06 @ 11:34AM|#

Mr. Lemur,
I submit that a better analogy would be this: a movement starts as a war against private cars. Hmm, actually that's already going on...But instead of the powers that be insisting that we fork over even more of our money for mass transit schemes, a bill gets passed to ration out how many trips each person can take each day or week, or how many miles he can drive. Each week we must visit the Ministry of Mass Transist to get our mileage checked and certified. Opponents of this insist that it's anti-driving. Supporters point to the law and say, no, it's just against driving more than you are alloted; as long as you follow the law it's not anti-driving at all. Just illegally driving more than the law allows. I think this would be a closer analogy.

Taktix|6.28.06 @ 11:34AM|#

I guess that's one more new religion that was intended as a parody (and taken over by nutjob zealots). Add it to the list:

Mormonism
Scientology
Catholicism

|6.28.06 @ 11:48AM|#

Le Mur:
As long as we're on the topic of obfuscation, why can't we agree that, to a certain extent, the "anti-illegal immigration" crowd is just a politically broader cover for the straight "anti-immigration" beliefs? Given that we've enticed the mass migration, and then looked the other way for decades as it happened, I have a hard time seeing a huge difference between anti-illegal immigration and anti-immigration. Are there separate camps for the anti-illegal folks? Such as one camp for the "deport all the little brown people" folks and another for the "don't deport the gardener" folks?

I think you make an implied point: that the difference between the anti-illegal people and the anti-immigration people is a huge, unbridgable gap. I'm not sure it's necessarily true. So, while you're not guilty of obfuscation, the charge you direct at others isn't as strong as you might think.

Captain Holly|6.28.06 @ 11:52AM|#

Incidentally, as a Mormon I can safely tell you that Derbyshire is full of shit when it comes to Mormon doctrine.

That is all.

|6.28.06 @ 12:07PM|#

Herrick et al,

Joseph Smith started his religion for the same reasons L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology: Score with the chicks and rake in the big bucks.

|6.28.06 @ 1:04PM|#

Capt. Holly,
Are you referring to the "For reasons to do with Mormon theology, Mormons are keen on the immigration of Native Americans." line that is in there.

I admit to not knowing what he is talking about.

Captain Holly|6.28.06 @ 1:11PM|#

I admit to not knowing what he is talking about.

I don't either, and I've been a Mormon all my life.

But then again Derbyshire has a reputation for saying outlandish things...

|6.28.06 @ 1:37PM|#

Ronald Reagan said, "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." The right and simple answer is to obey our laws.

What a disingenuous citation of Ronald Reagan. Apparently, Jacob's abuse is not unique among anti-immigration types.

Anyone who knows what "moral" means would recognize that the moral thing to do would be not to restrict the migration or labor of individuals who have done nothing wrong.

And anyone who recognizes where this Reagan quote came from would see that he brings it up in the context of making individuals more free and making government smaller and less in command of the economy.

I don't know what Jacob thinks Reagan meant, but Reagan was saying the simple answer is the right answer. In the case of illegal immigration the simple -- and right -- answer is, obviously, to make immigration legal.

AboutTheGoldwaterSmear|6.28.06 @ 1:44PM|#

Oddly enough, I don't see a link about EFE retracting the smear against DonGoldwater that Reason gleefully helped promulgate last week. I'm sure that'll be forthcoming any moment, but in the meantime click my link for the background.

As for the title, I believe that's a quote from Chris Cannon, but I don't know when he said it.

Perhaps he said it on the Spanishlangugage radioshow when his aid suggested that illegal aliens find citizens who could donate to Cannons campaign on their behalf.

Or, perhaps he said it to the AmericanImmigrationLawyersAssociation. They donated $20000 to his campaign, and also helped him write legislation.

Perhaps he said it at the MALDEFawards ceremony, where he got an award from that farleft, FordFoundation-sponsored racialpower group.

If you want to find out all the things Reason doesn't know about this issue, please start googling. You might be surprised at what you find.

|6.28.06 @ 1:51PM|#

Joseph Smith started his religion for the same reasons L. Ron Hubbard created Scientology: Score with the chicks and rake in the big bucks.

