Reason Writers Around Town: Shikha Dalmia on Immigrant Bashing by Latinos in the Midterm Elections

Latino advocacy groups have been warning Republicans that they will pay a huge political price for their immigrant bashing as whites lose their demographic dominance. But this week's elections showed that these groups might be overplaying the political implications of that demographic shift. Many Latino GOP candidates in congressional and gubernatorial races embraced anti-immigrant positions and still won handily. What this shows, Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia notes in her latest Forbes column, is that:

Immigrant bashing is not a white-only sport. Non-whites can play it just as well. Advocates of liberal immigration policies, therefore, can't count on the coming end of white domination to automatically propel this country in their direction. They have to keep making their case to the American public regardless of its hue—brown, black or Avatar blue.

Read all about it here.

Comments

[Alan Vanneman]

Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia also fingers "Palin-backed Nikki Haley, the daughter of Sikh migrants from India" as an immigrant basher. Please adjust your headline.

[dennis]

Dey terk er jerbs!!!

[mangy hair piece]

If this election proves anything, it is that immigrant bashing is not a white-only sport.

The tone is set. Controlling immigration is called "immigrant bashing", distinct between legal and illegal immigration is erased. Onward, to more twisting and distorting.

[Michael Ejercito]

The tone is set. Controlling immigration is called "immigrant bashing", distinct between legal and illegal immigration is erased. Onward, to more twisting and distorting.

Immigrant "bashing" is a worldwide sport.

If you look at what some Chinese say about North Koreans, or some Malaysians say about Chinese, they are near-literal translations of what some Americans say about Mexicans.

[mangy hair piece]

... the coming end of white domination ...

Inevitability of the end of white privilege, blah, blah.

[grrizzly]

Dalmia is one of the least persuasive writers affiliated with Reason. I'm amazed that she's paid for her writing.

[HarHar]

I agree. But then I think that about most journalists.

Immigrant bashing is not a white-only sport. Non-whites can play it just as well.

What drivel. Whites are obviously the most immigrant-welcoming race in the world.

[mangy hair piece]

Advocates of liberal immigration policies Radical leftist groups, therefore, can't count on the coming end of white domination ethnicity-based fear-mongering to automatically propel this country in their direction. create a monolithic voting bloc that can be used to advance their agenda.

[Azathoth]

Would 'white privilege' end if caucasian hispanics, semites and east Indians were re-added to caucasian population totals? Somehow I doubt it.

But seperating out 'white' allows those for whom diversity means any skin color EXCEPT white to maintain this fiction.

And why is it news that legal immigrants and their children might be averse to illegal immigrants and the stigma they place on all recent immigrants?

Consider that Arpaio is a 'hispanic' name.

[jtuf]

Well said. Hispanics are a linguistic groups. Labeling Hispanics as a race indicates that the argument has moved into pure rhetoric.

[Spoonman.]

Certainly calling Bill Flores, the new representative of TX-17, "Hispanic" doesn't really mean much with regard to skin color.

[Old Mexican]

Meanwhile, Boxer's opponent Carly Fiornia supported Arizona's draconian law requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times, hugely irritating Hispanic voters.

To be fair, you are required by federal law to carry your immigration papers with you. Most greencard holders have their greencards in their wallets and purses.

The Arizona law is NOT meant to catch illegal aliens, as these wil simply be more wary and careful - it is CLEARLY AIMED at HARRASSING USA-born AMERICAN CITIZENS, those that have prickly hair and moustaches and brown skin and look like Diego or Dora the explorer, as they obviously do NOT carry their "papers" with them.

[mangy hair piece]

The Arizona law is NOT meant to catch illegal aliens

That's a bold statement. Do you really attribute AZ's law simply to ill will? Are the people (virtually everyone supporting the law) who say that just want existing immigration laws to be enforced all being duplicitous?

If you are insisting that immigration law cannot be enforced, then you are saying that a sovereign nation, the US, cannot control its own borders. Implicitly you are suggesting that no nation can control its own borders. Is this really your position?

[Old Mexican]

Re: mangry hair piece,

That's a bold statement.

You think so?

Do you really attribute AZ's law simply to ill will?

Almost all acts that can be attributed to malice or evil could be more accurately attributed to simple stupidity.

Are the people [...] who say that just want existing immigration laws to be enforced all being duplicitous?

I cannot see inside their souls, mhp - I can only judge ACTS, and so far, this law is clearly NOT meant to catch illegal immigrants, as the process of asking for your papers is inefficient and dumb. This is probably why the federal statute is seldom enforced, as it is cumbersome and leads to abuse.

