Immigration

Why Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman Should go After the Hispanic Vote

|

Media-designated GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney plans to put Rick Perry's feet to the fire for not hating undocumented workers enough. Here's former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen dissecting Romney's campaign strategy in the Washington Post:

The Romney campaign also plans to use immigration to drive a wedge between Perry and his conservative base, by highlighting Perry's opposition to a border fence and legislation he signed in 2001 allowing the children of illegal immigrants to attend Texas colleges and universities at in-state tuition. Without mentioning Perry by name, Romney pointed out at a town hall here in Dover that he vetoed similar legislation as governor of Massachusetts, declaring, "If you say, guess what, if you come here illegally, your kids will get [in-state tuition], that draws more people here illegally." Romney strategists believe the immigration issue will be devastating for Perry with Tea Party Republicans across the country — and especially in important primary states like Arizona.

Will Perry run away from his record on immigration? He might, or he could point to Romney's own inconsistencies on immigration. But Romney isn't the only person who sees Perry's tolerance of undocumented workers as a liability. Last week Public Intellectual Anne Coulter compared Perry's immigration policies to those of another prominent Texas Republican during an appearance on Sean Hannity's variety hour. Hannity asked if there was support for a Gov. Chris Christie run. "Yeah, as soon as people hear more about Perry's views on amnesty," Coulter said. "He's just a little bit too much like George Bush." Seeing as Romney supported Bush's proposed immigration reforms, he and Perry will have to share that albatross. 

Meanwhile, the anti-immigration group NumbersUSA gave Perry a D minus for his record as governor, which puts him only slightly above President Barack Obama (who earned an impossible F minus), light years behind a B-earning Bachmann, but neck-and-neck with Romney, who also pulled a D minus. 

Groups like NumbersUSA won't have much sway over the nomination process. But their indices are still useful for a couple of reasons. The first is for rebutting anti-human capital talking points, some of which Shikha Dalmia handily eviscerated earlier today. The other thing they're good for is reminding folks who think peaceable people should be able to work where the market will have them that Obama is just as bad on immigration as his GOP opponents.

A recent Gallup poll shows Obama's approval ratings falling a full 12 points among Hispanics, which suggests Hispanics don't need reminding that Obama sucks on immigration. But they may need convincing that there are alternative options. That former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman–neither of whom sits all that well with Tea Partiers or the GOP's kingmakers–both received F grades from NumbersUSA would actually serve them quite well with Hispanic voters. For while Hispanics may feel disillusioned with Obama, a Latino Decisions poll conducted in February found that 36 percent of resondents think the GOP doesn't care about Latino outreach, while 30 percent feel the GOP is outright hostile to Hispanics. That's a big problem for the larger GOP, but an opportunity for pro-immigration candidates like Johnson and Huntsman. 

Advertisement

NEXT: Presidential Candidate Gov. Gary Johnson: Cut Federal Spending by 43% - and Cut Social Issues From GOP Agenda

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

  1. Johnson should go after any votes he can get. It’s criminal that he’s being ignored and polling so low.

    By the way, I just learned that the city I work in will now be including water rendered from the dead in its water supply. “A man’s flesh is his own; the water belongs to the tribe.”

  2. President Barack Obama (who earned an impossible F minus)

    Impossible? Clearly you haven’t been reading the trolls’ comments.

  3. I remember Tancredo, but what was the name of that other single issue anti-immigration candidate from the last election?

    Also, jerbs.

    1. Tancredo,eh? Sounds Mexican to me.

    2. I think you may be thinking of my former congressman, Duncan Hunter, who has since been succeeded in office by his son, Duncan Jr. He wasn’t single issue, but he did beat the anti immigration drum real hard.

      1. I remember an interview Ron Paul gave during his 2008 campaign where the questioner asked him who among the GOP field he would consider as a running mate if he got the nomination. He hemmed and hawed for a while but finally said Tancredo and Hunter, which I found amusing.

  4. Have we established that illegal immigration is a prime concern of the Tea Party?

    1. Its the reason I left. I went to the first big tea party rally on tax day a couple years back and was a member of their groups online. Then leading members started beating the anti immigrant drum and I pushed back saying, “I disagree with you on this point, but rather than argue, lets just leave this and other social issues alone. Right now the Tea Party enjoys support from both social conservatives and libertarians (it did at the time) but if you keep pushing in this direction you are going to drive the libertarian wing out of the movement and the main goal of shrinking government will be diminished.”

      The consensus response from the leadership was “you can’t be fiscally conservative without being socially conservative and opposing immigration blah, blah, blah. Go ahead and leave blah, blah, blah.” So I did.

