The Immigration Restrictionist Victory Train Rolls On!

David Weigel | March 10, 2008

The GOP suffered an embarassing kick to the head this weekend when Democrat Bill Foster, a physicist and first-time candidate, beat dairy magnate and four-time candidate Jim Oberweis to take the seat of retired House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

[Rep. Tom] Cole and the House Republican leadership are blaming the loss directly on GOP candidate Jim Oberweis. A dairy owner who lost three consecutive statewide elections before Saturday, Oberweis has a long history of political baggage. He won the recent nomination without receiving the support of his Republican primary rival, state Sen. Chris Lauzen.

“By itself, this would not be that big of a deal, but coupled with everything else it will just deflate the [House Republican] Conference,” said an aide to one top GOP lawmaker. “And symbolically, losing Hastert’s seat is like the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad for Republicans.”

But why was Oberweis damaged goods? No one seems to be saying it, but the answer was in some 2004 ads he ran in his second campaign for U.S. Senate. Grasping for traction in a seven-way race, Oberweis attacked the Bush administration for not sealing the border and preventing Mexicans from coming in.

In the first TV ad, "10,000 reasons," Oberweis is seen standing in front of a time-lapse video of the Capitol in Washington.

"Think about this: From dawn till dusk, 10,000 more illegal aliens will come to America. And no one in Washington seems to notice, but 10,000 more American jobs will be risked," Oberweis says.

In the second ad, "This Big," the one featuring Soldier Field, Oberweis appears in a helicopter flying over downtown Chicago. As the helicopter nears the lakefront stadium, the label "Jim Oberweis, Conservative" appears at the top of the screen, and "Illegal Aliens: Taking Jobs" flashes at the bottom, followed by "Illegal Aliens: 10,000 per day."

The ads stirred such a backlash (read down and read Mark Krikorian debunking Oberweis's b.s.) that even though Oberweis came second in the Senate primary, and first-place finisher Jack Ryan dropped out because of a sex scandal, the state party nominated Maryland native Alan Keyes rather than risk it on Oberweis. The candidate has obviously never recovered. Something to ponder when the Dobbses of the world inform you that real Americans want to "get tough" on immigration.

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.

|3.10.08 @ 9:57AM|#

What it seems to me is, with each of these special elections, we're seeing the death of the middle ground in the debate. Either we don't have borders and absorb half of the Western Hemisphere, or we become Fortress America.

Don't we have better options than that? Not if you talk to these idiots running for Congress.

thoreau|3.10.08 @ 9:58AM|#

Bill Foster is not a chemist. He's a physicist. There's a BIG cultural difference.

:)

Also, Foster was critical of warrantless wiretaps and telecom immunity during the campaign, and he STILL won in GOP territory. There's a lesson in this for the Dems.

|3.10.08 @ 10:03AM|#

The lesson is if Mark Krikorian is criticizing you for being off the reservation re: illegal immigration, only LoneWacko will vote for you.

|3.10.08 @ 10:06AM|#

losing Hastert's seat is like the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad for Republicans.

This pretty much says it all.

some guy|3.10.08 @ 10:08AM|#

Remind me again what happened after the statue was pulled down.

thoreau|3.10.08 @ 10:08AM|#

losing Hastert's seat is like the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad for Republicans.

An event that looks good on TV but doesn't actually usher in the promised stability and liberalization?

|3.10.08 @ 10:18AM|#

The ads stirred such a backlash (read down and read Mark Krikorian debunking Oberweis's b.s.) that even though Oberweis came second in the Senate primary, and first-place finisher Jack Ryan dropped out because of a sex scandal, the state party nominated Maryland native Alan Keyes rather than risk it on Oberweis.

Is Keyes's role in the Republican party is to act as a spare tire? Or maybe as a wink-and-nod to those watching saying "we hope that we don't really win this race"?

|3.10.08 @ 10:24AM|#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZgdkykWmyA

|3.10.08 @ 10:26AM|#

Is Keyes's role in the Republican party is to act as a spare tire? Or maybe as a wink-and-nod to those watching saying "we hope that we don't really win this race"?