If you are insisting that immigration law cannot be enforced, then you are saying that a sovereign nation, the US, cannot control its own borders.

The borders are political constructs, mhp - in order to "control" them, people would have to be willing to look at them as actual barriers. People are, alas, NOT willing - economics and praxeology will tell you that.

Implicitly you are suggesting that no nation can control its own borders. Is this really your position?

Implicit is that nations are nothing more than political constructs, that in order to keep people from going back and forth you would have to resort to the most extraordinary violent measures, not unlike those used by North Korea or Cuba or Myanmar.

Again, I look at the law, at what is says, and I *know* it cannot be used to catch illegal immigrants - it is clearly meant to harrass AMERICAN CITIZENS who don't carry a birth certificate or a US passport as a matter of routine.

[mangy hair piece]

this law is clearly NOT meant to catch illegal immigrants, as the process of asking for your papers is inefficient and dumb

So which is it? Supporters are too stupid to realize that the law is inefficient or their true motive is something other than catching illegal aliens?

[Old Mexican]

Re: mangy hair piece,

Supporters are too stupid to realize that the law is inefficient or their true motive is something other than catching illegal aliens?

I don't fall in the trap of CONFLATING supporters with the lawmakers. The lawmakers are clearly creating a back-door for Real ID. That is the real aim.

[mangy hair piece]

I don't fall in the trap of CONFLATING supporters with the lawmakers.

It sounds like you are saying that the lawmakers are stupid and the supporters are mean people - or is it the other way around.

[mangy hair piece]

The lawmakers are clearly creating a back-door for Real ID.

Real ID is a bad idea, but maybe you are being a tiny bit paranoid in this case?

[MikeP]

According to an NPR article, the true motive is to supply "customers" for private prisons.

And this bill was an important one for the company. According to Corrections Corporation of America reports reviewed by NPR, executives believe immigrant detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote that they expect to bring in "a significant portion of our revenues" from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that detains illegal immigrants.

In the conference room, the group decided they would turn the immigration idea into a model bill. They discussed and debated language. Then, they voted on it.

"There were no 'no' votes," Pearce said. "I never had one person speak up in objection to this model legislation."

Four months later, that model legislation became, almost word for word, Arizona's immigration law.

[mangy hair piece]

All laws create winners and losers. Suggesting that the business interests of a few companies are driving public sentiment about illegal immigration is ... idiosyncratic. It does fit the anti-capitalistic theme of certain media outlets though.

[MikeP]

If you read the article you'd see that the law didn't create the winners: the winners created the law.

Indeed, you are correct that if the prisons had not suggested the law, maybe the law would still have happened. But we were talking about motives of legislators here.

[mangy hair piece]

the winners created the law

That is always the case. That doesn't mean that the creators are the only winners or that the law is bad.

if the prisons had not suggested the law

Private citizens have complained about problems with illegal immigrants for a long time. The meeting of the "secretive group" seems to have involved a number of interests besides Corrections Corporation of America.

[mangy hair piece]

more from the article:

What he was selling was a prison for women and children who were illegal immigrants.

and

It was last December at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C. Inside, there was a meeting of a secretive group called the American Legislative Exchange Council. Insiders call it ALEC.

It's a membership organization of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations, such as the tobacco company Reynolds American Inc., ExxonMobil and the National Rifle Association. Another member is the billion-dollar Corrections Corporation of America ? the largest private prison company in the country.

That is some quality combining of women/children sob story and sinister organizations controlling the government stuff right there. Tobacco company, oil company, NRA, billion dollar prison company - that's some good blow. They did, however, leave out any mention of the benefits to the government run prison employees and their unions. Just an oversight, I guess.

[mangy hair piece]

The borders are political constructs, mhp - in order to "control" them, people would have to be willing to look at them as actual barriers. People are, alas, NOT willing

A physical fence IS an actual barrier. Willing or not, people must look at it as such. No one is asserting that putting up a fence and enforcing immigration laws will override the motives, weak or strong, honorable or dishonorable in all cases, but the current situation is a farce - laws that aren't enforced, expensive "virtual fences", endless political duplicity. Any fence can be breached. Some border guards will always be corruptible. However, illegal immigration can be dramatically reduced by a fence, law enforcement and the withdraw of financial incentives for breaking the law. No one is claiming that enforcement can ever be perfect. It can't just as it can't for any law.