Mohammad the false prophet's too.

|6.28.06 @ 1:57PM|#

"Racism and Xenophobia Are Not Republican Virtues"

True, they are not "virtues". They are, however characteristics of the views of the most conservative side of Republican party...

|6.28.06 @ 1:59PM|#

As long as we're on the topic of obfuscation, why can't we agree that, to a certain extent, the "anti-illegal immigration" crowd is just a politically broader cover for the straight "anti-immigration" beliefs?

Having worked with foreign nationals from at least 90 countries, I am very much in favor of legal immigration, almost to the point of open borders. However, please enter through the turnstiles and sign the guestbook.

Given that we've enticed the mass migration, and then looked the other way for decades as it happened...

Speak for yourself. I have enticed no one.


...I have a hard time seeing a huge difference between anti-illegal immigration and anti-immigration.

Please look harder.

|6.28.06 @ 2:27PM|#

Also, if you believe John Derbyshire, Mormon Republican voters are less worried about Mexican immigration than Republicans whose holy book doesn't involve a lost tribe of Israel traversing the continent.

I've known a few Mormons in my time, and regardless of what John Derbyshire says, I suspect they are less susceptible to xenophobia than the rest of us.

|6.28.06 @ 2:37PM|#

I am very much in favor of legal immigration, almost to the point of open borders. However, please enter through the turnstiles and sign the guestbook.

Please make sure there are enough lines in the guestbook so no one who wants to sign is left out.

|6.28.06 @ 3:42PM|#

Well, I'm glad we dodged that bullet.

|6.28.06 @ 4:28PM|#

so no one who wants to sign is left out.

The operative word in my post was "almost". You might want to brush up on your reading skills.

|6.28.06 @ 4:35PM|#

I can't believe some writer for the Salt Lake Tribune used then word "bollixed". As an Englishman, I am amused.

|6.28.06 @ 4:47PM|#

Once again, with all the debris flying around, hurled by various know-it-alls, I've once again learned nothing of any value from what's been contributed here.

Isn't anyone at all serious about this issue?

|6.28.06 @ 4:50PM|#

The operative word in my post was "almost". You might want to brush up on your reading skills.

To me, "almost to the point of open borders" might mean that one would limit immigration to those who have jobs waiting for them in the US, or perhaps to the best 85% of all applicants, or that there would be a three month waiting period and background check.

Just how close to closed borders is your "almost to the point of open borders"?

|6.28.06 @ 4:53PM|#

As long as we're on the topic of obfuscation, why can't we agree that, to a certain extent, the "anti-illegal immigration" crowd is just a politically broader cover for the straight "anti-immigration" beliefs?

I won't agree to something which is obviously not true. Do you actually think that Jefferson (and the rest of the guys who wrote the Constitution), Sowell, Friedman (etc) were/are anti-immigration? What a bizarre idea.

Speak for yourself. I have enticed no one.
Me neither!

|6.28.06 @ 5:10PM|#

"Having worked with foreign nationals from at least 90 countries, I am very much in favor of legal immigration, almost to the point of open borders. However, please enter through the turnstiles and sign the guestbook."

If people seeking to come to the United States were allowed to "enter through the turnstiles and sign the guest book," this debate wouldn't exists. The quota for "general" legal immigration - that is, ordinary people, the equivalent of those stepping onto Ellis Island 100 year ago - is 5000. Five. Thousand.

|6.28.06 @ 5:13PM|#

Ah, crap. "...from Mexico." 5000 per year from Mexico.

And now I can't post this correction close enough to my post to make sense, because Tim made the "anti-malicious posting" lockout about ten minutes long.

|6.28.06 @ 5:19PM|#

boing,

Why not just grab the low-hanging fruit?

I'm not against medicinal marijuana. I cherish - cherish! - it, and its users.

I'm just opposed to people who acquire and use it illegally, in violation of federal law.

See, there are all of these negative side effects from the illegal drug trade, and it's those I'm really concerned about.

Yes, I'm so supportive of the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes that I adamently oppose any efforts to make it legally available until, through military and law-enforcement efforts, the government completely and totally stops the trade in illegal drugs. Once that happens, I'll be right there next to you campaigning for the legalization of marijuana.

Did I mention how deeply, passionately pro-medical marijuana I am? I'm just anti-illegal medical marijuana.