      1. I wasn’t aware the Tea Party had leadership.

        1. Each local group does. I could have started my own group, but I’m too lazy.

          1. illegal immigration is not a “social issue” unless you consider the protection of a nation’s borders, sovereignty, etc. to be “social issues”

            the fact that you consider it a social issue says a lot.

            framing, baybee!

            1. blah, blah, national security, blah, blah. But no one complains about our open border with Canada, where terrorists have actually been caught trying to sneak across.

              1. actually, i complain about both.

                but the reality is that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not terrorists. however, mexico happens to be a (generally speaking) third world country and canada is not.

                we don’t see metric assloads of soviet canuckistanis streaming over the border to work here. heck, a substantial %age of canadians, far far prefer their nation, and they can have it (i like visiting, but wouldn’t want to live there myself. to each their own).

                a first world nation like canada, and mexico are not analogous and you know it.

                i didn’t frame it as “national security” because that at least suggests i think the average illegal immigrant is some kind of existential threat. i don’t

                it doesn;’t therefore follow that i think anybody from any nation, who waltzes in here should be accepted and recognized as a us citizen, or the functional equivalent

              2. The US-Canada border is absolutely not open.

                1. tulpa, it’s pretty fucking open.

                  there’s a KIOSK border crossing in eastern WA where people literally check in ON THE HONOR system when they cross. it’s not even manned.

                  or at least it was there about 4 yrs ago. not sure if it still is or they man it now.

                  lots of other examples, but for all intents and purposes – it’s open

  5. I’m surprised that candidates are wasting so much time on the immigration issue. Really, why run on anything at all other than the economy and on reducing the size and scope of the government/debt?

    1. So many dogs to whistle at, so little time.

      1. We have a tremendous capacity to ignore reality, particularly in large groups.

      2. Frankly, I’d run on Soylent Water being people, but I admit, that’s just a local issue. For now.

        1. No, it’s a national issue if that CadaverWater ™ is used in products that get shipped interstate (e.g. cans of soup or soda)

          1. It’s possible. Both Florida Natural and Tropicana operate near here. As does Zephyrhills and Perrier.

            I wonder if there’s a market in bottled water rendered exclusively from dead people?

            1. Dude, I’d totally buy water made from a deathstill.

              1. Awesome. I’m going to be so rich.

                In a comment to my blog post on this, I decided that Pepsi should market this water as Aquafinis (“end water”).

                1. Ok, let me clarify that, I’d buy a bottle, just so I can show it off to those freaked out by it. You’ll probably charge $9 a bottle so you can import slave workers for your mustache wax factory.

                  1. That’s how it starts–as a display for shock value. Then, one night, under the influence of some chemical, you and your buddies decide to crack open some Aquafinis. Others do the same, then it’s a fad!

                    Incidentally, it doesn’t have to be expensive. The manufacturer could just include small percentages of deathstill water in each bottle.

    2. Because they can’t do anything about the economy (or won’t not do the few non-actions that could help) and don’t really intend to reduce the size and scope of the government?

      Also, illegal immigrants get the base riled up. Hate gets votes, and the homos are passe now.

      1. What about. . .no, it’s not possible. Is it?

        What about homosexual illegal immigrants?

        1. They’re taking our (blow)jobs!

      2. They’re taking our jobs!

    3. Because it’s an easy scapegoat to blame for joblessness, “Those darn brown skinned people took all the durn jobs!” And once the scapegoat is identified it provides an easy and understandable (to the economic retards in the general population) solution. “Kick all the mexicans out and we can have our jobs back!”

    4. As long as we have a welfare state the two are intertwined. Sure, there are bigger fiscal fish to fry, but it’s probably more productive for a candidate to slam his fingers in a car door every five seconds for a full day than to run against entitlements.

      1. I know. They just so love dancing around the periphery of real issues and avoiding the core problems.

  6. “We ignore politics most of the time.”

  7. Hey.

    When the coming war starts, who do we kill first ?

    The trust-fund libertarians or the spics ?

    You can’t change the racial makeup of a country without serious problems.

    1. THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID!

        1. Not that I’m obsessed.

          1. THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID!

            1. You guys give us legitimate marionettes a bad name.

    2. Trolls. First, we kill all the trolls.

      1. Without us, the echo-chamber reverb in here would be unbearable.
        You’re welcome.

        1. THAT’S WHAT SHE SAID!

          1. SOmebody hit his reset button.

            1. Easy, now. It’s all he has.

        2. SUPERFAT!

          1. Whoa dude I never thought about it that way.
            http://www.maaloxus.com/index.shtml

        3. But half of you guys are really us, pretending to be you guys.

      2. “Trolls. First, we kill all the trolls.”

        So like one guy then.

