California's Dead End Republicans

What the immigration debate reveals about the future of the California GOP


Whenever I write and speak about California's dire economic and political situation, I am met by people who demand answers. "We know the state is in a mess," they say. "Why don't you tell us how to fix it rather than harp on all the bad news?"

Simple answers are nice, but sometimes there aren't any. As I retort, anything that will fix California can't possibly become law given the political environment here. Anything that can become law won't correct the problem. Perhaps Californians can come up with some state-saving ballot initiatives, but I don't see any Prop.-13-like movement on the horizon.

So we watch as the state lumbers along, with its budget deficit, growing pension liabilities, crumbling infrastructure, and broken political process. Many Californians, especially older ones tired of fighting losing battles, have headed to other states, mostly conservative ones throughout the inter-mountain West. I don't blame them, but I'm not going anywhere. This is home—and a beautiful one at that—and maybe things are not yet hopeless.

But reformers need to take the longer view. There's no magic wand, no single policy that will return California to past glory. It took a long time to create the current mess and it will take time to unravel it. Reform will require broad coalitions that include many of our fellow Californians who don't share our political views. This is a Blue State after all. There are few specific policies that will go anywhere, so for now the GOP—which, for better or worse, is the only real alternative to the Democratic machine—should be about ideas, about putting together a new bundle of issues, and revisiting some old, failed approaches and policies.

Let's start with the tough issue of immigration. The Republican grassroots is angry at the perceived waves of illegal immigrants crossing the border from Mexico. Activists are at odds with the business community, which fears additional layers of regulation and needs a growing low-cost workforce. Republicans admit that Latino voters tend to share their values, but mostly vote for Democrats. That's in part because of the GOP tone on immigration, which is harsh and off-putting.

Virtually every Republican Assembly or Senate candidate poses in some campaign mailer taking a tough stand at the border. Candidates try to outdo each other to appeal to the conservative voters who turn out in the primaries. This helps win the race in the short term, but does long-term damage to the Republican brand.

A few months ago, I wrote about Republican legislators who were part of a press conference sponsored by Russell Pearce, the Arizona state senator who sponsored that state's controversial anti-illegal-immigration law, SB 1070. Pearce and the California Republicans, I wrote at the time, "featured families who were victimized by illegal-immigrant criminals, thus making the not-so-subtle suggestion that Mexican immigrants are a danger to us all." They introduced an Arizona-like bill they knew would go nowhere. It was about posturing.

Earlier this month, Pearce was recalled from office and replaced with another conservative Republican. His replacement, Jerry Lewis, supports a tough line on illegal immigration but promises a more "civil tone." Tone can be as important as policy when it comes to sensitive issues, especially ones that revolve around ethnic issues.

I'm not against taking tough stands and using tough language on most issues. Politicians who are too focused on "civility" often are just trying to shut down a debate that's not cutting in their favor. But when a major party's approach to an issue is needlessly costing it the support of a growing population, it's time to look for fresh approaches.

"You know I'm a conservative, Steve," said Paulo Sibaja, a Sacramento-based Republican activist and friend of mine. "But I've been so put off by the immigration rhetoric of the Republican Party that it sometimes makes me question whether I should even belong to the party." This is a widespread sentiment.

Some prominent Southern California conservatives recently introduced a plan for a guest-worker program. The details aren't as important as the message, which is that some Republicans recognize the current GOP approach toward immigration is counterproductive.

The Obama administration and the Bush administration have essentially solved the immigration problem by killing the economy. "Mexican census figures show that fewer Mexicans are setting out and many are returning – leaving net migration at close to zero, Mexican officials say," reported the Los Angeles Times. "Arrests by the U.S. Border Patrol along the southwestern frontier, a common gauge of how many people try to cross without papers, tumbled to 304,755 during the 11 months ended in August, extending a nearly steady drop since a peak of 1.6 million in 2000." Drug violence and border crackdowns have contributed to the reduced flow also.

A calmer immigration approach would help make the Republican brand more palatable to non-Republicans. Then the GOP needs to focus on what some people call the "Politics of Aspiration." The party needs to develop an agenda that revolves around opportunity, around policies that help everyone—especially those in the working and middle classes—get ahead in life.

Lower-income Californians suffer most from the policies advocated by the state's dominant Democrats. Liberal environmental policies impede upward mobility by driving up home prices. Union domination destroys public services, especially education, and leads to higher taxes and debt. The Democratic regulatory approach is great for those who already have made their millions, but it makes it nearly impossible to start a small business and build wealth.

Unfortunately, as I wrote last week, the GOP is going in a different direction. GOP legislators mostly supported those redevelopment agencies that run roughshod over the property rights of average people. The GOP is still fighting losing social battles rather than recasting itself in a more libertarian direction that could appeal to broader audiences by rallying around the issues of freedom and opportunity.

This sort of change won't happen overnight, but it's time to recognize the problem.

Steven Greenhut is editor of

NEXT: Does Anyone Else Remember Newt Gingrich's ad with Nancy Pelosi About Climate Change?

Immigration Conservatism California

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

207 responses to “California's Dead End Republicans

  1. Stick a fork in the CA Republicans. Love my home state, but the GOP represents the San Joaquin anti-immigration crazies despite the need for farm and oil labor. CA should be a libertarian powerhouse, but won’t because the Republicans have gone full retard and completed conceded LA and SF.

    1. “Republicans have gone full retard…”

      double-secret retard considering the huge backlash against the gop immigrant haterz in GA & AL who screwed their states’ farmers, builders, restaurants, & hotel/motels.

    2. CA is the antithesis of libertarianism and has been for decades. It is so big govt that DC looks hands-off by comparison. The gay marriage bill was defeated on the strength of the black church vote which, in every other issue, votes Dem.

    3. A mere 40 or so years ago, California was a libertarian powerhouse, or at least as close to one as you were going to see in this country.

      Guess what was one of the major contributing factors to fucking that up was?

      1. the government?

      2. The massive number of white Democrats that live there?

      3. City-states and agriculture?

      4. Gamboling?

      5. Well, I can’t recall…

  2. Immigration and some other shit like marriage are the stupidest issues for republicans to latch on to. Why do they do that shit?

    1. Crypto-fascists need minorities to scapegoat.

      1. Just to clarify, when I scapegoat rich people for all the problems, it is not the same thing.

        1. no, Tony, of course not. When you scapegoat the rich, it is the usual Dem class warfare pap. When you accuse others of scapegoating illegals by cleverly calling them “minorities”, you are pandering. CA’s problem is not having too many rich people, it’s having too many tax consumers leeching off everyone else.

          1. can u not tell that was an obvious spoof ?

            1. it’s Tony; the only spoof is his pretense of deep thinking.

              1. or…ur spoof was weak

                1. you can stop kissing Tony’s ass now

        2. Right. It is actually fascism in your case!

        3. Only in this fucked up country are the rich considered an oppressed minority despite being richer than they ever have been.