What part of "illegal" don't you understand?

|6.28.06 @ 5:19PM|#

because Tim made the "anti-malicious posting" lockout about ten minutes long

Tim? That's a traditionally gay name isn't it?

|6.28.06 @ 5:23PM|#

Isn't anyone at all serious about this issue?
My real issue of interest is the psychology of Policitcal Correctness, not immigration (or education!)

But, FWIW, my immigration points are:
- Open borders might sound morally spiffy, but it's a terrible idea. It's also morally spiffy to let homeless people sleep in your spare bedroom, but you don't do that.
- The US should actively seek certain immigrants, and actively discourage others on both group and individual levels.
- You don't need to "round up" or imprison millions of people to accomplish these things.
- I'm not a big fan of employment laws, but it's unfair to law-abiding people (businesses) when someone else can undercut them by violating the law, especially when that violation of the law is aided and abetted by various gov't agencies (welfare, police non-enforcement, "sanctuary cities," etc).

As far the flase claim that being "anti-illegal immigration" is the same being "anti-immigration," I'll submit that it's an example of this kind of black-and-white "thinking":
Incidentally, another sign that we are dealing with a taboo is that when it comes to this issue, ordinarily intelligent scientists (people) suddenly lose their ability to think quantitatively and warp statistical hypotheses into crude dichotomies. - S. Pinker

|6.28.06 @ 5:32PM|#

Ah, crap. "...from Mexico." 5000 per year from Mexico.

joe, if i'm not mistaken, the 5000 is a worldwide quota. And it is the quota for unskilled labor. There are other classes of immigrants with their own quotas.

National quotas were eliminated in 1965.

I am frankly sick of the circular "legal immigration" argument. As long as the quota numbers are so capricious and arbitrary the term is virtually without meaning.

|6.28.06 @ 6:08PM|#

The US should actively seek certain immigrants, and actively discourage others on both group and individual levels

Who gets to make the decision?

|6.28.06 @ 6:12PM|#

Mr. Le Mur: The fact that businesses are hampered and strangled by a web of bureacracy, regs, laws and rules is the problem wouldn't you say? Perhaps the immigrant's greatest contribution is to expose the copious amount of scutiny and regulation that American businessmen are suffering under.
If your best argument against immigration is that it reveals the staggering scope of the drain on our employers and markets perpetuated by the government, then you have finally stumbled onto something useable.


Yes, I'm so supportive of the legal use of marijuana for medical purposes that I adamently oppose any efforts to make it legally available until, through military and law-enforcement efforts, the government completely and totally stops the trade in illegal drugs.

joe-great post, man. We aren't always in agreement, but the sarcasm today is delicious!

|6.28.06 @ 6:15PM|#

businessmen and businesswomen of course!

|6.29.06 @ 12:56AM|#

Joe,
Good one, an even closer analogy than the one I drew. But my name is 'boooiiinnnggg' not 'boing'. Don't you realize that's like a Chinese person getting the tone wrong and calling someone a sex slave when they met to say 'escort'? :)

Btw. I don't think too many Democrats support open borders. But maybe you travel in different wagon trains from me. Of all my Democratic friends, only one supports open borders. Most who are against make the protectionist argument or anti-corporate argument.

Lemur,
How are you supposed to discourage the 'groups' and 'individual' immigrants from coming here that you disapprove of without the mighty arm of the law (and all the tax money that entails) backing that up? Are you planning on just asking people to wear necklaces of garlic around their necks? Petition citizens along the border to blast Pat Boone music all day long? Will the regulations on businesses be more like gentle suggestions - "if you feel like hiring people we like, please do"? No holding cells will need to be built or even if they are they'll be made out of thatch with no doors or windows? Government agents will not raid business sites like they used to but instead pull up with Dunkin Donuts take-out and say, "Hey, anybody want to go back to Mexico we'll be happy to point you in the right direction. Oh, and if you want a donut....hey, stop grabbing, each one of those is 75 cents."

I love the "thinking" behind your analogies as they reveal so little of it. Just as your anti-driving analogy was far from the mark so is this new analogy about letting "homeless people sleep in your bedroom." How about this. Someone hires a homeless person to do some yard work. Your neighbors complain as they don't like the looks of him. "He's not the kind of person we want walking or working in our neighborhood." But in this case, it's not a neighborhood association so the guy who hired him thinks it's none of the neighbor's business. They say, "but, but, he's taking lawn mowing jobs away from our kids!!!!"

|6.29.06 @ 10:53AM|#

5000 is the worldwide quota for unskilled labor. Whether from Mexico or Outer Mongolia.