        1. With a smartphone!

            1. What kind of phone do you use?

                1. Swing and a miss.

  8. Without mentioning Perry by name, Romney pointed out at a town hall here in Dover that he vetoed similar legislation as governor of Massachusetts, declaring, “If you say, guess what, if you come here illegally, your kids will get [in-state tuition], that draws more people here illegally.”

    Well, we have finally identifed why illegal immigrants are coming here…to get cheap college tuition for their kids. Glad we got that cleared up.

    1. Romney hasn’t dropped out, yet? Why is he still running?

      1. Under that hair is an alien control device that compels him to do their bidding.

        1. He is the advance agent for the coming invasion by the Masters?

          1. Perry’s hair is also suspiciously bouyant.

            1. Of course, the hair is the alien robot invader. The guy under it is just some guy.

            2. Don’t forget Huntsman. Mormon former governors with nice hair are way overrepresented compared to the population as a whole in the primaries.

              1. Why Mormons? Why not something cool like the Amish? I mean, a hardcore Amish presidential candidate would so rule.

                That, or maybe a Zoroastrian.

              2. Vote Herman Cain, he has no Hair Master.

  9. The first is for rebutting anti-human capital talking points, some of which Shikha Dalmia handily eviscerated earlier today.

    Huh? You mean the list of talking points Dalmia pulled out of her ass with absolutely no evidence in support, and plenty of evidence to the contrary?

    There was a time I believed there were some items libertarians were simply mistaken about. Unfortunately I’m seeing a rather large body of evidence accumulating that they’re not simply mistaken, they’re baldly lying their asses off.

    1. Hey, now. Racist shitbags were the other post. Get going, you.

      1. Hate makes people confused about which posts to be in.

        1. HAHAHAHAHA!

      2. I for the life of me will never understand how someone can claim to uphold free market principles and yet not see labor as a commodity.

        1. because one can differentiate stuff inside the “system” iow the borders and stuff external. iow, it is perfectly consistent to say “for those legitimately part of the labor market…” when making these statements.

          1. I’m in favor of free trade between states within our country. Just don’t let any goods in that are made outside our country.

        2. Uh, yeah, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

          If you support laws against, say, bringing nuclear weapons across the US border, you already are not upholding free market principles as they relate to border traffic.

        3. Most commodities don’t vote?

    2. Welcome to the new Reason.

      I still like the old guard for the most part (Sullum, Welch, Gillespie, Walker, Manguward, Cavanaugh, Suderman) but replacing Balko and Moynihan with Dalmia and Riggs has had a serious effect on quality. As annoying as Weigel could get back in the day, this duo is awful with overstating their case and demonizing their opponents.

      And I’m pretty sure I disagree with every single Reason writer on the issue of illegal/undocumented/visa-challenged/special immigration, but I don’t have a problem with most of them, so it’s not simply a matter of Dalmia & Riggs disagreeing with me. It’s the way they argue their position that pisses me off.

      1. Snark = substance. Get with it.

        1. Poor baby. Why don’t you cry about it?

          Oh, you are. Well, at least bitchily naggingly whining about it.

          1. Swing and a miss.

        2. I usually only put commenters on the Axes of Something, but maybe some of the staff writers should be placed among the Glib too.

      2. They’re not giving your side a kids-glove treatment and are calling out xenophobes for the assholes they are. Boo fucking hoo.

        1. libertarian open border people playing the race card is just as dumb as when liberals do it on other issues (as well as illegal immigration).

          sure, there are some opponents of illegal immigration who are racist and informed by same. the same could be said for those who agree with rand paul on a # of issues having to do with private business autonomy, etc.

          it’s a classic libtard argument to assign racist motives to people who disagree with you.

          considering how many times we (libertarians) are the brunt of such idiocy, the fact that some will give it back in spades (RACIST!) when it comes to illegal immigration is pretty fucking sad.

          1. Well said, dunphy.

        2. Too bad there aren’t any sophisticated-sounding epithets for purveyors of circular arguments. My Latin is rusty…maybe “circumcinators”?

          Side note: I just discovered they have comment threads for definitions at Merriam-Webster’s website, complete with dictionary trolls and everything.

          1. Well Dunphy given the tone of the anti-immigrationists and that they’re arguments have been proven false I just don’t see what else is left aside from bullshit nationalism, which could be it too admittedly.

            So Tulpa what did I get wrong?

            1. well, your first problem is that you are conflating anti IMMIGRATIONISTS with those against ILLEGAL immigration

              those are not at all the same thing.

              1. YES THEY ARE when it is almost impossible to legally immigrate into America. That rhetorical device is so over used saying it should result in a PayPal penalty or something.