          1. only by a fucked up party can people who have succeeded be targeted as the enemy.

            1. Not everyone thinks in militaristic terms. Raising taxes to Clinton-era levels is not oppressing the rich.

              What never seems to get through your guys’ skulls is that if a person is rich, he is by definition not being oppressed.

              1. What never seems to get through your guys’ skulls is that if a person is poor, he is not, by definition, being oppressed.

    2. My mom is one of those. She’s afraid having queers and immigrants nearby is going to “change the culture.” When I ask her how, she seems concerned that things would be more Mexican or perhaps more stylish. It’s pretty contorted. Anyway, she’s much much more concerned about the metric tons of money the feds like to set on fire, so she joined a Tea Party.

      1. Since Mexicans and Latin Americans do have a culture, you mom has a point. More Mexicans = a change in culture. Whether or not that cultural change is bad is another issue.

        Since homosexuality is (presumably) something you are born with, your mom is probably wrong there. It’s unlikely their numbers will either increase or decrease due to any legislation.

        1. even if we were to buy the idea homosexuality is innate there would certainly be more openly homosexual persons the further government fosters and celebrates it.

          1. Look, I’m not gay. And since I left college I don’t even know anyone who is anymore. I don’t spend any time thinking about gays. Except when I’m talking to Team Red homophobes, who never cease to bring up the subject. Are you really that freaked out by it or have you just not come out of the closet yet?

            1. the charge that those who oppose something that has been considered a perversion for most of human history must secretly like such perversion is absurd. by that logic racists secretly long to be minorities.

              homosexuality is not natural and should not be sanctioned by government in any sane nation. its a perversion of the natural sex act, can you deny that?

              1. please explain how gay marrage harms straight marrage ?

                1. by suggesting they are equivalent. its as if the government in its labeling power suggested chocolate ice cream and carrots are equally fattening.

                  1. no, “harm” is a legal term which requires remedy. >pls explain how exactly gay marrage HARMS straight marrage?

                  1. no again crunchy. that link, while interesting reading, does NOT posit how gay marrage HARMS straight marrage requiring remedy. >pls explain exactly how gay marrage HARMS straight marrage?

              2. its a perversion of the natural sex act, can you deny that?

                Yes, I can deny that. Homosexual behavior occurs naturally in other species, as well. I don’t know how you define natural, but it looks fairly natural to me if a range of animals engage in it.

                1. in none of those species it is the norm.

                  1. Neither are odd blood types. That doesn’t mean they are a perversion of “normal” blood types.

                  2. I gotta tell you, from the perspective of everyone on the planet who is not a homophobe, you guys looks like a bunch of retards running around with pitchforks demanding that we burn the witch. Somehow it’s the fault of the evil cabal of queers that your cow died or your crops were flooded. From afar, you appear to be absolutely insane. But, if it makes you feel any better, I’m sure gays find you just as disgusting as you find them.

                    1. Speaking as a heterosexual, I too find these homophobes as disgusting as they find gays.

                  3. “in none of those species (homosexuality) is the norm.”
                    You haven’t been around other species, like dogs, too much I guess.

              3. All sex acts can be broken down to the fundamental purpose for friction on the genitalia. This is natural. You are full of shit.

                1. Dogs eat vomit and excrement too. Do you suggest people should follow the example there also? Fact is, “homosexual” acts by dogs are not sexual at all, but examples of social dominance and submission. Like when one guy says to another, “Hey, suck my d__k!” It is not usually meant sexually, but rather only socially.

              4. “a perversion of the natural sex act,”

                All sex is perverse if you are doing it right.

              5. Just because something is abnormal or unnatural doesn’t mean it should be illegal or discriminated against. I’m married with two kids, and my family is in no danger of falling apart just because there’s a gay couple living four houses down. If more people would get over those stupid fear tactics perpetuated by the Christian Taliban and the right-wing media, this country would be a lot better off.

          2. even if we were to buy the idea homosexuality is innate……
            is someone still selling that? It IS innate, just like having a specific eye color or body type.

        2. Forget the mexicans, just make sure we don’t let the damn irish in. Those people have no respect for anything.

  3. OK wow that actually makes a lot of sense dude.

    1. Fuck Satan, Grey Aliens, and the Annunaki. The Reptilians shall be defeated.

  4. That’s right California’s problems are caused by the 3 Republicans that live there! Let in more stupid fucks that will make everything fine. If California and the other 49 states would eliminate welfare, food stamps and subsidized housing we would have plenty of people to do the shit jobs.

    1. Only once the last 3 republicans in California are gone, will California improve.

      1. Yeah, one party states are amazing.

  5. Whenever I write and speak about California’s dire economic and political situation, I am met by people who demand answers.

    1. screwed up my own post….Monday is off to a flying stop. Was gonna say that one of the answers people demand is to the state’s do-nothing approach to illegals, which has cost CA a small amount of money. If you do not have borders, a language, or a culture, you are not really a country. You are a larger equivalent of Afghanistan, or what this place used to be when the Indians roamed – a collection of tribes sharing nothing beyond common boundaries.

      1. California Democrats have a great combination of open borders and generous welfare benefits. CA voters want a bankrupt state, they got a bankrupt state.

        Blaming CA Republicans because they recognize at least part of the problem is silly. But this is Reason where purist Libertarians like to tilt at windmills.

        Get rid of the welfare state, then talk to me about immigration.

      2. “the state’s do-nothing approach to illegals, which has cost CA a small amount of money”

        There can be relatively open immigration without it costing any money. So the illegals are not the cause of the problem there.

        The United States does not even have or need one english language. And culture is total bullshit.

        1. maybe there CAN be such immigration, but it’s not happening. Not here. Of course, the high presence of illegals contributes to the problem. It also contributes to artificially lower wages since businesses know they can get away with paying an illegal less.

          If the US does not need one language, explain how those who do not speak it have any hope of advancement. Then explain why one side seems determined to block any requirement of newcomers learning English. All the immigrants of hte 20th century managed to; why is this crop different?

          And ask Europe how the multi-culti attitude is working for it. Balkanization is not a good thing. Just ask folks in the Balkans.

          1. All the immagrants of teh 20th century’s KIDs managed to. I’m not sure that all the immagrants themselves did.

            1. They didn’t. I have a bunch of grandancestors and greatgrandancestors to prove this. (respect).

              1. What the fuck are grandancestors and greatgrandancestors?

        2. And culture is total bullshit.

          Hmm, I seem to remember a very good book written by Thomas Sowell. Race and Culture. He has written an entire book about the significance of culture.

          Educate yourself. Unless you already know everything in which case you need not bother.

          1. I already know everything. And culture is bullshit because everybody has their own to the point that they divide themselves in to groups of like ten people or less. Culture has no meaning in the mythical “strong country”.

      3. I don’t really care whether other people here have a different culture/language/whatever. I just want individual liberty. Full stop.