Other classes have other quotas. The total is around 400,000 and has remained the same for years.

There is no quota for spouses and other qualified family members of US citizens and resident aliens. There is also no quota for certain qualified refugees (your domestic violence example is covered here). Approval of visas for these preferred classes can take months or even years. People seeking seeking asylum are sometimes incarcerated for years only to have their applications rejected.

National quotas were eliminated in 1965. Before that quotas for each nation were based on the percentage of that nation's former nationals resident in the US in some base year. Also eliminated in the 1965 law was a preference formerly given to immigrants from Canada, Mexico and some South American countries.

Unfortunately, the actual laws are largely written by immigration attorneys, and their purpose is to maximize the income of immigration attorneys. (i.e., make everything as complicated and convoluted as possible).

They're may be some truth in that. Anyone who has ever dealt with INS (or whatever alphabet soup they go by now) knows what kind of byzantine maze it is.

I agree that there is a class of people who can be considered illegal immigrants. I just don't think it should be anywhere near as large as it currently is.

|6.29.06 @ 6:16PM|#

Unfortunately, it's Congress:
"Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Unfortunately, the actual laws are largely written by immigration attorneys, and their purpose is to maximize the income of immigration attorneys. (i.e., make everything as complicated and convoluted as possible).

My question was regarding your statement:
The US should actively seek certain immigrants, and actively discourage others on both group and individual levels
I am asking who you think should make the decision of whom to seek and whom to turn away. If your answer is Congress, oy!
Shouldn't businessmen be free to select their workers? Shouldn't the gov't stay out of the markets? I understood the market to a universally accepted goal of libertarians.
Of course the power is given to Congress in the Constitution, but that means they have the power to open our borders as well as close them.

|6.29.06 @ 6:19PM|#

(insert "free" between "the" and "market")
Golldarnit! I have to wait to correct my typo!

|6.29.06 @ 7:29PM|#

Holy crap, 5000 for the whole world?

Booooiiiiinnngggggg!,

"Btw. I don't think too many Democrats support open borders."

"Open borders" is an extremely radical position that very few people endorse. Perhaps it would be best to say that most Democrats support opener borders. What's going on right now isn't a debate about whether or not to adopt some LP-approved open borders policy, but whether to move in the direction of more restrictions and suppression of immigrants, or less.

|6.30.06 @ 12:42AM|#

Lemur's suggestion is kind of interesting but don't we have too many lawyers running amok already, with people suing each other for the slightest offense? Wouldn't this just add even more to the docket in the courts with spillover effects of setting a precedent for a landslide of lawsuits, countrywide? I suspect that, given that thousands of immigrants are already coming here illegally, despite enormous risks, that this would only be effective for a percentage of them.


Do most Dems really support fewer restrictions? I hear the argument that it's just an excuse for corporations to exploit immigrants, and at the added expense of native born workers, all the time. It's ringing in my ears right now. Mark Sirota wrote not too long ago that what's needed is to raise wages, benefits, and conditions on the Mexican side to keep those Mex-I-cans from coming here - I don't know how he plans to raise wages on their side.

I've never seen an issue quite like this where Dems, Republicans, and Libertarians all seem almost equally split over an issue.

I suppose if I had to compromise I would prefer fewer restrictions along with the method of enforcement suggested by Lemur. But I would still hold to the ideal of open borders. It might be 'extreme' or 'radical' but so was any moral position arguing for equality when first presented. Look at the arguments for and against outlawing slavery in the day. Of course abolitionists were thought of as 'extremists' or 'radicals.' It wasn't 'morally spiffy' to argue for emancipation it was morally right. And I don't buy it that there's no racism or xenophobia or a kind of me-firstism underscoring some of the arguments for controlling immigration. There have been just too many posters here and elsewhere in the media who have outright admitted they fear the threat of Mexicans and all their babies living next door, or that Pakistanis will be pissing in the streets, or that cultures need to be preserved, or just that they were here first so they should be able to control who comes later. I think the latter is the most prevalent view - I don't think *most* people arguing for controls are racist - but it treats immigrants as though they are an amorphous, collectivist entity, not human beings just like the rest of us or our ancestors, who prior to 1920 didn't have to face such technocratic controls.