                1. it’s not a rhetorical device. they are two completely different things.

                  if you can’t discuss this honestly, then fuck off.

                  i would prefer we make LEGAL immigration EASIER, btw.

                  i do not support illegal immigration

                  it’s not a device. it’s based on the fact that people who come here legally and go through the process are respecting national sovereignty. it’s based on the fact that any nation has the authority to determine who can and who can’t enter and what the criteria are for citizenship. this may not be “cosmically fair” to bother a sowell’ism, but life rarely is

                  but we were discussing ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. *not* immigration. you conflated the two. i aint playin’ that

                  1. They’re directly related. When you have a quasi prohibition on legal avenues of immigration as it relates to poor (and much of the middle class) the result is what we have now; a massive ‘black market’ of illegal immigrants.

                    Your argument that you can’t conflate the 2 is a bit like saying ‘we’re not talking about alcohol prohibition. We’re talking about bootleggers’.

                    1. it’s not the same thing. again, we live next to mexico which has massive problems and i can’t blame them for streaming across the border.

                      groovy.

                      but the reality is this. one can support immigration and in the case of many (including myself) EXPANDED immigration and ALSO not believe in (god forbid) open borders or other such shit

                      OF COURSE if one makes legal immigration more difficult, it may incentivize many to illegally immigrate.

                      duh

                    2. So you admit that they are in fact connected.

    3. Your evidence is comedically desperate bullshit. You have absolutely no logic going for your desire for state-enforced xenophobia and that’s why you’re getting really bitchy about it.

      1. Tulpa’s not a xenophobe, he’s a knee-jerk authoritarian. The law is the law and all that. And he loves the idea of ICE raids kicking in “lawbreakers” doors in the middle of the night.

        Like the little kid who loves to watch dump trucks, Tulpa does really care about what gets dumped as long as the dumping takes place.

        1. The Tulpa in your head is a hideous figure indeed. I hope I never run into him in a dark alley.

        2. wow. another great example. if somebody believes a nation should actually enforce its borders, they are a XENOPHOBE.

          the reality is this. we are a country that happens to border a (in many respects) third world country with insane crime, the kind of wealth disparity that would give naomi klein hives, and a metric assload of people who understandably want to come here.

          that’s a reality.

          believing that our nation absolutely has the authority (authoritah) to enforce laws about who can and can’t enter is not xenophobic.

          1. I said he wasn’t a xenophobe. Didn’t they teach you to read in beating-homeless-people-to-death academy?

            1. yea, but reading comprehension was an elective. and between that and Emptying Your Gun into Harmless Lap Dogs 101, i made the obvious choice.

            2. dunphy merely responded to the wrong post. You were calling people who questioned open borders “racist shitbags” upthread, so the criticism is valid, if slightly mistimed.

          2. Except it’s already been demonstrated a million times over that the violence is NOT spilling over and immigration is all good no bad. There’s no rational basis for the anti-immigration laws so it’s just authoritarian BS.

            SugarFree you nailed it.

            1. 1) i never said the violence was spilling over. the violence in mexico was cited as one of the reasons why mexicans WANT to come here – less violence. i never claimed illegal immigrants were more violent or less violent than citizens and people here legally (visas, etc.).

              2) “immigration is all good and no bad”. for the umpteenth time, this is about ILLEGAL immigration, not immigration, setting aside the subjective “conclusion” you just made.

              i’m not aware anybody here is against immigration. personally, i want MORE immigration

          3. if somebody believes a nation should actually enforce its borders, they are a XENOPHOBE

            Go easy on SF. He only knows a few words.

    4. I do especially notice the fact that those two keep patting each other on the back about “eviscerating” the other side’s “talking points”. A rational person, aware of their own bias, might let others who don’t already disagree with said talking points determine whether they’ve been “eviscerated”, but not so in this case.

      It’s the same fart-sniffing that goes on at Newsmax and Kos, I’m afraid.

  10. Oppo to the border fence: fine, especially in Texas where the fence along the Rio Grande was going to do serious damage to ranches and wildlife.

    In-state tuition for illegals? Not crazy about that one. Which is actually not exactly what Perry did.

    He extended in-state tuition to legal immigrants and to immigrants currently bogged down in various immigration bureaucracies. If you are just an off-the-rack illegal not currently seeking legal status, no in-state tuition for you.

    1. There’s no place for technical details like that here at Reason.

  11. Are Hispanics single-issue voters where immigration is the only thing they care about? Maybe they are, but is there a poll or anything indicating that? I’m asking out of genuine curiosity.

  12. From the link with the NumbersUSA grades:

    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has spoken in favor of high-skilled work visas.

    Given as a reason Romney is “soft” on immigration. Huh? Anti-immigration people are so fucking weird.