        1. So you want a culture of individual liberty as long as it isn’t called “culture”?

      4. If you do not have borders, a language, or a culture, you are not really a country. You are a larger equivalent of Afghanistan

        Afghanistan: a country with at least 3 major languages, 4-5 major ethnicities, who have one of the most fought-over borders since alexander the fucking great…

        that’s offically the stupidist thing I’ve read today, and there’s some serious competition out there, what with the supercommittee announcing joint-incompetence.

        The below was cute: particularly the bike-rides.…..ory_1.html

        The threat of the automatic cuts, falling equally on military and domestic programs, was supposed to ensure that a deal would be reached.

        Committee members met for dinners and several even took bike rides together in an effort to build the trust that would enable them to make decisions that could anger powerful industries and interest groups before the 2012 elections.

        They had a clear blueprint for agreement. Other budget-cutting panels, including one set up by Obama, had concluded that lawmakers need to wring out the loophole-laden tax code and rein in health benefits that are set to balloon over coming decades as the population ages.

        In the end, Republicans were unwilling to sign off on tax increases while Democrats balked at a dramatic benefits overhaul.

        more accurate read: “In the end, they all decided to do nothing and blame each other for any possible consequences. Hey – its an election year! get ready for a rollercoaster ride of bullshit for the next 12 months~!”

        1. I assume they meant clear borders, and a single predominant language and culture, in which case aren’t you agreeing with them about Afghanistan?

  6. Republicans admit that Latino voters tend to share their values

    Social welfare dependency and ethnic identity politics?

    It’s absurd to characterize “Latinos” as holding some uniform set of beliefs and values. Republicans may not be getting their “fair share” of the votes of like-minded voters in this demographic but the welfare dependent, government employee and graduate degreed members are mostly natural left/dem.

  7. Why can’t libertarians achieve any political power in CA?

    1. Because fiscal responsibility is for pussies.

    2. Because all they ever do is biatch about liberals and welfare.

      As far as I can tell, libertarianism isn’t a set of ideas as much as a set of shared dislikes. If A libertarian candidate offered realistic solutions, I’m sure they would have some visibility.

  8. To me it’s pretty simple. You can have a wide open door for immigration but eliminate a bulk of the welfare state, or have a wide open welfare state and limit your amount of immigration. Folks seem to want both – open borders and massive welfare state, but that is unsustainable and you get the wrong kind of people coming across the border (parasites, not go-getters). I am a conservative and I say let’s have an open hand to immigrants but they have to make it here the same way as everyone who is already here (and who has come before) — through hard work, dreams, sacrifice, ingenuity, innovation, etc. That should be the Republican position – come one, come all to take part in the American Dream, but the government is not going to subsidize your stay here. What is wrong with that? How is that anti-immigration?

    1. Sure, you can have mass immigration and no welfare state, up until the low-income immigrants become the majority and vote themselves free shit at your expense. The truth is that a relatively libertarian society grows out of a specific cultural context. If that context is dramatically changed, the kind of society that libertarians claim to want cannot exist.

      1. Shhh… This is “Reason” where Libertarian purity is not to be questioned.

        1. As long as we don’t fall into the ungood mindset of statists, the libertarian goddess Ayn Rand will send her prophet, John Galt, to deliver the true Libertarians from the corrupt, Mexican-style state that will emerge thanks to mass Mexican immigration.

      2. We’ve been through all kinds of “cultural contexts” over the years. Why is the present one the “right” one?

        1. There’s a clear difference between Mexican and American societies resulting from their cultures. Which culture are citizens fleeing from?

      3. the fuck are you saying? have you done any non-superficial thinking about “the kind of society that libertarians claim to want”?

        the non-aggression principle is culture-independant.

    2. “or have a wide open welfare state and limit your amount of immigration”

      This solves nothing.

      1. As always Colonel_Anus is talking out of his ass and says nothing intelligent!

  9. the most prominent libertarian in the country has long pointed out the proper government role in keeping the integrity of our territory. a nation that allows anyone to just walk in and get everything a longtime citizen gets is not a nation at all.

    past waves of immigration, with their attendant social ills, gave us the progressive movement and its big government solutions. libertarians should oppose immigration for this reason if no other.

    its part of the social reengineering of america by our liberals. they hated our nation in the past as being too white bread and uptight and went to work. there was a time when a gay mexican atheist would have been extremely uncomfortable in the us. now a straight caucasian christian feels out of place. that is liberal government engineering.

      1. What a calm, reasoned response.

        1. That’s how I respond to people who want gay Mexican atheists to feel uncomfortable.

          1. they would not have felt uncomfortable due to any government coercion so much. the natural feeling of the populace at the time would have saw them as ‘odd’ and treated them as such in employment, service, and social discourse. its government that has changed all that, our ‘betters’ telling us not to be so ‘uptight’

            1. So coercion by means of bigotry is an American value?

          2. maybe the gay mexican atheist would feel more comfortable if he wasn’t sneaking into someone else’s property. Why do you not expect mexican immigrants to meet the same standards expected of the irish, italian, german, polish, and asian varieties?

            1. Do you have facts? Or are you just revealing the racist assumptions you have about Hispanic immigrants?

              1. the facts you seek number in the millions. When someone says illegal immigration, how often have you thought that the problem looks Scandinavian? Just admit you’re a liberal; it makes your knee-jerk use of the ‘racist’ trope more understandable.

              2. dylan, these social “conservatives” substitute radio entertainment for substance.

                1. geez o-cubed…what happened to the “fox news” talking point? You libs all sound alike. When faced with malicious truths, you target the speaker.

                  1. and to think teh regular libtoidz here call u a sockpoppet

            2. maybe the gay mexican atheist would feel more comfortable if he wasn’t sneaking into someone else’s property

              Okay, but what about the hypothetical non-trespassing gay mexican atheists who have made a voluntary contract with with a californian property owner to rent their property? Why should either of those parties need the permission of the government to make that contract?

              1. because landlords are icky and need to be carefully controlled.

        2. As oppossed to blaming “teh immigrantz!” for our ills?

        3. That depends on the ill. If it’s one that has little, if anything, to do with immigrants (like our foreign policy adventurism), I’m not going to blame them for that. But if it’s an increasingly burdensome welfare state, depressed wages, higher housing prices, an overburdened infrastructure (especially hospitals and schools), or the loss of social cohesion due to the influx of culturally dissimilar people, then I’m going to acknowledge the role that mass immigration plays.

          1. The most burdensome part (by far!) of the welfare state is the entitlement systems, which are drained by citizens.

            Social cohesion is a vague term. If you mean having the same culture, it is useless. If you mean civil stability, it is not relevant to immigration.

            1. If you mean civil stability, it is not relevant to immigration.

              Only if you feel that immigrants are fully interchangable with US citizens, like spare parts in a car.

              Incidentally, countries like Belgium have suffered political turmoil when you have both a strong language and cultural divide.

              1. How dare you question the Davos Man view of human nature. We are all perfectly, 100%, unquestionably interchangeable. Ignore those strife-ridden ethnically diverse countries in the corner.