It reminds me of a kidnapped fairytale princess threatening to leap out the tower window to her doom, in the alligator-filled moat, rather than surrender her precious womanly honor to the Black Knight.
Because politics is all about honor. And principle.

|3.10.08 @ 10:39AM|#

The kicker is that this election will be rerun in November, with the same candidates. Oberweis has already won the primary for November. Republicans must be loving Big Jim.

ktc2|3.10.08 @ 10:42AM|#

All this "get tough" on immigration nonsense has done nothing but make it harder for LEGAL immigrants, such as my wife. Even though she has a "right to work" visa nobody will hire her without DHS authorization, despite the law specifically stating she doesn't need it.

Of course ILLEGAL immigrants will just ignore the laws, work for cash under the table or use false ID.

|3.10.08 @ 10:52AM|#

The use of the term "restrictionist" is an attempt at framing the discussion of illegal aliens and the need to secure the border in a way that defines all those who are opposed to the status quo in a negative way.

What is restrictionist is the attempt to demonize and dehumanize citizens who are speaking up for the very real fact that we lack the resources and jobs, have a dire economy and citizens who are suffering as a result. It's an attempt at censorship, and it is fascistic.

|3.10.08 @ 10:56AM|#

This is issue was also the thing ( well other than the racists, Truthers,personality cult, and assorted nutjobs) that made the Ron Paul campaign and supporters so hard to support.

|3.10.08 @ 10:58AM|#

Jenny,

I love Reason magazine and agree with their writers about many things, but around here any suggestion of an immigration policy that deviates from their universally held "doors wide open and let the economy sort it out" philosophy will likely be shat upon.

That said, Oberweis is still a drippy douche.

kinnath|3.10.08 @ 11:00AM|#

universally held "doors wide open and let the economy sort it out" philosophy

Nice of you to put a pretty ribbon on that strawman.

John C Jackson|3.10.08 @ 11:01AM|#

Jenny,

No one is "suffering" because of immigration. They are suffering because of their own stupidity and/or lack of marketable skills. Probably 99% of the losers who hate Mexicans ( and/or want them to "Speak English")read on a 3rd grade level and don't know basic math. The other 1% are just racists ( manipulating the stupid people Hitler-style).

PC|3.10.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Well what gets me about the open borders libertarians is that they don't seem to understand that we currently have a welfare state. To ever restore this country to a free society in a successful manner requires that things happen in a gradual manner and a proper order. Yes maybe someday immigration should be expanded but right now we can barely feed our own as we are being starved by government intervention at home and abroad and reduced to roughly 33% Slavery to remain somewhat free. The fruits of our slavery, while it exists, shouldn't go to other countries in the form of foreign aid nor to illegal immigrants. Also elimination of the welfare state would create the correct environment to have expanded immigration. Sovereignty is the only thing to protect us from the rest of the socialist world, our respect for sovereignty is the only thing that will ever make a free society possible again otherwise we will meet predictable political hurdle that would crush any movement that gathers momentum.

|3.10.08 @ 11:05AM|#

"And symbolically, losing Hastert's seat is like the toppling of the Saddam statue in Baghdad for Republicans."

You mean civil war & suicide bombings in Congress for the next 5 years?

Get out the popcorn.

|3.10.08 @ 11:07AM|#

They are suffering because of their own stupidity and/or lack of marketable skills. Probably 99% of the losers who hate Mexicans ( and/or want them to "Speak English")read on a 3rd grade level and don't know basic math. The other 1% are just racists ( manipulating the stupid people Hitler-style).

You mean the AFL-CIO?

d'oh!!!

|3.10.08 @ 11:08AM|#

So, PC, you'd deny me the right to invite anyone I want into my home, or to rent them an apartment, or to employ them in my business?
That's why I don't believe there could even be such a creature as a "closed border libertarian."

|3.10.08 @ 11:23AM|#

So, PC, you'd deny me the right to invite anyone I want into my home, or to rent them an apartment, or to employ them in my business?