    1. But they’re not against immigrants, just illegal ones. Really!

      1. For example, immigrants from Canada are OK as long as they’re white!

        1. No no no. Canada is a (more) socialist country than the US so EVERYONE FROM THERE IS BAD. They We will ruin America because we hate freedom. Duh.

          1. Oh, yeah, good point. Better build walls to the north as well. Which, of course, means more American jobs!

            1. WINTER IS COMING, ProL Snow. And the Canadians are The Others.

              1. Do you think they’ll ride in on polar bears?

                1. What polar bears? They’re all trapped on ice bergs at the moment. Rapidly melting ice bergs.

              2. Canadians are wildlings. You know nothing, Jon Snow.

                1. That’s exactly what they want us to believe, and then they wake up and have weird blue eyes and hate fire and move like zombies. Oh wait, that’s Canadians now.

                  1. You, on the other hand, are more like some swarthy Dornishman.

      2. Tired meme is tiring.

        1. Nothing else happened!

          1. SUPERFAT!

            1. What kind of phone do you use?

  13. Yes, because as mostly social conservatives who vote for wealth distribution they’ll be voting for the libertarian Gary Johnson.

    The Libertarian Gnomes:

    Step 1: Bring in large numbers of strongly Catholic/increasingly evangelical poor people from socialist countries to a country with an already expanding welfare state.

    Step 2: ???

    Step 3: A socially permissive state with limited government!!!

    1. The Dipshit Racist Gnomes:

      Step 1. Do not allow people freedom of movement based on origin/race/religion.

      Step 2. ???

      Step 3. I have no idea what shitheads like you want, so insert your Caucasian utopia scenario here.

      1. I’d like a socially permissive state with limited government.

        The only person who’s fixated on race/ethnicity is you.

        And FTR, not that it matters, but I’m not even Caucasian – so find another way to dodge the point.

        Although an anarchist calling others utopian is at least amusing.

        1. A socially permissive state, unless it comes to freedom of movement and therefore labor, of course. With a limited government that’s not that limited so that it can keep out all the furriners and man all the gates and walls.

          It’s hilarious how you endlessly dodge that point, though.

          A statist nativist calling others utopian is at least amusing.

          1. Don’t argue with the retard, Epi. Just gives his man-tits a couple of squeezes for good luck and then ask him to sing you a loud, tuneless song about avocados.

            1. I’m full of shit, you know.

              1. SUPERFAT!

            2. I already did that.

          2. Dude, if you’re going to come up with insults, you can at least come up with your own material. And well, shit that makes sense. Unless you’re now going to say that statist nativism does not and cannot exist. (I.e., is “utopian.”) I don’t even think anarchism is inherently utopian, I’m just pointing out the irony of someone who’s likely blasted with the word all the time wielding it again others.

            In an ideal world filled with libertarians, I’d be a one-worlder, open borders, maybe even anarchist guy, with a completely flexible labor supply. But most of the world isn’t and hasn’t been populated with small-government libertarians, let alone anarchists. And people aren’t mere economic units, they bring their own ideas and intentions. Making it unprofitable for business to hire illegal aliens wouldn’t be that difficult or require a police state, though providing state with that power is unsavory to me in a vacuum.

            Then again, I think we’re doomed, anyway, due to a combination of the greediness and short-sightedness of the average native voter when it comes to government benefits and cynicism of the average politician. Nope, I’m not even that big of a fan of the natives, except in comparison to the rest of the world.

            But it takes a fool or an intentional suspension of disbelief to think that the way to achieve even a local libertarian polity is to advocate inviting in large amounts of religious poor people from areas of the world with even weaker traditions of respect for individual liberty.

            But why even bother talking to you? It’s clear I’ll receive nothing but name calling – eh, who cares.

            1. So you’re a utilitarian. Got it.

              1. “So you’re a utilitarian. Got it.”

                To participate at all in politics, except as a heckler (you’ve got that role down), you have to be.

                1. That’s a negative assessment of politcs, btw, not deontologists.

                  I’d personally prefer that politics be as inconsequential and boring as possible. But our political process obviously isn’t run by me. So for now I have to deal with the political process as it is.

            2. We already have all the people you just mentioned. Socialism wasn’t brought to America by Mexicans.

              1. So? Do you pour gasoline on fires just because, too?

                And we didn’t get here instantaneously. Indeed in the 1930s, immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe made up a large part of the urban coalition that gave us the New Deal regulatory state.

                1. Urban coalition? Pretty sure farmers were a much bigger part of that.

                  1. In the South, yes. But in the North, he got much of his support from the political machines in the cities that lorded over the ethnic ghettos.