              2. ———>
                stormfront is that way bro

                1. < ——-

                  Overused cliches is that way

                  1. Well, I was over that way, pointing toward stormfront. So ha!

                    Anyway, I’d rather use an overused cliche than be a racist who depends on a false pretense of superiority over those born to different-looking people in certain combinations of latitude and longitude in order to have any sense of self-confidence.

                    1. Glad to know that you favor affirmative action. Clearly, because I say so, if you do not, you are a racist. You can’t have any opposition to affirmative action except racism, again, because I claimed it. Any argument you make against affirmative action or immigration is racist, right?

                      Sorry, I know it is only 2:00 but this thread has caused me to desire a large drink.

                      For a magazine called Reason…..

                    2. FMG, what the hell are you talking about?

            2. Go ask native residents of Malmo how cohesive immigrant Muslims are.

      2. Great rejoiner.

    1. hey cornhole – stick to something u know cause teh lub-rahlz aint it

  10. “Mexican census figures show that fewer Mexicans are setting out and many are returning ? leaving net migration at close to zero, Mexican officials say,”

    Because Mexican officials are a totally objective source. Cui Bono? In any case, the mess in Hispanicized California just shows how the immigration policies championed by leftists and libertarians will have disastrous results by the standards of the latter.

    “Republicans admit that Latino voters tend to share their values”

    Latinos are poor, uneducated, likely to be on welfare, resentful, and ethnocentric. Their upper class benefits handsomely from affirmative action. They’re like black people who speak Spanish. And guess which political party the blacks vote for?

    1. ^^^ This.

      It’s the social side of massive immigration. It’s culture change, and that’s what many people who don’t live in areas with lots of Mexican immigrants can’t really grasp.

      I kinda like my culture. If I wanted it more like the immigrants want it, I’d move to Mexico.

      1. That be raciss’

      2. I’d be interested to hear your definition of ‘your culture’. I live in AZ and feel no threat to ‘my culture’ whatsoever, though I do enjoy carne asada from time to time.

        1. Well let me tell you what has happened to “my culture” in the last decade or so due to a significant influx of Mexican immigrants (many of them illegal, but that’s neither here nor there). There are some that are obvious, like Spanish being used more and more frequently. Want to teach at a school here? You better be bilingual?the majority of children starting school don’t speak a word of English. Speaking of schools, our schools are in constant budget shortfalls. Due to the explosion in the number of students, they have to build new schools at a breakneck pace to keep up. The only problem is that the property tax collections that fund them have remained stagnant?.which is to be expected when you have 3 or 4 families living in the same dwelling where one used to live.

          But there are lots of little things. Trash is EVERYWHERE these days. I finally got tired of picking it up out of my yard. It didn’t matter. The more I picked up, the more was dropped from the hands of those walking by who didn’t care.

          You know that little red flag on your mailbox? We don’t use those. It signals to many individuals that stuff is inside?.and it might be a birthday card someone is mailing out to a grandkid with money inside. You raise the red flag, and your mail will be gone before the postman arrives. Mail being dropped off in your box is almost as bad. If the theft of mail gets any worse, I’ll have to get a PO Box. As it stands, ALL of my bills are direct drafted. Partly out of convenience, but partly because you never know if you’ll actually get anything that’s mailed out to you.

          Crime has increased. Vandalism has increased. We now have Hispanic gangs, where gangs of any kind used to be a foreign concept.

          Oh, and recall that I said that you have 3 or 4 families living where a single family used to live? Can you imagine the line to use the bathroom? Neither can I?..and apparently they don’t worry about it. The yard works just fine as a toilet. #1 or #2, it really doesn’t matter. Just pop a squat by the neighbor’s fence and do your business.

          And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. This is the kind of thing that happens when people want to come here, but they don’t want to be part of our society. They want to transplant their culture and supplant the one that already exists.

          Is it their right to do so? Why or why not? They can only keep their culture at the expense of mine.

          1. I really can’t stand the stupid anymore

            Post hoc fallacy

            1. Funny that those post hoc occurrences seem to have a ridiculously high rate of correlation with rates of immigration….

              1. It’s not just America. This experiment didn’t work so well in Japan, either:

                1. Oh no! poor Japanese, having to live in a “multi-ethnic” neighborhood! And in public housing! Hey! Only citizens can take my money!

            2. Well, considering that a study to prove my observations wouldn’t be politically correct, I guess we’ll never know, now will we? But certain items can’t be disputed. Hispanic gangs? Not white people. Kids that don’t speak English in school? Not white people.

              But maybe you can do me a favor, come to where I live, and study the phenomenon to help us solve these issues and prevent this:


      3. People are eating tacos!
        People are dancing at parties!!!!!! People are speaking a different language!!
        People are wearing big hats!!!!!!

        The Horror!!!!!!!

        1. The people have a high rate of children born out of wedlock. The people speak a different language, which lowers social cohesion, allows their bilingual elite to more effectively wield them as a political weapon, and tends to make them vote more as an ethnic bloc. The people are even more likely than blacks to be on welfare. ?Only 33 percent of the people consider themselves “Americans” first.

          1. The number of people on welfare is simply a function of the amount of money our government appropriates toward welfare. It has nothing to do with the number of poor people in the country.

            1. dylan stop. The govt sets the standard by which the poor are defined so any actual number is meaningless. Welfare growth is function of playing to either sympathy or ignorance and, often, both. People don’t want to seem callous toward the poor so they don’t ask who is being defined as poor.

            2. “It has nothing to do with the number of poor people in the country.”

              Because the budget for welfare NEVER grows to adjust for the welfare-dependent population, it remains exactly the same from year to year. Dear sweet Jewish Jesus, where does reason get its genius commenters?

              1. If you think that welfare would shrink do to changes in the population you are an idiot.

          2. White and/or “American” culture is for the most part tacky and trashy anyway. Watch CBS, NBC, ABC, WGN, and FOX (I don’t). The best thing is just to be a hermit.

        2. Actually, just the “Press 1 for English” thing is annoying the hell out of me. Soon it will be “Press 2 for English”.

          1. I’m annoyed!!! Kick out these people who want a better life for themselves. They annoy me!!!!!!!!

            1. if they want a better lifestyle, let them do like generations of immigrants before them. Frankly, your lower expectations of mexicans than of european or asian immigrants is bigotry in itself. Not learning English will not lead to a better life; it guarantees a life of menial labor. And public benefits.

              1. I don’t expect anything of them. I don’t care. You, cornholio, and crunchy con are the ones who are obsessed with what immigrants do.

                1. the obsession is yours. I expect them to do like any other immigrants who have come here, to include members of my family – come through the front door, learn the language, become a naturalized citizen. You, on the other hand, seem to prefer low-cost gardeners and nannies. And you are worse than originally thought; even the bigotry of low expectations beats no expectations.

                  1. None of our ancestors did what immigrants are expected to do now to come through the “front door”. My wife’s family waited 9 years for the proper visa. Our ancestors just showed up, got checked out for typhus, lice, etc., were assigned an Anglo-sounding name, and off they went.