Comrade! Your lodger could be a dangerous anti-Soviet agitator! Remember, failure to alert your local MVD to the presence of any guests or tenants is punishable under the same Article 58 as counterrevolutionary activity. Your comrades rely on your vigilance!

PC|3.10.08 @ 11:27AM|#

"So, PC, you'd deny me the right to invite anyone I want into my home, or to rent them an apartment, or to employ them in my business?
That's why I don't believe there could even be such a creature as a "closed border libertarian.""

The same political bandwagon that the open borders libertarians are latching onto is the same ones that want to eliminate our sovereignty to supernational organizations so my opposition is not just ideological, but mainly political. People laugh at mention of SPP but what it will do is establish an supernational taxing authority similar to what Chirac tried to do with the UN on airline taxes. Income taxes in this country at one time were rather small, not anymore. They get their foot in the door, then you lose autonomy over yourself. States used to have more power, now the feds tell the state what to do. Once international bodies tell countries what to do we are basically screwed. If you look at things on one issue and one issue only then you fail to see what will come down the road. The proper way to look at issues, with regard to time is past, present, and special attention to future in my opinion. You have to look at the driving forces that are pushing the issue to figure out where it is going. Supporting open borders in my opinion will eventually result in less freedom because it is just one step in a multi step agenda to shred sovereignty.

Those same people that you want to invite into your home are also overcrowding schools, using government services, and driving down wages which is directly related to the welfare state. When illegal immigrants come to this country and take jobs at low wages, the working class native is more inclined to just go on the dole. That is why the welfare state has to be eliminated or streamlined first.

I am not against expanding immigration, I am against expanding immigration in the face of a welfare state. I don't think one can look at issues by themself, it has to take into account other issues and determine what is best for the cause of freedom not just now, but later down the road.

|3.10.08 @ 11:28AM|#

PC-

Ok, not open borders. How about liberalized immigration laws so we know who is actually coming in? I call it the "high walls, wide gates" policy.

|3.10.08 @ 11:29AM|#

PC, you could also say "We can't end the drug war with the welfare state", as well.

kinnath|3.10.08 @ 11:33AM|#

When illegal immigrants come to this country and take jobs at low wages, the working class native is more inclined to just go on the dole.

Do you have a link to some real data, or are you just winging it?

|3.10.08 @ 11:34AM|#

PC, I'm not saying that an argument for closed borders can't be made (although I wouldn't agree with it), just that "open-border libertarian" is redundant. A "closed-border libertarian" would be like a devout Catholic atheist.

PC|3.10.08 @ 11:45AM|#

Cesar,

Liberalized immigration laws is a vague term, specifics would be required for comment. I am against walls.

Partially you are correct on the WOD. It is hard to scale back the WOD with the way funding is doled out, because the way funding is doled out basically creates incentive to have SWAT like shows of force. But as whole I disagree. The market would pick up where dealers left off, similar to alcohol. Of course agencies will then try to find new "demand" for their services which would need to be scrutinized due to the danger that could create.

The welfare state needs to end to solve many problems. Problems with poverty, health care, education cannot be fully addressed until the welfare state is scaled back because roughly a third of peoples' incomes are being stolen, income that could fuel charities, churches, and schools. Look at churches, a main reason that people don't bother anymore isn't so much that they are less religious, the churches do less for their communities due to taxation of their members and government intervention into those services. All this money that is sucked out of the economy can go a long way to fixing many ills and would be better than the inefficient manner that we currently use today.

PC|3.10.08 @ 12:01PM|#

"Do you have a link to some real data, or are you just winging it?"

No, but I guess I could find some. Come to DC and look around for a bit. Going up and down the east coast, observing and talking to working class people and employers during the course of my travels have contributed to my thoughts on the matter. Much of this is evident if you just use your faculties of sight and hearing. I would be glad to peruse your statisticians' statistics.

|3.10.08 @ 12:01PM|#

A few years ago, I worked as a temp at a construction site. I was making $8.63 an hour. An illegal immigrant -- he admitted it -- told me he was making $13 an hour under the table. I realized he was doing simple, light work in comparison to what they hired me for.