                    Another thing that I think is often missed by Libertarians is that immigrants tend to be some of the most important domestic interest groups for foreign policy interventionism, because they tend to bring their old pet causes with them. My mother, for example, is a determined non-interventionist…until you mention the home country… This tendency was actually mentioned by Washington himself in farewell address.

      2. “Catholic poors from socialist states”=racism?

    2. While I’m somewhat sympathetic to the overall outline of your argument, it’s not religion we should be worried about, it’s the comfort with corruption and the expectation that govt is a tool to screw over people you don’t like.

      Of course, there’s already a lot of that here among native born Americans, so maybe the impact won’t amount to much.

      1. Religion affects voting and views towards government, so it is a factor that should be considered. Particularly when you take into account, for example, the strength of the Catholic church on social and political issues in Latin America. And its heritage of both traditional corporatism and Maxist liberation theology.

        That said, I think you’re right that it is generally less of an inherent threat than acceptance of patronage and corruption.

        …but I do also find it amusing to see people who hate the religious right and who generally predict a coming cosmotarianism be completely oblivious to the religiosity of certain immigrant groups…and be completely blindsided by what should have been completely obvious results on, for example, referendums in places such as California.

        1. Who the fuck chooses what religions get to come in? You?

          1. In our current circumstances, that’d be owners of the country, through their representatives. Dun, dun.

            Which isn’t to say they can’t be foolish, but it’s the current system at least on paper. (In practice, of course, it works differently.)

            But, again, why should I even bother explaining myself you do you? You don’t think any immigration policy or standard on any basis should be applied. Which is fine as far as it goes, but in this context it makes you a concern troll.

            Accepting that it can be applied and there will be limits, it’s rational to take into account the general cultural background of a location when deciding geographical quotas.

            1. There are statutes on the books that say you can’t discriminate on the basis of religion, gender, or race when it comes to immigration. So if your position is that we have to uphold the immigration laws, that means we have to uphold the anti-discrimination variety too.

              I don’t think it would be unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of religion or race, since the 14th amendment only applies to persons within one of the states. But it would be a despicable thing to do.

              1. To begin with, I’m not talking about law. I’ve never argued with should enforce the law ONLY BECAUSE it is the law. (Though -in general-, I think rule of law/stability is a good thing, provided the laws are generally just.) Given our circumstances, I think immigration restrictions make sense on their own merits. Especially with a welfare state.

                However, I will say this:

                1. We still have geographical quotas, which are to some extent stand-ins for other factors which remain unstated. (These quotas are decided somewhere under the table for particular reasons.)

                2. We had geographical quotas that were even more explicit long after the 14th ammendment. I’m not necessarily justifying those specific quotas, just saying.

                3. Don’t conflate race with religion. Religion is, though admitteadly to some extent inherited, ultimately a matter of choice. There’s nothing inherently despicable about discriminating on the basis of religion. It depends on the religion.

                I could come up with some obviously extreme, but illustrative examples to make this point – starting with the human sacrificing Aztecs and ending with the state-worshipping Hegelians known as progressives.

                To give a real world example (I happen to be more of a Middle East expert than I am Latin America), I think the principles of Wahhabism should very much be considered when determining immigration quotas and conditions from Saudi Arabia. It shouldn’t be that controversial, though it no doubt often will be, to suggest that there are not very many lovers from individual liberty from Saudi Arabia.

                1. Apologies for the length, or if I misunderstood where you were going with anything.

          2. Whatever Epi… Nothing says small government like spending billions to hire border police to keep out poor people seeking work that could instead be done by union finger-breakers at three times the price.

            1. Which is exactly the point he/she avoids, every fucking time.

              1. Setting aside the slur that I’m in favor of unions (other than as merely free associations), I haven’t avoided anything.

                In a nutshell, I think that:

                a) Immigration policy, like some form of military, is a necessary evil.

                b) A government that only enforced immigration laws would be a fraction of the size it is now.

                In short, your disingenuous is showing again.

                1. An immigration policy to keep out the dangerously infectious, the criminal, and the terrorists is righteous. What you are calling for is more social engineering bullshit. A Libertarian Strategy for victory by statism.

                  1. there’s a disconnect here.

                    given that govt. limits the NUMBER of immigrants, they have to discriminate on account of various factors – education, mad skillz, whatever.

                    but certainly, at least imnsho, it is entirely appropriate for a govt. (elected through the people) to apply strict criteria to those who wish to enter.

                    not to overplay a meme – but it’s a privilege, not a right.

                    heck, good luck getting in to canada to VISIT, if you have a dui on your record.

                    that’s their fucking prerogative.

                    (cue: bobby brown…)

        2. Over half of the native population in the US is Catholic or Evangelical, so I remain unconvinced about the importance of religion.