                    The experience and legal requirements are in NO WAY comparable to what people had before.

                    1. got that shit right

          2. HURR DURR


            1. This is like the worst chat room ever.

    2. wait a sec, me thought libertarians were a cut above. cornhole aint nuthin but a typical gop haterz

      1. I love it when my opponents act like jackasses. It warms my heart.

    3. “Latinos [and blacks] are poor, uneducated, likely to be on welfare, resentful, and ethnocentric.”

      Some or all of these things also describes rednecks, hippies, “the middle class”, chinamen, polocks, guidos, a-rabs, and both kinds of indians. That boat has already sailed.

      1. Most of those groups have one or two of the qualities I mentioned, but Hispanics (and blacks) encompass them all. And in any case, do we really need more people with those qualities if we already have so many?

      2. sorry, no. As a group, rednecks have jobs, don’t want help from the govt or much of anything to do with it, help their neighbors, take care of their kids, and do not drain the system. Much the same could be said for chinamen, polocks, guidos, a-rabs, and spot indians. Feathers may be the ultimate welfare class.

        1. …don’t want help from the govt or much of anything to do with it.

          I have no idea what kind of rednecks you know, but in Kentucky and southern Illinois, where I grew up, literally half of them are on welfare (primarily food stamps).

          1. rednecks, by definition, are folks who have jobs, families, and likely epitomize Obama’s bitter clingers. White trash is something else; THAT is what you are describing.

          2. He knows Larry the Cable Douche and the wannabe cowboys from country music television. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that the slobs around I-57 exist.

      3. Nothing racist about Colonel_Anus….chinamen?
        Now for a fact Blacks and Latinos, on average, have very low IQ’s and the Chinese, on average, have high IQ’s.

        1. “Nothing racist about Colonel_Anus….chinamen?”

          Irony is apparently totally lost on you.

          1. Irony for what purpose??? The post he was replying to had no racist terms.

  11. If anything, Steven undersells how out-of-touch the California GOP is these days. The harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric is, of course, poor electoral strategy in an immigrant-heavy state, but it’s just a symptom of their bigger problem: defining themselves on social conservatism (e.g., anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, etc.) at a time when the state is overwhelmingly pre-occupied with economic concerns. There’s a large audience of people interested in an alternative to Jerry Brown’s taxes/regulations/crony-capitalism vision of California, but the GOP isn’t making an effort to capture them.

    1. “There’s a large audience of people interested in an alternative to Jerry Brown’s taxes/regulations/crony-capitalism vision of California, but the GOP isn’t making an effort to capture them.”
      Who, exactly? I want to know who this supposedly discontented group in California that Republicans can attract without a “have the government redistribute Whitey McAnglo’s stuff” platform is made up of, because I strongly suspect they don’t exist outside the minds of libertarians.

      1. Well, um, for a start, there’s the majority of Californians that consistently rejected Jerry Brown’s tax-hike plan in the spring and summer.

        1. Did they reject the spending as well? Or are they just unrealistic?

    2. “The harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric is, of course, poor electoral strategy in an immigrant-heavy state”

      Are you so sure? Admittedly the numbers are different now, but in 1994 California was also a heavy immigrant state, yet by popular vote easily passed Prop 187 (a strong anti-illegal immigrant measure, which was later killed through lawsuits and a political deal).

      1. There’s a middle ground. Immigration restriction tends to play pretty well in states where immigrants are a large minority, but not a majority. That’s because an overwhelming majority of voters are people who have to deal with its effects in a major way, and there aren’t yet enough immigrant or immigrant-descended voters to override them. But I think California’s past the point of no return. We might as well hand it back to Mexico, since it’s basically an outpost of that country.

    3. There’s a large audience of people interested in an alternative to Jerry Brown’s taxes/regulations/crony-capitalism vision of California,

      Most of them are probably just interested in a different taxes/regulations/crony-capitalism vision of California.

  12. “A calmer immigration approach would help make the Republican brand more palatable to non-Republicans.”

    Which non-Republicans? For most Hispanics, immigration is a secondary issue. What they care about is the welfare state (and the elites care about their AA privileges). Same with blacks. So basically, the huge, massive voting bloc that Republicans could convert into rabid Republicans by advocating open borders would be…”Reason”oids. That 0.0001% of the vote must be in some key districts.

  13. Am I the only one who is pretty confused about just what is the overall point of this article? There are almost no Republicans in the state anymore, but they are the ones screwing it up? I thought the real culprit was the state’s massive entitlement programs (like letting public safety workers retire at age 53 at over $264,000 salary!!)…..2ba9016134

    Ironically, one of the values that hispanics probably share with Republicans in the desire to get the border under control. I’ve met plenty of hispanics who are also fed up over this issue. But the Democratic Party just seems more “hispanic friendly” so they tend to vote that direction. It’s largely a PR problem.

    1. Er, no. Lower-class Hispanics really like the welfare state, and upper-class Hispanics really like affirmative action. And the Republicans really can’t beat the Democrats at either of those things.

  14. I’m all for the free movement of capital and labor, but as Milton Friedman pointed out long ago, having open borders while desirable in theory is incompatible with the presence of a welfare state.

    1. Shhh. Milton Friedman was impure. Ayn Rand sent him to statist hell.

  15. Same with blacks.

    In national polls (smaller ones vary widely), blacks are the most anti-immigration demographic, and they prioritize their immigration stance more highly than Hispanics do.

    So in the next Reason immigration column, Democrats will be called upon to disown the Negro, to show they’re not a party of reactionary dead-enders clinging bitterly to a past where the racist black vote was significant?or tolerable.

    That is, unless the libertarian? anti-anti-immigration position is some kinda bullshit.

    1. “blacks are the most anti-immigration demographic, and they prioritize their immigration stance more highly than Hispanics do.”


    2. Dems have, in fact, RE-owned the Negro, and that fact is evident in virtually every liberal policy initiative. By every statistical measure, black households rank lower than any other group and the heavy hand of govt is a big culprit in that. The War on Poverty did more to harm black families than the worst Klansman could have dreamed of doing.

      1. “The War on Poverty did more to harm black families than the worst Klansman could have dreamed of doing.”

        But blacks seem to be pretty okay with it. Remember, in West Africa a traditional family typically features a feckless or absent father and a mother who provides any material support the child is likely to have, perhaps with some help from relatives. Liberal policies simply allowed the re-Africanization of black families.

        1. Causewhites aren’t feckless dads.…..wn-up.html

  16. open borders? obama has deported a RECORD amt for 3 yrs.

    1. Yeah…about that:…..amar-smith

    2. Let’s face it: Barack Obama has too many welfare-dependent illegal immigrant relatives (thinking here of his Aunt Zeituni and his Uncle Omar), to be strongly against illegal immigration.