[mangy hair piece]

Implicit is that nations are nothing more than political constructs

Of course nations are political constructs. So what? The political constructs (usually) represent (usually voluntary) associations of people with something in common. Nations that are defined by imperial powers to deliberately foster discord aren't such a good thing, true, but there is nothing wrong with people grouping together under some sense of common purpose or interest.

in order to keep people from going back and forth you would have to resort to the most extraordinary violent measures

Border control is not binary. I am not advocating brutality, which wouldn't be perfectly effective anyway and, in any case, would not be morally acceptable to most Americans.

not unlike those used by North Korea or Cuba or Myanmar.

Yeah, a fence to keep people from leaving an involuntary and unsatisfactory association is the same thing as a fence to keep people, who don't respect the rules of an association, from joining that association.

[MikeP]

The political constructs (usually) represent (usually voluntary) associations of people with something in common.

This is not correct.

The something in common is that we all live in a territory claimed as the dominion of a government. But one cannot opt out of the government without opting out of the territory. The political construct is entirely involuntary.

[mangy hair piece]

The political construct is entirely involuntary.

One of the marvels of America's founding was that it was not entirely involuntary. Generally, being born into a political association is a part of the human condition. Do you see that ever changing? I don't.

What I meant by the political constructs of most nations being voluntary is that most citizens of most countries accept life under whatever government they live under and feel some allegiance to the culture associated with their country. There is, of course, always some dissent, desire to change some things, etc. which may or may not lead to some restructuring.

I am cynical enough to see the promotion of multi-culturalism and the attack on the idea of assimulation of new immigrants as a deliberate attempt to destroy the cohesion of Western countries in order to destroy the countries themselves.

[MikeP]

And I am individualist enough to see the abrogation of my right to transport, house, or employ whomever I want on and with my property because of where I was born or where he was born to be an illegitimate initiation of force by a political organization that I never assented to.

[mangy hair piece]

And [snip] that I never assented to.

I don't disagree with you. But reality is reality and I fear that you will live an unhappy life if you don't accept at least some its features.

[mangy hair piece]

90% of them voting for Reid

85% of them voted Democratic

whopping 81% of the Latino vote

One of the chief criticisms of illegal immigration is that US elections are being/could be corrupted by a combination of illegal immigration and lax requirements for or inadequate monitoring of voting. I'm not suggesting that the Democrat wins were due to election mischief, but the suspicion does erode confidence in our system. Also, it is simplistic to interpret the wins solely from the perspective of Latino voting patterns. There were many other factors at work in all of the races highlighted.

[R C Dean]

I'm curious. What counts as immigrant-bashing? If I say I want our borders controlled so that the flow of illegal immigrants is reduced, does that make me an immigrant-basher?

What if I say I want the borders controlled, but the quotas raised, a lot? Still bashing?

[Cyto]

That depends....are you a Republican?

[marlok]

Advocating anything short of completely open borders, full welfare benefits and voting rights for anyone standing on American soil, and complete dismantling of systems to send people back to their home countries is an admission of a vile racism that should be punishable by imprisonment and government seizure of all property.
I hope this answers your question.

[MikeP]

Alternatively, one could neither bash nor subsidize immigration. That is, one could be for free migration without restriction or subsidy, just as one can be for free trade without restriction or subsidy.

Free migration without restriction or subsidy is best promoted by unlimited visas that explicitly deny targeted welfare for a very very long time and explicitly offer no path to citizenship, requiring application to and issuance of citizenship-track visas to accomplish that.

[mangy hair piece]

Change "deny targeted welfare" to "deny all taxpayer handouts except emergency medical care" and I might be with you. There are way too many untargeted handouts as it is and adding more freeloaders to those programs would not be a good thing.

[MikeP]

My short list is emergency medical care and public schools -- i.e., things universally allowed without proof of anything. Not coincidentally, this is exactly the list of government support that illegal immigrants are legally allowed today.

[mangy hair piece]

this is exactly the list of government support that illegal immigrants are legally allowed today

That's not accurate. Judges in CA have ruled that illegals can collect
other handouts as well. Furthermore, fraud is widespread allowing illegals to milk tax payers for illegally obtained handouts in other states.

[MikeP]

Yes, California needs to fix its laws. The federal law, however, is clear.

And fraud is why I qualified my statement with "legally allowed".

[mangy hair piece]

fraud is why I qualified my statement with "legally allowed"

I realize that. I mentioned fraud explicitly because fraud is not entirely preventable and the only way to completely guard against it is to end the entitlement programs that are being stolen from. The problem of maintaining an open border policy while maintaining entitlements won't be solved by passing laws barring illegal immigrants from receiving handouts.

[marlok]

Since this article is about winning the hispanic vote, who do you think wins it: the liberal who advocates open borders and endless welfare state or the libertarian who advocates open borders and a shrunken welfare state?