Why do businesses hire illegals rather than Americans? Well, there's taxes, medical liability, legal liability -- it adds up to so much that my temp agency actually charged $18 an hour to the client even though I received only $7 an hour in take-home pay. No wonder they gave an illegal immigrant $13 an hour under the table.

It's not that Americans are lazy or unreliable, it's that our government 'protects' us right out of the work force. Whether intentionally or not, our government passes workplace legislation to help illegals -- and discriminate against citizens. A very minor example of that counterintuitive double standard, which might hit home with Reasonoids: To be employed digging ditches for just three weeks, I had to take a drug test -- but do you think illegal immigrants are required to take drug tests?

BTW, the only reason I was hired by the construction company is because they had a deadline and it was the hottest time of the year and they couldn't find an illegal immigrant willing to work in the hot sun. After three weeks, they let me go. The illegal immigrant co-worker -- who never had to work up a sweat -- had already been there a year and a half while I was scrounging for temp jobs, and was still there when I left.

I think of my experience in the manual labor force every time I hear some parasitical patrician's son in Our Nation's Capitol pontificate about how "Immigrants are doing the work that Americans won't." And I think about it every time I see a bunch of Beltway Bubble guys nod in agreement over the ludicrous claim that jobs to pick lettuce at $35 an hour are going unfilled.

kinnath|3.10.08 @ 12:05PM|#

No, but I guess I could find some. Come to DC and look around for a bit. Going up and down the east coast, observing and talking to working class people and employers during the course of my travels have contributed to my thoughts on the matter. Much of this is evident if you just use your faculties of sight and hearing. I would be glad to peruse your statisticians' statistics.

As far as I can tell, the Hispanics that are working at the only new meat packing plants to be built in Iowa in the last 20 years are not hurting the job prospects of any of the local workers.

So does my anecdote cancel yours?

|3.10.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Burn it down, then, kinnath, if I've misrepresented the argument oft-seen here at Reason. See if you can do it without using the words "nativist," "racist," or "restrictionist," and see if you can do it without knowing jack shit about my position on illegal immigration, which you don't because I haven't told you.

PC|3.10.08 @ 12:14PM|#

kinnath,

Neither really cancels out. I don't think there is an absolute answer to most things political, just a battle of opinions and wills. I would like to know how things look in Iowa if subsidies ever dry up and the economy falters regarding the illegal immigration question. I know people involved in meat packing in other areas and they sing a different tune, 50% wage cuts for workers and managers alike, if not complete laying off but different regions have had different results.

|3.10.08 @ 12:14PM|#

PC-

Basically, I'm talking about guest worker programs. The biggest thing I have against illegal immigration is we don't know who is here. We don't know whether they're just trying to get a job, or whether they mean us harm. If you let in a larger number of people legally who just wanted to work for a season and go back home, then it would be easy to figure out that the people still trying to get in here illegally are probably going to be criminals and terrorists.

My "high walls" and "Wide gates" are metaphorical, not literal.

kinnath|3.10.08 @ 12:14PM|#

Burn it down, then, kinnath, if I've misrepresented the argument oft-seen here at Reason.

Ok, not open borders. How about liberalized immigration laws so we know who is actually coming in? I call it the "high walls, wide gates" policy.

Cesar has the clearest summary that I've seen in a long time.

There is no mechanism in place today to allow non-technical people to immigrate to the US to peform low-tech, manual labor. Yet, there is a large market for people willing to work low-tech, low-wage jobs. The result is a black market. Most of the problems that the anti-immigration side complains about are the result of the black market not the immigrants per se.

kinnath|3.10.08 @ 12:16PM|#

I know people involved in meat packing in other areas and they sing a different tune, 50% wage cuts for workers and managers alike, if not complete laying off but different regions have had different results.

No one has a god-given right to work a given job at a given wage for life. The economy evolves; some people benefit; some people suffer.

|3.10.08 @ 12:21PM|#

Most of the problems that the anti-immigration side complains about are the result of the black market not the immigrants per se.