      1. and another birther slimes out fm under a rock

        1. Well, the “Birthers” are saying Obama wasn’t born here, something I can’t speak to either way. I’m just saying he has relatives who are here illegally. Get your buzzwords right.



  17. What the hell? The homophobic, xenophobic, racist SoCons really turned out on this thread…

    1. Hey, I didn’t say anything about the gays. Actually, I personally prefer gay Mexican immigrants to straight Mexican immigrants, because they don’t make welfare babies.

    2. oh good; the usual liberal riff-raff shows up with the usual pejoratives in attempting to dismiss those who reject state-opia.

      1. Hey, your types are the statist tools using analogies like home invasion to describe illegal immigration, as if the people collectively owned all of the US….

        Also, I’m a libertarian.

  18. Drugs and illegals….what Reason lives for!

  19. The Latinos who populate the CA don’t tend to be the cream of crop of their nation. They benefit the economy by flocking to low level jobs, but they also add to the blight of certain neighborhoods and the welfare state.

    Not a small number of Asians and blacks have decidedly uglier views on Latinos than the GOP who they don’t vote for. Black on brown violence is fairly common. I’ve talked with Asian business owners who worry that unsupervised Latino workers will steal merchandise or miss work by drinking too much.

    The GOP could appeal to independents (who support tough immigration policies) by toning down their rhetoric which is admittedly over the line sometimes…… outside of California.

  20. But we need an electric fence and guard towers! Otherwise we will invaded by the secular, Muslim, Mexican terrorist hordes!

    Seriously, when culture become a human right? Where in the constitution does it say English was bestowed on the US by our creator? If you’re culture can’t compete in the free market of ideas, then I don’t feel any sympathy.

    1. ^^ Bingo. You would be astonished how many people consider it a “right” to only hear english being spoken.

    2. language and culture tend to define nations. Otherwise, you just have separate tribes inside a common border, like Afghanistan.

      And, nice try at the straw man argument; rather unlikely that a heavily Catholic nation like Mexico is going to export either secularists or Muslims.

      1. But answer plainly: do you have a right (akin to speech or assembly) to only hear your preferred language?

      2. Nationalism has never defined the US. Italians, Germans, English, Dutch and French have different cultures, and things got rocky occasionally in the past, but now everything’s pretty good. Oh wait, I forgot, those are all “white” people. America is not and will not be “separate tribes” either, as long as we have one legal system, it’s fine. The problem with Britain is that they have separate courts for Muslims. We still prosecute all Mexicans under the same laws as all Americans.

    3. Seriously, when culture become a human right?

      It never was. So why is it that immigrants come here and are given free reign to change the existing culture to their wishes rather than assimilate into the one that’s here?

      That’s the hypocrisy of this situation. I don’t have a right to my culture. That’s fine, but then neither do they.

      So who should adapt?

      1. Nobody has to adapt. They don’t have to speak english if they don’t want to, and you don’t (by law) have to learn spanish.

        Now they may choose to learn english to more easily get by, or you may choose not to patronize certain businesses if you have trouble understanding their employees, but that’s up to each individual.

        Remember…there are no collective rights. ONLY individuals have rights. You could live in the middle of Mexico, and have a neatly kept lawn, a well maintained home, and speak only english. You would have your bubble of preferred culture right in the middle of a completely alien one…and that would be your right. It is not a group zero-sum game.

        1. Yes, and who do I contact about the loss in MY property value due to the neighborhood that was once nice but now is trashy, and where people have no problem taking a shit in their back yard?

          What about schools that are failing because the “culture” of these immigrants is to simply use the public school system as an expensive baby sitter?

          You seem to imply that I can keep my culture and they can keep theirs, and that is demonstrated to not be the case. If it were, people would probably not self-segregate.

          1. Your loss of property value is no one’s concern but your own. You do not have a right, you are not entitled, to a certain property value level. The loss of value is a risk you voluntarily assumed when you purchased property. You can quite easily keep your own culture, and they keep theirs. If you don’t like the fact that theirs vastly outnumbers yours in your specific area, then, as you correctly point out, self segregate and move somewhere where you feel more comfortable.

            You’re arguing that you have a right to control what other people do with and on their property. You want to force them to keep their property clean, so that your value will stay at a certain level. You want to blame the problem of publicly-funded collectivist gov’t schools on the existence of immigrants…when the problem is the existence of publicly-funded collectivist gov’t schools.

            You do not have a right to tell other people what to do with their property, or command them to speak a certain language. Period. The end. If you believe otherwise, then I really can’t discuss it with you any more, because you’re some sort of authoritarian, and the philisophical differences are simply too great to bridge.

            1. You’re right. Too much of a philosophical divide. I live in reality, you live….somewhere else.

              Maybe one day, you’ll experience similar things and come to the same conclusion that others have: that this whole immigrant thing isn’t what it’s cracked up to be when the immigrants only care about themselves and don’t want to be part of society.

              I’m certainly not allowed to do anything I want to do on my property, and for good reason (and neither are you). Because sometimes what I do actually does affect others.

              1. the immigrants only care about themselves and don’t want to be part of society.

                Well I guess that’s not something a libertarian could ever stand for.

            2. You do not have a right to tell other people what to do with their property.

              WTF?? What are you basing this on? In the United States anyway, you don’t have the right to continually blast your car horn at 2am, even if you are on your own property. You can’t fire your guns in the air for fun.

              Similiarly, uncollected trash poses a nuisance and a health hazard for neighbors. Piles of old tires are breeding grounds for mosquitoes. You are correct that no one has a right to be insulated from a particular culture, but they can certainly complain when neighbors behave in other ways that bring property values down.

              I guess what I’m saying is that your right to your own property should stop when it starts to affect my property, and the law generally reflects that. There’s nothing “authoritarian” about that concept.

              1. John, that’s exactly what I was getting at. When YOUR actions on YOUR property affect the property of OTHERS, you’ve now exceeded your rights.

                You may think you have the right to blast death metal at ear splitting volume 24/7….and you do. But I also have the right NOT to hear it. So at some point, some compromise must be drawn, and THAT compromise is what society deems to be “normal”, and thus the basis of the culture.

                What’s normal in Mexico isn’t normal here, and what we consider to be normal here would have us jailed in some other cultures.

              2. So uncollected trash = immigrants?

                How does my hiring illegals per se harm your property? If you say “wages” it will have become so general (kinda like the PPACA mandate) as to place no practical limit on what the government can do in the name of “not affecting property.”

                1. Generally trashy living conditions are a characteristic of many immigrants that I see here. Generally not cleaning up, leaving stuff laying around, cars parked in yards, home “improvements” that lower the value of their homes AND mine.

                  I had a neighbor a few years ago that decided to build a privacy fence. Fair enough. Except instead of fence planks, he chose to use scrap pieces of plywood and OSB in random shapes and sizes that he had collected off construction sites. Classy!

                  And illegals are just a subset of the problem sector of immigrants (and not all cause problems….but it seems like the ones that come here and don’t cause problems also assimilate into our society).