[MikeP]

Since liberals are in general more protectionist than conservatives, it isn't entirely obvious that open borders sells better there regardless of one's position on the welfare state.

Try selling open borders to the union vote, for instance.

[MikeP]

Since the main reason for immigration restrictions is raw protectionism rather than ethnic sentiments, it is not terribly surprising that anti-immigrant attitudes cross ethnic divisions.

[MWG]

This^

[Discount wholesale Cheap UGG B]

The tone is set. Controlling immigration is called "immigrant bashing", distinct between legal and illegal immigration is erased. Onward, to more twisting and distorting.

[mangy hair piece]

Eek! My words have been spamjacked!

[marlok]

creepy

[mangy hair piece]

all of this assumes that today's minorities will be tomorrow's immigration advocates

Um, have you spoken to a cross section of the black community lately? Oh, I forgot, all non-whites think the same. If only I were more racist/racialist, I would find it easier to understand you.

[mangy hair piece]

hugely under-reported stories of this election is that Republicans fielded far more minority candidates than Democrats ? and they won by touting a restrictionist agenda, proof positive that skin color ? and even immigration status ? are not always correlated with enlightened immigration views

Maybe this is just an indication that the media is unwilling to report that its simplistic assumptions are unfounded.

I guess "enlightened" in this context means "determined entirely by unimportant physical characteristics". False consciousness rears its ugly head once again. If only we could ensure that "enlightened" views remained unchallenged.

Resolved: The combination of an open border policy, a generous welfare state and the promotion of a multi-cultural fantasy that insists that all cultures are equally desirable is a perfect way for a country to commit suicide.

[MikeP]

Since I'm pretty sure the author advocates only the first of those three, perhaps you should consider a more relevant resolution.

[mangy hair piece]

Without other, simultaneous reforms, maintaining an open border policy is a really, really bad idea.

Better?

[MWG]

Without dramatically slashing the welfare state, SS, and MC, while at the same time ending our military involvement around the world tax cuts are a "really, really bad idea."

[Kevin P.]

Reason continues its dishonest tradition of conflating concern about illegal immigration with "immigrant bashing".

I am a brown-skinned naturalized citizen who spent several years working through the arduous legal immigration process. It seems to me that our immigration system is entirely backwards. It penalizes legal immigrants who try to obey the law, while turning a blind eye to vast numbers of illegal aliens who begin their association with the United States by violating its laws.

If there were only a few thousand illegal entries every year, I doubt that anybody would care about this issue. But in recent years, there have been as many as a million new illegals every year! I have my doubts that the US can successfully assimilate and deal with a million new lawbreakers year after year.

I guess my concern makes me an immigrant basher too.

[MikeP]

Would you support changing immigration law to eliminate immigration quotas and employment limitations -- likely with other conditions to ensure that welfare and naturalization do not become draws for migration -- so all those "lawbreakers" would be legal migrants?

[Kevin P.]

In general, yes. With immigration laws, the devil is often in the details. I would like to continue the existing checks to exclude criminals and those with communicable diseases.

One of my primary concerns is with assimilation into American society. I am cool with new immigrants maintaining their culture and traditions, but not to the extent of setting up a ghetto where they avoid interacting with the larger society. One simple and effective way to avoid this is to require that new immigrants, within 1 - 2 years of entry, demonstrate a decent grasp of written and spoken English.

As a practical matter, don't underestimate the need for cultural assimilation. Immigrants in large numbers will bring the traditions and customs of their native society, many of which are decidely statist, non-libertarian or undesirable in other ways (I can freely say this about my native country, for example). Taking proactive steps to ensure that most new immigrants integrate into American society helps ensure their acceptance by the larger population.

[MikeP]

I would like to continue the existing checks to exclude criminals and those with communicable diseases.

As would I.

I am cool with new immigrants maintaining their culture and traditions, but not to the extent of setting up a ghetto where they avoid interacting with the larger society.

The same was said about all sorts of different cultures and languages during the period of open immigration from before Independence up to World War I. Yet those ghettos, and their languages, persisted for generations without perceptible lasting harm.

[mangy hair piece]

The same was said about all sorts of different cultures and languages during the period of open immigration from before Independence up to World War I. Yet those ghettos, and their languages, persisted for generations without perceptible lasting harm.

The difference is that there used to be an assumption that moving to a new country entailed learning the language and assimilating. Just common sense. If I moved to France, I would expect to be required to learn the language and abide by France's cultural norms. Now there is a deliberate effort to retard or prevent assimilation. Radical ethnic groups demand that they be provided tax payer funded education in their native language, that the history that is taught be scrubbed to conform to their sensibilities, etc. This is just insane.