          It was actually the Obama-inspired bumper-crop black vote that pushed the gay marriage ban over the finish line in CA, not the Hispanic vote. Though the reaction from the left was indeed despicable, (and on gay marriage, that includes Reason) complaining about those excess darkies screwing things up by voting — you know, the people who claim to be all about increasing racial minorities’ voting power when they’re opposing ID requirements at the polls.

          1. Well, a few things.

            First, my girlfriend’s evangelical (I’m an agnostic myself), so I’m personally aware of that.

            But it begs some questions.

            1. Is our Catholicism/Evangelicalism itself a net plus or net minus for liberty? Your mileage may very.

            2. Not all Catholics and Evangelicals are the obviously same. Latin America, in particular, happens to have particularly politically active strains of Catholicism that are extremly heavy on “social justice” and general corporatism. Not all Latin Americans happen to buy into it, naturally, but any immigration policy will have to deal with generalities.

            1. but any immigration policy will have to deal with generalities.

              Which is problematic, because only individuals immigrate. Generalizations have no correlation with individual choice.

  14. “Why Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman Should go After the Hispanic Vote”

    Hello! I am the Hispanic vote. I am monolythic because Hispanics all think with just one mind. And all the men are named Pedro and the all women are named Maria.

    1. I hope you don’t mind that I read this in Inigo Montoya voice.

      Oh Oracle of The Hispanic Vote, can you do anything to get a really good taco truck to park near my office?

      1. I don’t always drive taco trucks…

        1. “I don’t always take a shit at work, but when I do I play Angry birds”

          1. You too? Looking at tumblr porn blogs is also a good option.

      2. I am glad you asked that. Not because I have an answer, but because your question provides an opportunity to point out that the only thing Pedros and Marys eat are tacos delicioso!

        1. Try to pay attention to the racist trolls around here, The Hispanic Vote. When the Pedros y Marias aren’t busy eating tacos, they are stealing our jerbs, sometimes having brown skin, and/or speaking Spanish.

          1. Los bastardos.

          2. I speak Hispanic. And let me tell you, there’s no such thing as “Hispanics” as a political class. Mexicans hate Cubans hate Puerto Ricans hate Colombians. And so on. Maybe not so much hate as “are scornful of.”

            1. Mexicans are quite dominant in the category of Hispanic Americans.

              Nearly two-thirds of Hispanics in the United States self-identify as being of Mexican origin. Nine of the other ten largest Hispanic origin groups?Puerto Rican, Cuban, Salvadoran, Dominican, Guatemalan, Colombian, Honduran, Ecuadorian and Peruvian?account for about a quarter of the U.S. Hispanic population.

            2. From the data at the link, there are (as of 2009) over 7x as many Mexican-Americans (31.7M) than the second-largest Hispanic country of origin group (Puerto Ricans, 4.4M).

              1. No doubt, but there’s a couple of things to consider. First, even among Mexican immigrants, there are the ones who’ve been here forever, and the newbies.

                Second, the concentration of Mexicans, though not what it once was, is surely far higher in border states. For instance, I doubt seriously that Mexicans are a majority of the Hispanics in Florida.

                1. That’s only because Florida is close to another Hispanic country.

                  I’d be surprised if the Hispanic population in Chicago, for instance, was not mostly Mexican.

                  1. Might be. Lots of Mexicans up there.

                    In New York, I bet the Puerto Ricans dominate.

                    1. Puerto Rico is close to New York. Only a couple of moves on the RISK board for North America, iirc.

                2. Yup. I know a lot more Puerto Ricans than Mexicans. Hell, I think I’ve met more Columbians than Mexicans in Florida.

                  1. ?Mierda! Las Cuba?as, tambi?n – lo siento, Carmen.

                    1. I assumed the Cubans.

                  2. I’m married to a half-Colombian, as you may recall. She’s from Virginia, though.

                    I’ve noticed an influx of South Americans here in recent years. We’re about maxed out in Cubans, I think. And, of course, we do see more Mexican laborers here, so I bet they’re the fastest growing population of Hispanics in the state.

                    1. Yes, I’ve actually known about as many Cubans as Puerto Ricans. To an earlier point you made, no, they generally don’t like each other (hence the apology to my friend).

                      I’ve met a fair amount of Columbians, who seem to be the most common Spanish speaking SA nationality around here.

                3. so, you are saying mexicans can’t swim?

                  RACIST!!

                    1. well, they are racist too!

                      it’s racists all the way down!

      3. “I hope you don’t mind that I read this in Inigo Montoya voice.”

        I did find it offensive as Inigo Montoya killed my father.

    2. Not true! I know one named Jose.

  15. Media-designated GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney plans to put Rick Perry’s feet to the fire for not hating undocumented workers enough.