                  The issue is a group of people who want to transplant a 3rd world culture into typical American neighborhoods. And to be fair, there are plenty of Americans who have made their neighborhoods shitholes by choice. Which is why I chose not to live there.

                  I have my property rights, just as everyone else does. When you do something that lowers my property values, it can be argued that that is a form of theft.

                  1. While your anecdotal evidence is appreciated, it is totally irrelevant (empirical evidence, please).

                    You have not answered how illegals per se cause harm to your property. You have noted how someone (I don’t even know if this is an immigrant) may have created an eyesore next door. That, however, does not answer the question.

                    1. While I apologize for the anecdotal evidence, I’m obviously not alone, given that a few states have passed their own laws trying to crack down on illegals. Obviously, if having tons of 3rd world illegals was all roses, no one would be doing that, right?

                      And I’ll point out AGAIN, that no one is going to study and publish that these problems are caused by immigrants, because it’s not politically correct.

                      And short of drawing you a picture, here’s how someone else affects the value of my property (and it doesn’t matter if they’re illegal, an immigrant, or what color they are): You and I own houses next door to each other. As in many subdivisions, the houses are similar, and of similar value. You, exercising your property rights, park several cars in your yard (some don’t even run), you use blankets instead of blinds, you play loud music all the time, you throw wild parties late into the night, and fun stuff like that. You also paint your house bright orange.

                      Now, before you moved in, both my house and yours were worth, say $200k. I put mine on the market, because I don’t want to live next door to the junkyard your residence has become. There’s only one problem: neither does anyone else.

                      Basic supply and demand. Demand for my house just went way down, and with it, there goes the price. And I know this, because I declined to look at some homes because of the neighborhood environment.

                      And that’s one house. To say nothing of increased crime, poor quality of schools, and the other issues that have arisen since the great migration of unskilled, uneducated immigrants to my area. But I’m sure it’s ALL coincidence, right?

                      As an aside, this same thing can happen with people and their vehicles. Some states are now allowing damages for diminished value following an accident. Even though the at fault party’s insurance covers the direct damage to the property, the victims have found out that their car isn’t worth as much as it would have been. Go figure, potential buyers of my used car actually factor in that it’s been in a wreck.

                      Once again, it’s not all black and white, and anyone who has had to deal with a scenario like this knows it.

                    2. And even if immigrants do cause damage to your property, the answer isn’t to make immigration illegal, it’s to make vandalism illegal.

                    3. Thank you TIH…exactly!

                      It is not the immigrants per se that actually affect property values, it is certain action by people (not just immigrants). Criminalize the action, not the people.

                    4. Metazoan, according to you, these people aren’t breaking any laws, they are exercising their private property rights.

                    5. You’re short on reading comprehension today, aren’t you? I never said anything about my property being vandalized.

                      My property hasn’t been touched. But that doesn’t mean that the actions of others haven’t affected what it’s worth, since you can do things on your own property that are outside the norms for the culture that most others in society disagree with.

                      Here’s a practical example: I want to buy up numerous houses within 200 yards of where you live, bulldoze them, and build a drag strip.

                      All weekend long, it’ll be loud cars roaring down the strip from noon until midnight.

                      Now, will you be on my side at the city council meeting, standing up for my property rights, or will you be fighting me tooth and nail because you don’t want to live next to a drag strip?

                    6. Well this depends on whether you consider loud noises to be criminal. Constant loud noises can cause damage to your health, and I think it’s fair to make that illegal (and I would personally class it as vandalism, but whatever). It doesn’t make sense at all, though, to say “look, you might make loud noises so you can’t be allowed to buy this property which I could buy, even though I’m just as likely to make loud noises, because I’m a native, you see?” But the answer is really, yeah, build the drag strip. Just don’t keep me awake. This has nothing to do with immigration, though.

                    7. No, you are short on reading comprehension GW. Do you know what per se means? Maybe not. It’s a Latin phrase that means “in/through itself.” I am saying that immigrants do not necessarily cause depreciation in property values, while you are pointing out how one could cause these depreciations.

        2. Gojira: exactly. Thread win at 2:14PM

      2. Nobody has a right to keep their culture intact forever. Some immigrants assimilate, some don’t. Granted, learning English English is easier in the long run,, but Spanish is no better or worse for America than English. They’re not changing the culture by force, restaurants and other stores are advertising to Mexicans by choice. If you don’t like the fact that businesses are appealing to Mexican culture for profit, then you have a problem with capitalism itself.

        1. It might not be a right, but if you want to survive as a country, you sure as hell better have a common culture.

          Mexico is a hellhole. So turning the US into another Mexico is really going to be a good thing?

  21. The “meta” problem in politics is that the domestic economy is working just fine right now, thank-you-very-much. Interest rates are low, housing is affordable, productivity is up, GDP is growing, oil demand is high, and even tax revenues are on the increase.

    But none of this is translating into plentiful jobs. Unemployment is high because … its suits classical “maximum economic efficiency” at this point in time (and probably for some time to come). We have a massive surplus of labor, and those who hold commanding positions in the economy simply don’t want to make use of that surplus labor. The business sector’s choice to dial back on employment is no different than the choice to dial back consumption of copper or pinewood or coal or vinyl. But dialing back on the use of labor is much more politically portentious than dialing back the use of some commodity.

    We have tied access to everything from flat-screen TVs to basic prenatal care to an individual’s employment. So, politically, we just can’t accept a “natural” state of high unemployment, no matter how suitable it may be to economic efficiency. Politics will unceasingly demand “full employment,” in defiance of all economic reality, until (1) employment is artificially increased by political manipulation or (2) and individual’s access to basic amenities supportive of a fundamentally decent life is “decoupled” from the contingency of employment.

    Many people respond to this conundrum by trying to wish away the thing that will never disappear: politics. Without politics, the workers would have no choice but to “suck it up,” fend for themselves, and take the pain without complaint. Won’t happen. (Thank God.)

    Other people try to wish into existence the thing that will never exist: a perfect overlap between “efficiency” and full employment. Somehow, if all the right policies were put into place, everybody would have a job. Nonsense on stilts. Throwing lots of people overboard is a key mechanism for how the capitalist ship steams ahead.

    Good luck to Greenhut, but wishful thinking is a hard thing to overcome.


    Has everyone seen or heard about the typical American worker, lining up for jobs that are now open after the raids from ICE, leaving wide gaps in staff needs throughout the country. It is obvious to the most prudent of people that if illegal migrants and immigrants fearful of ICE arresting them are fleeing custody. Then business owners really have no choice but to advertise in the local press, or just hang out a hiring sign for legitimate labor? Finally Homeland Security, with the ICE division is sweeping down on criminal companies, who think they exempt from Immigration enforcement. The manifest lightening ICE raids began with the Postville, meatpacking plant in Iowa, when 390 undocumented immigrants were arrested and taken into detention. Soon after the lines grew in volume as Americans turned up for a job opportunity, These are not isolated incidents as other companies have been caught red handed, by the sudden appearance of ICE agents and creating more employment.

    This can be accelerated by the ‘The Legal Workforce Act- widely known as E-Verify. It is very distressing that citizens and legal residents must fetch this to the attention of politicians, of a great many who appear to be uninterested to the plight of American workers–that the US government have ignored this illegal alien problem for decades, seemingly denying even the real population size or the massive costs to Americans taxpayers. It’s proven that they just don’t care, or that the interests of Washington lobbyists and the enormity of money flushed into their campaigns by corporations is more important to them than their constituents. Those who enter America illegally are come here for jobs, but are well acquainted in the public entitlement aid structure and are better adapted to use forged ID to get their share of taxpayer dollars–over a hundred billion of those dollars? This astronomical entitlement programs going to migrants and overstay immigrants is going to continue, unless politicians pull-the-plug by enacting the E-Verify law?

    A Republican Representative In Decatur, Micky Hammon stated, “The truth is more Alabamians are working today thanks in part to our decision to crack down on illegal immigration.” It is his name on the immigration bill that became law, the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. Birmingham-area unemployment fell by nearly a full percentage point from 8.9% in September to 8% in October. Illegal alien families are leaving, so what other proof do the Congress need to show that immigration works if imposed?

    The ‘Legal workforce Act’ like the tough policing laws in Alabama especially; also adopted in a similar fashion in Georgia, Arizona, Indiana and South Carolina, are producing surprising results of foreign nationals moving away to less inhibited states. Sanctuary States like California, Nevada, run by majority leaning Liberals will soon apprehensively find welfare costs will sky rocket. Is it no conjecture that the Democrats, Liberals and the elitist wealthy Republicans are getting uptight, throwing any piece of ambiguous information?whether the racial card or slurs in their newspaper columns of leftist media. In just the last few days was the fact that a German executive from Mercedes Benz Corporation was arrested in Alabama, evidently displays that the new policing laws are working.

    I would expect nothing else in immigration enforcement to uphold our laws. The same if the local police pulled me over for a traffic offense, and then I would be ready to display my driving license and insurance card. Both major parties are adamant in ‘business as usual’ so nothing changes for the career policy makers; that are why our country is slipping even deeper in to a recession. These privileged leaders only enforce laws, except where they are of an advantage to their interests. Of late it’s ‘Insider Trading’ that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) majority Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) and others hope this blemish will fades away in their Congressional record? Look at the seemingly cover-up in the Obama administration with the massive government guarantee for the ‘Solyndra’s’ solar panel corporation that will cost taxpayers $500.million dollars bailed out once again by taxpayers.

    The American people’s own advantage comes in future elections, when we have the opportunity to rid Washington of these rascals. Not only can we vote for more TEA PARTY selected leaders whose main agenda is to repack the US government Departments and return them to the control of the 50 states. Then additionally completely trash the Tax Code, which has been profoundly corrupted giving massive tax liberation of subsidies to thousands of corporations, business and well placed friends of legislators, while the rest of us have to pay the tax-man.

    Nobody says we shouldn’t attract the highest skilled works, specifically in the Sciences, engineering and other technology. But within our country the most urgent need is for utterly zero-tolerance enforcement for all illegal aliens no options; that’s what the TEA PARTY believes?

    Rep. Smith’s THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT’ (H.R.2885.) The ‘Ways and Means Committee led by Majority Speak John Boehner (R-OH) must adopt the Mandatory E-Verify Bill (H.R. 2885.) This would be a great start to cutting down on illegal foreign workers, in every occupation. Don’t be put off by screeners, just keep the barrage going till lawmakers know where you stand on this issue. Call this number at the Washington Switchboard 202-224-3121. Consider that Pro-sovereignty sites as NumbersUSA and hundreds of organizations such as American Patrol, Federation of American Immigration Reform, CAPS, Heritage Foundation and others have the answers on costs, surveys and analysis.

  23. Mexico had a 1 party, left wing government for what, something like 70 years?

    But hey, once they are across the border, they would all vote Republican except for that immigration thing?

    You honestly, seriously believe that? As opposed to voting for the policies and politicians they favored all their lives, which are mostly responsible for Mexico being a poor country, despite being a very nice place in terms of resources and climate and land.

    It’s like blacks and republicans. They freed the slaves, they share common values, but they want a government welfare state, so they vote with democrats 90% of the time. Mexicans are little different.

    1. You honestly think most Mexicans love their dictators? You think the last 70 years was nothing but true democracy for Mexico?

      Anyway, at least the US didn’t screw up Latin America throughout the 20th century… right? Not like the drug war holds them back…right? right?!

      1. The US has taken a fairly hands-off policy towards Mexico in the last century. The PRI was definitely not a pro-American party for most of its history. Whether or not Mexicans absolutely loved it, they still gave it their tacit support, and so the consequences of its policies are for Mexicans to deal with.

        1. Even the Mexicans who fled Mexico give their tacit support? I’m sure you won’t mind if I say you give your tacit support to social security and medicare because you live in the US and, hey, you haven’t even left. In fact, I’ll just go right ahead and assume you back the government to the hilt in all its endeavours.

    2. Purist Libertarians believe many things. Thinking Mexicans are natural libertarians/Republicans is one of their more bizarre beliefs, but not terribly surprising in the grand scheme of things.

  24. Californians with Mexican ancestry need to stop this view that somehow all Mexicans are entitled to immigrate to the Golden State whether legal or not. The only way the GOP stance would seem “harsh” to a rational thinking citizen of California (regardless of origin) would be if that person felt Mexican citizens had some natural birthrite to reside in California. That is a lie, and this sense of entitlement by Mexicans to be in California is the root of their conflict with the GOP. It’s too bad, because the truth is that the GOP shares the values of the Hispanic community there more than the other party by a landslide. The problem isn’t with the GOP. The problem is that Californians with Mexican ancestry identify more with Mexico and Mexicans than their own people – Californians. Assimilate? No, they haven’t, they aren’t and they won’t. They are not interested in doing so. Someone will surely say that is because they are getting kicked around like “all new immigrant populations”, and this is also a lie. The fact is they despise Anglo culture and don’t want anything to do with it.

  25. Liberals know something is wrong in California, but they don’t know what it is. Nor will they ever. The closest I’ve seen them come to what the problem is, was this statement made to me by a true blue liberal:”Everything is a mess, but I don’t know what the problem is. Maybe we are just too muddled to figure it out.” They firmly reject that there is anything wrong with liberalism. They hope they will soon find the right people to implement it and then everything will be fine. You can stick a fork in California it is done for a very long time. Sad, but this is what happens when you keeping doing the same thing and expect different results.

  26. Thank you for every one of your hard work on this site. Kim enjoys managing investigation and it’s obvious why. Most of us know all regarding the dynamic manner you make helpful tactics through this web site and in addition welcome participation from visitors about this article then our own simple princess is really discovering so much. Take advantage of the remaining portion of the new year. Your conducting a really good job.

Comments are closed.