Which is, to say, they are barking up the wrong tree... partially (I don't even have any real complaints about the immigrants, just how they get here). A secure border system combined with a generous visa and guest worker policy would not only bring to the light of day a massive underground economy, it would also protect immigrants (both here and in transit) from exploitation as well as reduce violence in the border regions.

To leave things as they are seems every bit as racist and inhuman as sealing the borders for good... but it's obvious that elected officials aren't in the "reasonable solutions" business. Not to mention, should something actually get done, that's one less thing for them to campaign on...

kinnath, I was talking about writers who work for Reason, not people like Cesar who write in the comments of H&R. Apologies if I didn't make that distinction.

And I do agree with Cesar- we need to find a way to let these "non-technical" people in to do those types of jobs; you're correct in stating that it would eliminate that black market. And Cesar's "high walls, wide gates" policy is exactly what I have in mind, as well.

|3.10.08 @ 12:22PM|#

BTW, people act like immigrants are going to show up here even when there are no jobs.

Guess what? Surprise! When the US economy enters a downturn, immigration slows down. It happened in the early 2000s recession and is probably about to happen again.

kinnath|3.10.08 @ 12:26PM|#

kinnath, I was talking about writers who work for Reason,

Gotcha

PC|3.10.08 @ 12:37PM|#

"No one has a god-given right to work a given job at a given wage for life. The economy evolves; some people benefit; some people suffer."

I completely agree with that statement. The attitude towards education and our nation's willingness to learn affects that evolution. That is why I contend that elimination of the welfare state would enhance that evolution and increase healthy competition. I also think that expanding immigration through nonenforcement of laws basically amounts to government intervention and is very dangerous because it creates an avenue for selective enforcement. Then after they do this, they throw up their hands and say that it was too hard to deal with from the outset when the results were actually the original intent.

No one anywhere in the world has a god given right to American citizenship. We may disagree on this point. Sovereignty has always been a gray issue for libertarians and I don't think it is well defined what the correct position is, nor do I think it will ever be settled.

thoreau|3.10.08 @ 12:39PM|#

Joe S.-

Your anecdote brings up a lot of important points that both sides of the immigration debate like to gloss over, but the solution to the problem is a more open labor market with less government intervention.

Click \'n\' Learn|3.10.08 @ 12:45PM|#

Can you trust Dave Weigel? Let's see: he can't seem to separate AntiIllegalImmigration as an issue itself from the way that various politicians use the issue.

And, he's ignorant of the backstory. Generally speaking, real libertarians might want to distance themselves from things like that discussed at the link, but I guess just as long as the MexicanGovernment and corrupt corporations are making money such concerns don't matter.

|3.10.08 @ 12:49PM|#

Heres a hint if you want to express legitimate concerns instead of looking like a freeper kook--

Don't act like immigrants are agents of a foreign government.

|3.10.08 @ 12:55PM|#

Don't worry, when the dollar is lower than the peso, they will move back.

|3.10.08 @ 12:57PM|#

The doesn't work TrickyVic, because by that time the CanadianGovernment and MexicanGovernment will have forced the AmeroCurrency on us.

Don't ask me how two nations much smaller and less powerful than the United States do this, but it WillHappen.

|3.10.08 @ 1:04PM|#

I can't speak for the writers who work for Reason, but (1) keep out people who actually intend the nation harm, and (2) let anyone else in and let the economy sort it out, is pretty much the open borders position.

|3.10.08 @ 1:08PM|#

Mike P-

I'd add carriers of contagious disease, and reserve the right to close the borders if theres some massive refugee crises in a neighboring country.

|3.10.08 @ 1:16PM|#

Cesar,

I'd add carriers of contagious disease,

Agreed. I overreached with "intend" in my attempt to exclude the possibility that people would be kept out for economic protectionist reasons.

and reserve the right to close the borders if theres some massive refugee crises in a neighboring country.

Lifeboat ethics. Case by case.

|3.10.08 @ 1:18PM|#

No one anywhere in the world has a god given right to American citizenship. We may disagree on this point.