    Right, because anyone who wants to physically enforce national borders and doesn’t want to subsidize the education of people who aren’t members of the community must be motivated by hatred of “undocumented” immigrants.

    Another Riggs special, served tepid.

    1. Deportation at gunpoint is an act of love in Tulpa’s universe.

      1. Okay. But you’re not listening to me. There are other things that need to be taken into account here. Like the whole spectrum of human emotion. You can’t just lump everything into these two categories and then just deny everything else!

      2. note the logical fallacy. if it’s not an act of love to enforce a law, one is motivated by hate.

        got it.

    2. exactly, it’s pretty much an instant fail to assign the motivation of HATE to a person who has an opposing pov.

      and again, considering how often libtards use this against libertarians – e.g. we hate the poor, minorities, the disabled, etc. etc. – it’s pretty fucking ironic that it is used so often here when it’s useful to avoid actually discussing the issues.

      the way to go is demonize people you disagree with by calling them racist, therefore nothing they say has validity.

  16. Doesn’t Romneycare also increase labor costs for employers? No wonder they start hiring illegals then.

  17. considering how often libtards use this against libertarians – e.g. we hate the poor, minorities, the disabled, etc. etc. – it’s pretty fucking ironic that it is used so often here

    The same people doing the same thing isn’t ironic.

  18. EVERETT, Wash. — A pit bull was shot and killed by police officers Monday night after it attacked an officer and a police dog, Everett police said Tuesday.

    Officers were called to a fire in the the 3200 block of Rucker Avenue around 10:50 p.m. to help the Everett Fire Department investigate the scene for any possible arsonists, said Sergeant Ryan Dalberg with Everett Police.

    As an officer and a police dog searched for any trails leading from the fire, they came across a man in an alley way holding a pit bull by a harness, Dalberg said. The dog was not on a leash.

    The officers told the man to leave so they could continue their investigative work, but Dalberg said the man became belligerent and combative. Officers told the man he was going to be arrested for obstructing the investigation and to give the pit bull to a woman who was with him.

    The man handed over the harness, but Dalberg said when officers went to arrest him, the man continued to resist.

    “When they physically tried to place him in the handcuffs, he became violent and started fighting with the officers,” Dalberg said. “At that point, the pit bull became enraged and broke free from the lady’s grasp.”

    Dalberg said the pit bull bit the police dog and the dog’s handler. The handler used a Taser in an effort to stun the dog, but to no avail.

    The dog then latched on to the handler, Dalberg said, requiring more drastic measures.

    The officer pulled out a gun and shot the dog once. It got the dog to let go, but didn’t have any other effect on him, Dalberg said.

    “The dog kept charging at another officer, forcing him up on the hood of a car,” Dalberg said.

    At that point, several officers opened fire, fatally wounding the dog.

    Dalberg said as officers were tussling with the dog, the man being arrested also had to be Tased to stop resisting. He was eventually taken into custody and booked for investigation of third degree felony assault on a police officer.

    The police dog handler was taken to a local hospital where he was treated for minor dog wounds then released. The police dog was taken to a veterinarian for treatment of non-life-threatening dog bites and Dalberg says the dog will be back on duty soon.

    1. Don’t worry, Reason will continue comparing police encounters with dogs to those of malemen nonetheless.

      1. “Malemen?” You’re lucky you said that late in the day on an obscure thread. Otherwise, people might take advantage of your typo.

      2. malemen

        Hey Commodore, you going to Chippendale’s tonight?

        1. “We got one big package – special delivery – just for Tulpa!”

      3. I fear I was premature in declaring you safe from mockery. I neglected to take into account the time difference.

        1. No one expects the Spanish Derision!

        2. I consider mockery from the Axis of Glib to be a badge of homor.

    2. Right, that’s usually how it goes.

  19. Gary Johnson’s favorable/unfavorable among New Mexico Hispanics is 52/32% (among whites it’s 39/32%): http://www.publicpolicypolling…..M_0208.pdf

    Perry isn’t too popular among Hispanics, odd that he’d be compared with Bush: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..83582.html

  20. This is a irresponsible and intellecually lazy (i.e., stupid) column from Mike Riggs.

    Opposing amnesty for illegal aliens is not “hating undocumented workers.” Amnesty would harm taxpayers, grow government, fuel disrespect for the rule of law, and hurt our jobless citizens.

    Too bad the dolts at Reason can’t seem to grasp this.

  21. I’m on G. Johnson’s e-mail list, and I told him several months back about doing this. His stance on drug legalization would deal a major blow to the drug cartels terrorizing Mexico nowadays. Got no response back on it.

    Johnson’s problem is he took time off from politics and is now expecting to make a dent on the national scene all of a sudden. He should run for senate instead.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.