My favorite example is a MA law that required any public school that had 10 or more immigrant children from a particular country to teach those children in their native language. There were some schools that had to teach classes in more than a dozen different languages. Finding teachers who knew the languages was difficult. The best part of the story is the case of a group of students from a country which had no written language. Their school had to invent a written language in order to teach those children. Ludicrous. I don't know if that law still exists.

[MWG]

"The difference is that there used to be an assumption that moving to a new country entailed learning the language and assimilating."

This is an interesting assumption. Do have any actual facts to back this up? Did immigrants speak english at a higher rate 'way back when' than they do today?

[Kevin P.]

The same was said about all sorts of different cultures and languages during the period of open immigration from before Independence up to World War I. Yet those ghettos, and their languages, persisted for generations without perceptible lasting harm.

I don't know that this has been universally true. You may have read Thomas Sowell's excellent book Ethnic America: A History :

http://www.amazon.com/Ethnic-A.....0465020755

The history of the Irish immigration to America, in particular, is not inspiring to any advocate of individualism and small government (no offence to the modern day descendants of the Irish). The Irish became the foundation stone of the Democratic urban political machine. The votes that this machine has historically delivered to statist politicians has had harmful effects are still with us to this day, at the local and federal levels of government. For instance, I have recently moved to New York, whose draconian Sullivan law against pistols was enacted by the Irish to keep the Italians down. The Irish are probably the best (worst) example of how an ethnic group can immigrate and remain cohesive in a harmful way that last for decades if not centuries.

[mangy hair piece]

regrettable imports from the UK:

bland food
reality TV
the Irish

[mangy hair piece]

OTOH, the Irish have helped to maintain the economy of Idaho.

[Old Mexican]

As with trade, the benefits of immigration are enormous but not obvious. Without constant reminding, they tend to get lost ? including to immigrants themselves. What seems natural to most people is Malthusianism, the view that a country's resources are finite. Therefore, the more people you allow in, the less there is to go around. The idea that immigrants actually expand the economic pie and therefore increase job opportunities and raise real wages is counter-intuitive to say the least.

One of the simplest economic concepts and yet one of the hardest to comprehend (seemingly), is the concept of Division of Labor. It is through Division of Labor that the great expansion in general welfare becomes possible; it is through Division of Labor that productivity (and thus, production) increases, lowering the cost of consumption for more and more individuals.

Yet as Dalmia mentions above, it is Malthusianism that wins out, but I suspect the reason for this is politics: politicians are as ignorant of economics as a slug, unfortunately being far more dangerous to humanity as a result of this lack of understanding. Politicians spread fear, ignorance and division in order to garner political favors, votes and power, making people slowly forget their common sense and moral structure by convincing them of entertaining absurd notions.

What is required is de-programming: A slow but steady education process for the masses, in sound economics. As libertarians, it is not enough we come to blogs and bicker about the Repubs or the Dems; we have a duty to teach people about what makes the world work and debunk irrational and even dangerous notions, like (case in point) protectionism, anti-trade and anti-immigration arguments.

[mangy hair piece]

anti-immigration

Stop that. Just stop. The issue is illegal immigration.

I agree that educating the public about the fallacies of protectionism and Malthusian economics is profoundly important, but the destructive effects of our current immigration situation needs to be dealt with. If open borders + welfare + non-assimilation is not fixed, then there will come a time when rational arguments will be futile and some political opportunists will successfully promote some truly awful things.

Dealing with the three things I mention above simultaneously would work, but the non-existent trust that the public has that the gov't will enforce the law combined with the intense opposition from statists to any scaling back of entitlements would make that kind of "comprehensive" reform impossible.

I do believe that America will continue to welcome new immigrants, but not if it means the destruction of American society.

[Federal Dog]

"Immigrant bashing is not a white-only sport."

Identify, say, ten people who are bashing immigrants, and not restricting their objections to illegals.

Intentional mispresentation of relevant concerns only shows that nothing you write can be trusted.

[MikeP]

Ten? Here's a whole PAC of them: American's for Legal Immigration...

Legal immigration levels should be reduced from the current
historically high levels to lower and more traditional levels.

How about you identify, say, ten people who publicly object to illegal immigration while arguing that the solution is higher quotas for legal immigration.

[mangy hair piece]

(Watches with interest as MikeP deftly google search strokes the ball back to Federal Dog. Awaits FD's return volley.)

[Corey]

mangy, what is your basis for thinking "non-assimilation" is a problem? Do you think Mexican immigrants assimilate slower than other groups historically have?

http://reason.com/blog/2010/07/03/immigration-then-and-now