We probably don't. That's why I don't argue that people have an inalienable right to be American citizens.

On the other hand, I do argue that people have the inalienable right to travel, reside, or work wherever they can find someone who will freely convey, house, or employ them.

Sovereignty has always been a gray issue for libertarians and I don't think it is well defined what the correct position is, nor do I think it will ever be settled.

Sovereignty is a positive fact. A nation may do whatever it wishes within the dominion that it controls. There is nothing gray about it.

Legitimate authority within a sovereign territory, however, does have a place in libertarian thought. I happen to believe the matter is pretty clear: A government is acting legitimately when it is securing individual rights, and it is acting illegitimately when it is abrogating individual rights.

highnumber|3.10.08 @ 1:22PM|#

I don't live in that district and I disagree with Oberweis on immigration, but his milk and ice cream have my endorsement. Yummy! Glass bottles, home delivery, Oberweis Dairy is top notch.

Charles|3.10.08 @ 1:41PM|#

Lonewacko,

I ask this in absolute seriousness, because I am genuinely curious. What's with the no spaces typing? Is it just a bad habit you refuse to correct? A carefully-crafted signature to indicate your authorship when using different handles? My third guess is that you're a fake, like Juanita or MCW, but you put way too much time into it for that.

|3.10.08 @ 1:42PM|#

Charles-

He does it so he can easily search online for previous posts he made on blogs. Yes, hes that egotistical.

Charles|3.10.08 @ 1:46PM|#

Cesar,

Really? That's the saddest thing I have ever heard. But it would explain why there are several different phrases (MexicanGovernment, IllegalImmigration, etc) he/she/they/it seems to employ.

Click \'n\' Learn|3.10.08 @ 2:00PM|#

Cesar, of course, doesn't understand why I do what I do. And, he mischaracterizes my position on "agents". There are several people in positions of power whose actions are occasionally indistinguishable from the actions that actual agents of the MexicanGovernment would perform. For instance, LA's mayor congratulated MexicosPresident on helping block a U.S. law approved by a majority of voters. In that case - and others - his actions were similar to those that an actual paid agent of that government would perform.

There are many other people who do similiar things, such as rally organizers who serve on a MexicanGovernment advisory board.

That said, the vast majority of Mexican "immigrants" aren't agents. However, they do form a power base for that country, one that the MexicanGovernment has explicitly said they want to use to push their agenda in the U.S. That government has also said they're going to be using U.S. NGOs to push their agenda in the U.S.

So, once you actually know what you're talking about, things get much more complicated.

As for MikeP's comment about people who mean us harm, providing a power base for a foreign government inside our country is a definite "harm", yet it's one that isn't addressed.

|3.10.08 @ 2:33PM|#

"Providing a power base" is a pretty nonspecific crime. You would hold people's rights at bay and hold their standards of living two-thirds lower just because they might contribute to a power base for a foreign government inside the US?

Even accepting for the sake of argument that this is true, exactly what might this power base allow the foreign government to do?

|3.10.08 @ 3:35PM|#

"""The doesn't work TrickyVic, because by that time the CanadianGovernment and MexicanGovernment will have forced the AmeroCurrency on us."""

Ah yes, the Amero will be strong against the Euro!!

|3.10.08 @ 4:29PM|#

|3.10.08 @ 5:04PM|#

You can't have both a welfare state and open borders. Pick one.

Can you have both a welfare state and drug legalization? The welfare state simply encourages people to quit their jobs and the lower prices mean they can be on drugs all the time.

Can you have both a welfare state and a repeal of minimum wage laws? The welfare state simply encourages people who do not want to work for less than they make in welfare not to work.

Can you have both a welfare state and free trade? The welfare state simply encourages people to go on the dole rather than work harder to make American labor more competitive.

Can you have both a welfare state and lower taxes? The welfare state simply encourages people to go on welfare and not produce, thus forcing the remaining workers to be taxed more.

Is there any libertarian position that you can't hold hostage to elimination of the welfare state?

The welfare state is here to stay (and only going to get bigger), so...

...so the US must continue to violate the rights of tens of millions of people?

|3.10.08 @ 5:17PM|#

Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|3.10.08 @ 6:13PM|#

LoneWacko:
You waited 3 hours and 11 minutes to first post on an item about your issue? I'm impressed with the restraint.

|3.10.08 @ 10:24PM|#

Incidentally, just what are all these terrific welfare benefits that immigrants get? I keep hearing about welfare for immigrants, but -- considering that they were cut off from all individualized government support by the 1996 welfare reforms -- I keep not seeing any.

Free medical care via emergency rooms and various clinics, free schooling for their kids, I personally know of at least one lady who, because her kid was an anchor baby, is getting welfare, so I'm sure that's more common than we know, free use of our infrastructure (roads, parks, etc. that citizens taxes paid for...I know that's not technically welfare but it's still an unpaid-for benefit).

Please understand, I have nothing but the highest regard for hispanics. I live in New Mexico and I think the hispanic population here are wonderful people (except for a few idiots like every population). Far from being the stereotyped "lazy, swarthy Mexicans", I find them to be hardworking, smart and fun to be around.

|3.11.08 @ 3:19AM|#

Ah, yes... the massive twin welfare benefits of emergency health care and public provision of schooling. Why did I already know that this would be the complete enumeration. After the libertarian revolution overthrows the welfare state, these will surely be the first two benefits against the wall.

As for that insidious form of welfare that goes by the name of "infrastructure", immigrants do pay for that through the many taxes on what they buy, where they live, and even their paychecks.

I agree that the anchor baby issue is a potential problem. But the solution is simple: Any citizen child of noncitizen parents is on the welfare schedule of his parents, not that of a longstanding citizen.

People are not lining up to pay coyotes thousands of dollars in order to take advantage of the lucrative bonanza of emergency health care, public schools, and infrastructure. Welfare in the US today is simply not a draw for immigrants. It is patently baseless to hold free migration hostage to the welfare state.

|3.11.08 @ 8:15AM|#

Incidentally, "immigrants are not eligible for welfare" is not something that can be said about drug users, minimum wage workers, trade-protected labor, or taxpayers. Yet somehow it's always open immigration that is incompatible with a welfare state -- never any of those other libertarian reforms.

Odd, that.

|3.11.08 @ 12:33PM|#

I live just outside the district and can tell you that this election wasn't decided on the issues but on the candidates.

Oberweis is an extremely weak candidate. If you saw his commericals or listened to his adverstisements you'd know his manner is very off-putting. He glowers and nearly yells though his commercials. He also attacked his challenger's reputation in the primary and that individual wouldn't endorse him in the election afterward.

Oberweis is a perrenial loser who seems to be the only republican running for office in Illinois (besides Alan Keyes). His loss is a reflection of the state of the republican party in Illinois not the issues like illegal immigration, etc.

Afterall there are plenty of polls which indicate that Americans are opposed to amnesty by large margins.

|3.11.08 @ 1:20PM|#

Afterall there are plenty of polls which indicate that Americans are opposed to amnesty by large margins.

The first few polls I ran across at PollingReport.com show mild margins in favor of amnesty. For example, starting at the top of the page, ABC poll respondents favored amnesty 58% to 35% in September and 49% to 46% in December. The most recent LA Times poll fully described an amnesty plan with quite a few requirements and found 60% supported it while 15% opposed it.

What polls do you recall that show large margins in opposition?

|3.11.08 @ 6:19PM|#

"Afterall there are plenty of polls which indicate that Americans are opposed to amnesty by large margins."

Your argument will hold good if the defeat of Oberweis was an isolated event. If we take the big picture, other anti-immigration candidates have been defeated including John Hostettler in Indiana, JD Hayworth and Randy Graf in Arizona, Rick Santorum in PA (guy sounded like he was on Rum as the last three words of his name suggests) Tom Tancredo and Mitt Romney in the Presidential race (incidentally Huckabee was doing well until he jumped on the anti-immigration train). I dont care what Americans say but I do care what they do. They have clearly sent anti-immigration candidates to their defeat..period, end of story.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements