Immigration

Immigrants Reject the GOP's Big Government Vision, Not its Limited Government Ideals

For a couple of nano seconds after the Republicans' historic shellacking last week it seemed that finally wisdom was dawning and they were beginning to realize that immigrant-bashing was not a winning tactic.

|

For a couple of nano seconds after the Republicans' historic shellacking last week it seemed that finally wisdom was dawning and they were beginning to realize that immigrant-bashing was not a winning tactic. After Romney lost every Hispanic-rich swing state—including Florida, the home of the traditionally conservative Cuban Americans—

border.fence

Sean Hannity, who has been saying "no-way, Jose" to any form of legalization claimed that he had "evolved on immigration" and now favored a pathway to citizenship for illegals. Charles Krauthammer scolded Romney for running to the right of Rick Perry and suggested that the party consider supporting partial amnesty—and, yes, he used the term, loudly and proudly—to stop alienating Latinos. Likewise, George Will, who has previously advocated getting rid of birthright citizenship for children of immigrants, expressed surprise that "only 70 percent of Latinos opposed Romney" given his pledge to get Latinos to "self deport" if elected.

But antipathy toward immigration runs deep in the party and for every conservative pundit counseling sanity, there is at least one advocating insanity. Mark Levin went into a rage on TV, repeatedly calling Krauthammer and others "stupid"—an oddly juvenile epithet from someone of Levin's richly bilious vocabulary. Rush Limbaugh also counseled against the folly of thinking that the GOP can woo Latinos with amnesty when what attracts them to Democrats is welfare and "free stuff." "You can't beat Santa Claus with amnesty."

But most disappointing of all was the New York Times' conservative commentator Ross Douthat, usually a rational voice. He acknowledged that the GOP needs to adjust to new demographic realities in which whites will be a plurality by 2050. But he maintained that Latinos are not single-issue voters who would flock to the GOP just because it changed its position on amnesty. So Republicans shouldn't play identity politics to woo them. What should it do instead? Evidently, play identity politics with white males who the GOP would alienate by moving too "leftward" on immigration.

Douthat—and others—happen to be right that Latinos are not single-issue voters. After all, Hispanic families have to eat and live just like everyone else and hence are just as concerned about unemployment, recession, crashing home values and soaring food prices. That said, their ability to keep their families intact and earn a decent livelihood is inextricably tied to the immigration system. In 2009, before President Obama embarked on his deportation binge, about 9 million Latinos lived in mixed-status families in which someone was "out of status" or illegal. Hence, immigration is a first-order concern for many of them. To be sure, offering these folks amnesty and other reforms won't guarantee GOP support—especially if Republicans do so grudgingly. But what it will do is not cause the vast majority of them to reject the party—and its platform—out of hand in the future. And that might be enough for the GOP to get another 15 percent Latinos to switch and muster the 40 percent it needs to become competitive again about what George Bush got to win re-election.

But Limbaugh claims that Latino support is not worth it because it would come at the price of diluting the GOP's commitment to limited government ideals. That, however, is profoundly delusional. It is true that immigrants not nurtured in the lap of a limited government philosophy don't have a pre-programmed hostility to big government. But neither do Americans who (sorta) are—otherwise a majority wouldn't want protection from free trade because it allegedly threatens their jobs.

Indeed, what Latinos witness is not a clash between the GOP's limited government ideology and Democrats' Big Government ideology. It is between the GOP's version of Big Government and Democrats' version of Big Government.

The GOP's version, from the standpoint of Latinos, involves border guards and fences, Arizona-style "your papers please" laws and E-verify mandates and fines against employers. By contrast, the liberal version involves extending instate college tuition, emergency health care and access to public schools as well as workplace protections. Both Republicans and Democrats depart from limited government, but the GOP in the direction of inhumanity and liberals in the direction of humanity. GOP's Big Government oppresses them and the liberal Big Government (at least on the surface) is benign if not benificent and helps them. This difference in the two visions of Big Government—oppressive vs. benevolent—is why not just Latinos but other more affluent minorities—including Asian Americans and Jews who no one can accuse of  "mooching" for "free goodies"—also overwhelmingly vote liberal.

So what should Republicans do?

They should actually reassert their commitment to a genuine limited government agenda and the first step in it would be to pass immigration reform in which the government ceases to be an obstacle to the aspirations of Americans and foreigners regardless of whether they want to do business together or make love and have babies.

Despite the hopeful statements by Krauthammer and Hannity et al, the initial auguries that the GOP will recalibrate its approach don't look so good. Republicans are fielding as the chair of the House Judiciary Panel Virginia's Bob Goodlatte, long an implacable foe of the DREAM Act. Even worse, rank-and-file Republicans remain as wedded to a hardline position as ever despite last week's election losses. As The Daily Beast's Laura Colarusso notes, for negotiating with Democrats on immigration reform in 2010, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham will likely be rewarded with a Tea Party primary challenge when he's up for reelection in 2014.

The GOP has just started rethinking its position on immigration after a decade or more of wingnuttery and so likely needs time to hammer out something sensible. For its own sake one hopes that it does so. Or, else, brace itself for more walloping at the polls in the future.

NEXT: Supreme Court Pays Closer Attention to Property Rights Cases

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. The second part of that headline is doubtful.

  2. There is a strong contingent of Republicans you will see arguing that the party ran to the middle too much with Romney and that going full-tilt conservative is the way to salvation for the GOP and the country.

    1. And if those Republicans nominate Santorum in 2016, they will deserve the electoral beat down they will get.

    2. The both wrong and right. However, they’re too stupid to see why.

      Romney’s milquetoast fiscal conservatism didn’t help him much, but his embracing of social conservatism during the primaries (and his failure to adequately distance himself from it in the general) really hurt him.

      Unfortunately, it seems most conservatives I have talked to either have this exactly backwards or don’t distinguish between fiscal and social conservatism, falsely believing you can’t have one without the other.

      1. *They’re

      2. Define “social conservatism.” Is it code for “self-deportation?”

        1. Anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, anti-vice, pro-drug war, pro-massive military.

          Basically, all the things that make the Republican Party statist assholes.

          1. I know what it is, how did Romney, “embrace it in the primaries?” He said nothing about abortion that isn’t already known, he would oppose it. He made little mention of gay marraige. He said nothing of “vice.” He did not take a position that was any different than the common GOP/Dem position on the drug war. He said little about a “massive military.” That leaves self-deportation, which used to be a moder position.

  3. This is a facile exercise in false equivalence.

    It seriously makes my head hurt how bad this article is.

    As soon as I can unpack and properly fisk this, I’ll be back.

    1. It can be said about each and every Shikha’s articles.

      1. Shikha says it isn’t about Immigration…it’s about Republicans Big Government policies on…wait for it…immigration.

        What the fuck.

        1. Romney promised to increase educated immigrants. “Code words” for Indian and Chinese. The GOPs percentage of the Asian vote dropped precipitously. Just like the Hispanic GOP vote dropped after Simpson-Mazzoli.Sure the Republicans should pursue immigration reform but don’t think that is going to increase the GOP vote of ethnic/immigrant American citizens.

          1. If they could figure out a way to be the Traditional Morality Party, instead of the Creepy Christian Party, that might help a lot with Asians (yellow, dot and bomb) and Jews.

            1. That would involve converting to Islam. The Jews hate Christianity, they will never vote for a party that is a party of Christianity. I know this because I grew up around them.

              1. The Jews hate Christianity, they will never vote for a party that is a party of Christianity.

                Right. But they, like Asians, mostly have WASPy morals. Which is why I think the GOP should replace the atheist-shaming with slut-shaming. If it doesn’t work, Jezebel would at least be funnier.

          2. Mexican Americans like education. That’s why they go to night school, take Spanish and get a B.

    2. Of course the GOP abhors market-based solutions like more visas in favor of big bloated government border enforcement bureaucracies.

  4. To be sure, offering these folks amnesty and other reforms won’t guarantee GOP support — especially if Republicans do so grudgingly. But what it will do is not cause the vast majority of them to reject the party — and its platform — out of hand in the future.

    Limbaugh and the others are saying that, in fact, offering immigration reforms will do little to nothing for Latinos because the Latino vote is enamored with Big Government. In other words, the “good” Big Governance offered by Left overrules the preference for Small Governance in the realm of Immigration Dalmia thinks the Right ought to implement.

    In other words, some Rightists are saying that it doesn’t matter what the GOP does because these voting blocs are so hostile to limited government and free markets that pandering to them isn’t going to help, or at least not help enough.

    1. I think this is largely correct.

      However, the republican needs to stop being seen as hostile to hispanics in general instead of opposing massive immigration in particular as that does move people on the margins to support democrats that otherwise would not.

      1. It’s like I always used to tell the unpopular kid, “the other kids hate you because they see you as nerdy. You’ve got to do something about that. Their envy and stupidity have nothing to do with it.”

    2. Latinos aren’t a monolithic group. It won’t help with some people, but there are a lot of Latinos out there who would at least be open to the possibility of voting Republican if they didn’t feel they were hostile to them. Immigration reform is the big chance to change that. Republicans don’t need to win the Latino (or the Asian, let’s not act as if all immigrants are Latino) vote to win elections. They just need to not get slaughtered

    3. Hispanics may not come here with an innate hostility to big government.

      But welcoming them with guns and rules and byzantine regulations that prevent them from legally working is hardly a way to convince them that your message of individual liberty and personal responsibility is something you actually give a shit about.

      Especially considering that we seem to be constantly changing the byzantine regulations in ways that appear to be designed to make sure none of them are ever really free of it.

      1. Hispanics don’t come here with an innate hostility to big government, but once they experience our horrible, broken, byzantine, big government immigration system, they eagerly vote for more of it.

        1. No, they see that the people supporting the horrible broken byzantine immigration system are the people who claim to believe in liberty and limited government. Which makes them think that those people aren’t really serious about liberty and limtied government, theu just use those slogans to maintain a white-dominated power structure.

  5. Culture matters and importing 3rd world savages from a peon/ el jeffe culture does nothing to advance freedom for Traditional Americans. Ms. Dalmia is welcome to go back to India and import all the Latinos she wants. If the Indian government is stupid enough to allow her to do it.

    1. No one’s interested in your dipshit racism, Mallory. Go fuck off to a Klan site or something.

      1. No one’s interested in your dipshit racism, Mallory

        Poor Ralph Fiennes.

        1. That would be funny if he was just a comic foil, always spouting racist bullshit that Bond has to roll his eyes and make a snide remark about before leaving on a mission.

        2. I’m still sitting here laughing at that.

          I can just see Daniel Craig rolling his eyes and saying in an exasperated tone, “No one’s interested in your dipshit racism, Mallory.” and then walking out of the office.

  6. In summation:

    GOP is is big government and limited government at the same time. Illegal immigrants like the limited government, therefore they chose the DFL – which is big government but in a nice way.

    What?

    1. The GOP is a huge hypocrite about big government, including on the subject of immigration reform.

      They believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility only so long as the individual are white and have the right pieces of paper. If you have the termirity to work hard and hold down a job as a brown person you’re something to be feared.

      1. The constitution is a “piece of paper.” So is your ballot. The founders created a system whereby I have the right to decide who rules me. I can elect them, and I can decide who is granted the privilage of electing them.

  7. The GOP could push blanket amnesty and it wouldnt get them a single vote because the vast majority of Hispanics coming here legally and illegally are from nations where socialistic and statist policies are the norm. Big Government to them is what government should be. For all this bullshit about Hispanics in general (I’ll say Mexico and South America) sharing traditional “conservative values” yeah a few aspects of the GOP platform may play into that in theory, but in reality free shit trumps all.

    1. The whole basis of the shares republican values idea is that hispanics are catholic (sorta true) and that their family stability is above average (not true). Libertarian mythology has all immigrants as proto-entrepreneurs that inherently despise government (also not true).

      Both groups are projecting their own values onto poorly understood immigrants.

      The bottom line is that poor immigrants will respond to the same incentives, wrt the welfare state, in the same way that natives do.

    2. Yes, and they left those shitty statist socialist countries for a reason. Immigrating is an individualistic act.

      If Hispanics aren’t converting to a smaller government philosophy it might have something to do with the fact that the proponents of this so-called “small government” philosophy seem intent on oppressing them as brutally as possible.

      Trying to sell liberty and individual initiative to people while forbidding them from working without persmission is a terrible method of persusion.

      1. “Yes, and they left those shitty statist socialist countries for a reason.”

        And Californians and Massholes leave their shitty statist socialist states for a reason, but it does not seem to affect what policies they support politically much. Why are Hispanic immigrants an exception?

        1. How do you know they aren’t just voting for the social issues part of the agenda?

          There are a lot of people who say they are fiscal conservatives and social liberals. If anyone made a coherent case to them they might vote for someone other than a Democrat. But we only offer them the choice of voting for a useless third party candidate, or an evangelical Jesus freak. Maybe they hold their nose and vote for Democrats.

          1. How do you know they aren’t just voting for the social issues part of the agenda?

            Because referenda, local candidates, and local ballot initiatives aren’t a dichotomous choice between an “evangelical Jesus freak” and a sophisticated, cosmopolitan gender feminist who, by sheer coincidence, happens to support collectivist economic policy and astronomical taxation. Moving from a state with high property taxes, then voting to raise your neighbor’s property taxes in the place you moved to has nothing to do with Jesus freaks or any other braindead team retardation you can conjure up.

            1. Where the Republican parties outside of the South known for running “evangelical Jesus freaks”? Pretty sure the West Coast and North East Republicans were not like that.

              1. Even if they were, I’m saying it’s a moot point anyway, because idiots from CA or MA moving to their neighboring states and then voting for the same shit that screwed up CA and MA in the first place has nothing to do with party line votes or partisan candidates – the taxes and regulations they support are more likely to be state and local ballot initiatives or referenda. So you playing the “Oh, I voted for the lesser of 2 evils” game is bullshit.

                1. *Should read: So playing the “Oh, I voted for the lesser of 2 evils” game is bullshit. Not sure why my brain slipped a “you” in there, but it’s a typo.

          2. The evidence for most people is that social liberalism trumps fiscal conservatism for most such people when they come into conflict, and they do conflict. Libertarians are outliers in this regard.

            Really, Romney was an evangelical Jesus freak?

          3. “How do you know they aren’t just voting for the social issues part of the agenda?”

            Occam’s Razor.

      2. “Brutally”? Really? Having the hoses and dogs turned on them, are they? Give me a fucking break.

        1. When you’re deported for no good reason yeah it’s pretty brutal.

      3. “If Hispanics aren’t converting to a smaller government philosophy it might have something to do with the fact that the proponents of this so-called “small government” philosophy seem intent on oppressing them as brutally as possible.”
        This is why you see such massive hsipanic support for libertarianism(sarcasam)
        “Yes, and they left those shitty statist socialist countries for a reason. Immigrating is an individualistic act.”
        You think these people have any ideas of “statism?” You think they understand that “statism” is respnosible for their countires being shitty?

  8. By contrast, the liberal version involves extending instate college tuition, emergency health care and access to public schools as well as workplace protections.

    Not to mention food stamps, welfare and unionized jobs.

    AKA free stuff from gubmint Santa.

    1. It’s also worth pointing out that, with the exception of reduced college tuition rates, all of those services are already provided to illegal immigrants.

      1. And protected by both current law and mountains of court decisions. I.e., more or less irreversible.

  9. Oh please, articles like this are only making a fool out of yourself.

    And it’s hilarious, because the big business faction in the Republican party (which is pretty much the leader of it) loves immigration, so they can get cheap labor. It’s the base that doesn’t like it, since they would have their wages lowered or lose their jobs.

  10. Maybe this is post election blues, but I think we’re well past the tipping point where the electorate has discovered that they can vote themselves free goodies. Most people aren’t nearly far-sighted enough to see where taxing the rich to give to the poor, ends up.

  11. It should be remembered that the Hispanic percentage voting republican declined immediately following Reagan’s immigration reform that included amnesty.

    I’d like to see some open borders advocate like Shikha address that fact.

    1. Not only did Reagan reap no benefit from passing an amnesty, but ardent amnesty supporter John McCain was trounced among Latin voters by Barry O. And Barry paid no political price among them for enthusiastically deporting a shitload of people. Seems like immigration policy debate has very little impact on the voting patterns of Latinos.

      1. The difference between McCain’s vote and Bush’s wasn’t that far off the change in popular vote. McCain did several points better than Romney, despite the fact that Romney should have done better given the current political and economic climate. Romney also did really poorly with Asians, but slightly better with blacks

    2. I vaguely recall that the Democrats trotted out their standard playbook on Reagan’s immigration amnesty and portrayed the GOP’s motives on this as being evil and manipulative. Leaders in the immigrant community helped to sell this idea. There’s nothing like spreading fear to retain your power over the people who have supported you in the past. Of course, the same goes true of those who wish to spread fear of immigrants.

    3. It’s a time delay.

  12. I think a better way of stating this is that the GOP comes across as a gang of hypocrites when they oppose immigration reform.

    There is no greater single form of oppression in America today than the conditions under which illegal aliens live, especially those who were brought here as children and have no other country to go home to.

    You really can’t compare not being able to smoke weed or get a piece of paper saying you are married, or even having the cops beat down your door and shoot your dog to the DAILY oppression of not being able to legally hold and job and the constant threat of being arrested and exiled from the country.

    Try to put yourself in the shoes of a person who at the age of 19-20, speaks only English, has lived his entire conscious life in the US, and now knows that he is forever one the wrong site of the law, by virtue only of not having the right stamp on the right form. Try to imagine knowning that you can never legally hold a job, never pursue the career of your dreams, and think about how that will impact your choices and your future for the rest of your life.

    1. You can’t claim to be a defender of individual initiative, individual liberty, or personal responsibility if you then turn around and make it unlawful for some people to legally hold a job, only because they don’t have the right piece of paper.

      1. Sure you can.

        BTW, I misread you comment last night on diversity & welfare. You’re correct that diversity reduces trust, altruism, etc. so theoretically that could reduce the welfare state. There just isn’t evidence of that in OECD countries.

    2. “There is no greater single form of oppression in America today than the conditions under which illegal aliens live,…”

      Which conditions those illegal aliens freely chose to live under or their parents did. The way you word that you make it sound like they were brought here in chains.

      1. Yeah, cause it’s okay to impose the consequences of the parents choices on the children.

        Lets pass a law saying anyone born to a coal miner has to be a coal miner. After all if the parents voluntarily choose to be coal miners, the kids can’t really complain about that. It was a voluntary choice!
        By their parents!

        1. Great analogy. Because forcing a kid to toil in a coal mine is totally the same thing as failing to excuse the consequences of a conscious decision on the part of his parents to break the law and accept the risk of the attending consequences (leaving aside any assessment of the legitimacy of the law). Knowing the state of the law in the United States, subjecting your child to the consequences is entirely your own fault, and pretty much makes you an asshole.

          1. HazelMead was talking about the culpability of the child, which you still have failed to address. And you can’t just leave aside the legitimacy of the law. Moving somewhere in search of a better life for you and your kids doesn’t make you an asshole just because you violated some bullshit law by crossing an imaginary line

            1. The kids have as much culpability as their parents subjected them to, the same as kids in a billion other situations. That’s the nature of being a child. But taking your kid by the hand and jumping in a frozen lake knowing the consequences kind of makes you a moron, regardless of the virtuousness of the lake being frozen. This is a very similar situation. Guess what happens to the children of citizens who commit crimes? Even arbitrary ones? Their lives get fucked up. It’s a shitty deal.

              1. But do the kids suffer the same consequences as the parents in all those other situations? No.

                And again, just as I don’t hold anything against drug users, I have nothing against people whose only crime is illegal immigration. “ITZ TEH LAW” will not work on me

                1. In fact, I have less of a reason to begrudge most illegal immigrants than most drug users (with the exception perhaps of marijuana)

                2. But do the kids suffer the same consequences as the parents in all those other situations? No.

                  Depends. If you’re asking “Does a kid who’s daddy is convicted of robbery go to jail with him?” the answer is obviously no. But that’s not what happens with our immigration system either, and pretending it is is disingenuous. This is just administrative reality. If my parents kept me out of school my entire life and taught me at home because they oppose public education, and I had no high school diploma to show to employers or college admissions counselors, I’d be pretty well fucked, through no fault of my own. Does that entitle me to anything? Were my parents any less idiots for their good intentions? Is it fair that I now have to spend the time and money to either retake high school or obtain a GED in order to “prove my status” and “show my papers”? In any case, that’s the reality of it, and it doesn’t matter whether it’s just or fair – my parents are still assholes for putting me in that situation.

                  1. Not getting a public education while you’re young (which is also still reversible) is not the same thing as getting deported. Your analogies are Tulpaesque

                  2. Is it fair that I now have to spend the time and money to either retake high school or obtain a GED in order to “prove my status” and “show my papers”?

                    In fact no. And as a libertarian you ought to know this. Understanding that the world is not always a free place is not equivalent to supporting laws that make the world a less free place for some people.

                    If you are a libertarian, you have no business opposing the Dream Act. We’re talking about what laws and policies you *advocate* here, not what laws and policies exist that you can’t do anything about.

              2. Guess what happens to the children of citizens who commit crimes? Even arbitrary ones? Their lives get fucked up. It’s a shitty deal.

                Yes, and libertarians really ought to support laws that punish children for the crimes of their parents. Yeah. That’s right.

                Why don’t you just admit you don’t really believe in liberty. Or, you only believe in liberty for “Americans”, by which you mean white people.

        2. Children have to deal with the consequences of their parents choices all the time. That’s life. To argue otherwise is going into Tony’s realm of asinity. Don’t lay a collective guilt trip on the country because an illegal alien did not think through how his kids would be affected. Your argument is cynically emotionally manipulative.

          1. Do children have to deal with the legal consequences themselves? HazelMeade’s not even talking about little kids, but teenagers and young adults who were brought as young kids. Apply your logic to any other victimless crime and see how much sympathy you get here

            1. I cited just one possible example above. To take an example from my own life, my mother married my step father, but never took the official legal steps to change my last name or transfer custody rights. When I became an adult, I had to deal with several legal issues surrounding the implications of that, including petitioning the court for a name change, changing my social security number, and ensuring that credit, banking, tax, and personal information all transferred. In that particular case, there were no legal consequences for my parents, only for me. Was that fair to me? Not really, but it was fucking reality.

              1. Getting back to the original analogy, forcing a kid to go into his father’s line of work is not analogous in any real sense to a child having to experience the legal repercussions of a decision their parents made for them, even if you find them both to be equally unjust.

                1. Okay…they’re both unjust. Argument over.

              2. Yeah, I’m not sure what you’re even arguing at this point. You seem to just be saying “that’s real life man!” but we aren’t arguing over how things are, but what they should be

                1. No, we are arguing over HazelMeade’s assertion that this treatment is “oppression”. It is a strange sort of oppression that people willingly bring themselves and their children into.

                  Also, as a practical matter, exactly how long to the kid’s of aliens have to stay here before you give them a free pass? An actual number.

                  1. The existance of laws that arbitrarily discriminate against some Americans is oppression.

                    These kids are as “American” as anyone else. They were raised here since childhood and often do not even speak the language of their country of birth.
                    Yet you seem to think it’s okay to arrest them, lock them up, forcibly transport them to a foreign country, and forbid them from ever returning to their childhood home.

                    And you think this is consistent with a professed belief in individual liberty HOW?

  13. Both Republicans and Democrats depart from limited government, but the GOP in the direction of inhumanity and liberals in the direction of humanity.

    Oh, for fuck’s sake. Robbing people, and then buying votes by handing some of the swag to other people, is not “humanity”. It’s theft. It’s immoral. It’s wrong.

    1. Libertairnaims to reasonites is all about plageraizing bad ideas from both team red and team blue and using them to attack team blue because reason hates their socialism and team red ’cause reason hate white Americans and Christianity.

      1. Ah, now I see. You’re a fucking moron who knows so little about political ideology that you don’t even understand your own. That explains why you couldn’t process the term “social conservatism” earlier. Maybe you should go hang out someplace a little bit more your speed, like Hot Air?

  14. Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation.

    Remember this when “pledge week” rolls around.

    1. I will, thanks!

  15. It doesn’t really matter whether the Republicans cater to minorities or not. When the demographics have changed sufficiently that there aren’t enough whites to elect a Republican, you’ll start seeing white flight in earnest (see South Africa). After the majority of whites have bailed back to Europe or wherever, who’s really going to give a shit what happens to the Republican Party, or for that matter, the US?

    1. Europe’s got their own problems to deal with. I’m not sure how many white people are going to be looking to go back, or how much Europe would welcome white Americans

      1. Also, ironically enough, 90% of European countries have immigration policy so tight you probably wouldn’t get in for years.

  16. It’s not just xenophobia on the right. One needs to consider Britain. Emails have leaked, Labor pursued a policy of importing voters straight onto the welfare rolls as a means of securing a new electoral clientele. They actually did this. Cameron is now PM, so it isn’t fool proof. That’s not to say it can’t have an effect. It should be a concern that the government doesn’t vote itself a more compliant citizenry.

    The average political view reflected in South America’s elections makes a garden-variety american pinko look like James Madison. Of course each individual is an individual. But the government has it’s own selection process. What are the chances we will just take aggrieved indigents looking for welfare Patrons that will stick the neighbors? That’s what they vote for, again and again, like here, but actually even worse owing to historical and cultural factors most of us can’t even relate to but suppose we can fix with big macs and an ipod.

    Big macs and ipods don’t even fix our own numbnuts. You think we got it bad with Obama twice, a majority of Venezuelans voted for Hugo Chavez 3 times and repealed term limits! It could be like Californians and Colorado, or New Yorkers and south Florida. They could vote to blow the place up, leave for somewhere else, and then do it again. Vote for higher taxes, flee the taxed economy, vote for higher taxes. Flee the high crime area and vote for more gun control. That’s what white Americans would do.

  17. Should be interesting to see hwo that all turns out.

    http://www.Anon-Webz.tk

  18. How do libertarians address the fact Canadian, Chinese, British and Soviet politicians have used immigration as a way to defeat their opponents?

    1. Care to be a bit more clear in your question?

      1. How are libertarians going to compete amongst the immigrant vote with the party that pays people to vote for them, and is willing to pay to go out and find their people, and import them, and bus them to the polls?

        What makes you think libertarian foreigners all want to come to the US now anyway? Fuck I’d go to Canada.

      2. Supporting immigration of people that will vote for you is something that actually does happen. Labour in the UK admitted it. Canada does it to defeat the Tories and Quebec seperatists. China uses it to suppress Tibetan independence and Stalin used it against the Baltics and other minority groups.

        So let’s say the Democrats support Hispanic immigration to in order to import voters. What is the libertarian response to that?

        1. You seem to be framing these questions as if the political battle in this country is Democrats vs. Libertarians. It’s not. Libertarians can barely get 1% of the vote in the general, and running as Republicans in the primaries, get about 10% of the vote and a few congressional seats in the general. We are enemies of both the Democrats and the Republicans (with a few exceptions)

          1. Capitalism will never happen with the democrats period. I know making sure gays can get married is a national emergency to some people

            1. And it won’t with the current batch of Republicans either

        2. Also wouldn’t this make the whole “Republicans should embrace Hispanics” argument a bit pointless? Might as well ask Libertarians to stop being so anti-state in order to get the Cop and Teacher’s Union votes.

          1. How so? Hispanics aren’t a monolithic entity. Its an ethnicity, not an occupation

            1. Hard to get votes from someone when you want to “take” their free shit away.

              1. Why are you singling out Hispanics in this regard?

                1. ‘Cuz this article is about Hispanics?

                  1. Well its actually about immigrants. In any case, you seem to keep changing the argument. First you ask what libertarians should do about immigrants who will vote for their enemies the Democrats getting into the country. Then when I pointed out that libertarians already have an equally tough trouble winning over native voters, you shifted the argument to Republicans (which was what the original article is about, but not what your original point was). And then when I pointed out that your reasoning could apply to any group (because Hispanics are far from the only group that likes free shit. And that includes whites, Republicans, etc) you say that’s irrelevant because the article is about Hispanics? Even if true, that doesn’t mean I can’t bring up other groups to make a point in an argument

                    1. I Don’t disagree that there are lots of groups that want free shit. I was talking about how some politicians have actually imported immigrants to vote for them and there is a good possibility that the Dems want Hispanic immigration in order to benefit them. And any other immigration for that matter.

                      Yes libertarians have trouble enough as it is but should they be essentially supporting their increasing marginalization? I mean the classical liberals of old supporting universal suffrage and public schools which ended up self defeating.

                      Then there is the questionable fact that these articles seem to be assuming that say Hispanics, Asians and Jews will support libertarianish policies if the Republicans weren’t so mean. This is doubtful.

  19. “But Limbaugh claims that Latino support is not worth it because it would come at the price of diluting the GOP’s commitment to limited government ideals.”
    WHAT “limited government ideals”?

    1. NO TAXES EVAR!

      (But we’re gonna preserve Social Security, Medicare, and the military exactly as they are today in perpetuity, forever and ever, amen)

  20. The article begins “the Republicans’ historic shellacking last week”, I have seen that a couple different places, but I do not see where it is coming from. The republicans maintained controll of the House, the senate is about the same as before, and Romney did better than McCain. I would hardly call it “historic”. The whole election was kinda “meh”, status quo is still status quo.

  21. Has the GOP considered making record numbers of deportations part of their platform? I mean, it’s working for the current administration, and Latinos obviously draw the conclusion that it’s the GOP that is being hostile.

  22. for negotiating with Democrats on immigration reform in 2010, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham will likely be rewarded with a Tea Party primary challenge when he’s up for reelection in 2014.

    Isn’t Lindsey Graham terrible in a lot of other ways? Aren’t those the reasons he’s getting primaried?

    1. Shhhh, you’re ruining the “Team Red hates brown people!” narrative.

      But yes, Lindsey Graham is an asswipe in virtually every conceivable way that it is possible for a human being to be one.

    2. Lindsey Graham is among the worst of the worst. Tom Davis, a state senator and Ron Paul supporter, has been rumored to be considering a primary challenge

  23. Stupid. What you said was stupid, plain and simple, IMHO.
    “for every conservative pundit counseling sanity, there is at least one advocating insanity” That’s so much bigger of a word than “stupid,” isn’t it?
    “the 40 percent … about what George Bush got to win re-election.” Actually that 44% number has been proven wrong.
    “make love and have babies.” Gee, ’cause you know it is the epublicans who want population control.

    1. She said 40 percent, not 44. Someone (I don’t think it was you) sent me a study that supposedly countered the 44 percent claim, and even they estimated that Bush got about 40 percent of the Latino vote

      1. That was me. There wasn’t any “supposedly” about it. It was basically an AAR from the polling firm that first reported the 44% figure, which AFAICT only survives in middlebrow journalism. In fact it’s quite amazing that Dalmia, who swings and misses at well-known facts in every article, managed to get that fairly obscure one correct.

  24. Here’s a question for you immigration enthusiasts: Why is Mexico Mexico, and why is America America? America only exists as one of the last psuedo-capitalist states in the world because of the quality of the people who live here. Our people vote for capitalism and they pratice capitalism. How well has capitalism worked in the third world? Not very well. Capitalism leads their to a wealthy white elite controlling most of the wealth. That’s what happened when most of those countries were capitalistic. That’s why capitalism hasn’t survived there, the people, when given the option, elected socialists. Why do we expect the same people, living in our backyard, to behave any differently? These are not people who are going to build a buisness. They are not people who are going to vote for the “cut taxes for millionares” party. They are racialists, they see our country as rightfully theirs, and they will take it if given the opportunity.

    1. Why is Mexico Mexico, and why is America America?

      Mexico IS america, numbnuts. It’s located right there on the north american continent.

      1. America is a continent, not a nation. Priceless.

  25. There is one word that never comes up in this site: Intelligence. Charles Murray, in The Bell Curve, estimates the average IQs for the ethnic groups to be blacks, 85, hispanics, 89, whites, 103, asians, 106, Jews, 115. Therein lies the problem. We can argue about what causes the gap in IQ, but it’s there, and it isn’t going away. It is what leads to the huge gaps in achivement by race. In California, Hispanics are over 50% of the college age population. Just 15% of the people enrolled in college there are hispanics. This angers them, and, seeing our country as having been stolen from them, they see it as their duty to their people to pursue policies to equalize that gap and promote what they see as their racial intrests. They see capitalism and white people as exploitive. And they benefit from affirmative action and from economic socialism. They will never endorse a party of meritocracy, a party of white people, and a party of capitalism, becuase, in that system, they will end up the ones picking the fruit. They don’t want to be the ones picking the fruit. So Reasonites have a choice: They can preserve a capitalist system for American citizens, or, they can give the country away to socialist foriegners.

    1. So you’re saying we should have an IQ test for immigrants? In any case, your point is entirely self-defeating when you look at the numbers and notice that Asians, who have the second highest IQ of all groups, voted Democrat even more than Latinos did in this last election. Jews also vote Democrat in similar numbers. In fact people with high IQ’s tend to vote Democrat (note that I don’t think this really means anything. Someone can be very intelligent and still have very stupid beliefs, not to mention they could be evil, corrupt, etc)

      1. Jews and Asians are tangental to my point, which was that low-IQ hispanics are going tp resent Higher-IQ whites, asians, and jews controlling most of societies wealth, as they do presently. You and other reasonites think all hispanics just happent to live under statist societies for no reason and are just begging for the opportunity to learn calculus and become capitalists. I am trying to prove you wrong.

        1. So you make an argument, and I’m just supposed to ignore all the evidence that destroys your argument? Nice to know. I don’t think anything about “all” Hispanics. People are individuals. I don’t group 50 million people together like that. Hispanic isn’t a race, you can be of any race and be Hispanic. I really don’t care what their countries back home are like; they’re moving here for a reason. And plenty of “high IQ societies” have or have had very statist governments. Of course not all Hispanics want to learn calculus and become capitalists. Neither do all white people. But there are plenty who do. Have you ever seen Stand and Deliver? Anecdotely, the only person at my high school who I can recall taking calculus as a sophomore was a Guatemalan girl (and she was Mestiza, not a Spanish criolla as you would assume). Her sister got into Harvard (and trust me, she didn’t need affirmative action) and I expect her to go to a school of similar quality. I see plenty of Hispanics engaging in capitalism. Take off your bigotry blinders and open your eyes. Start looking at people as individuals and stop looking at people as mere members of racial or ethnic groups

          1. Her sister got into Harvard (and trust me, she didn’t need affirmative action) and I expect her to go to a school of similar quality.

            1) Harvard turns down perfect SAT Asian kids. It’s the most prestigious college in the world. I’m supposed to trust you that she’s one of the 1500 most qualified in the world?

            2) There’s tens, perharps hundreds of undergraduate institutions of similar quality. What separates Harvard is prestige, and there’s only three other schools that compare. Are you sure she’s going to one of those?

            1. This is how affirmative action works. The super smart Latina you know took freshman math 3 years early therefore … she must be one of the 1500 most qualified applicants in the world. I’m supposed to ignore that Hispanics had a 270 (/1600) point SAT advantage over Asians according to Epenshade’s research. I mean, this guy on the internet knows one of the 10 or so Hispanics admitted to Harvard without affirmative action, just like everybody else on the internet. There were eight National Merit Finalists in my high school class. None of us were admitted to HYPS. At least 3 blacks and one one Hispanic (of the conquistador variety) was though. Some acquaintance of theirs could have made the exact same case you have, though it would be bullshit upon closer inspection, just like your case almost certainly is.

            2. One of the other girls from my high school who goes to Harvard is Asian and she’s really smart, but not any more than the two girls I mentioned. Are you seriously that bigoted that you can’t trust my judgment about the qualifications of people I actually know just because they’re Hispanic? And besides, you’re missing the entire fucking point. Mr. “American” made absurdly broad claims about how Hispanics don’t want to learn calculus or engage in capitalism, which I think even you can admit is way too generalizing of a statement. I called him on it, partly using anecdotes as support. Whether or not she needed affirmative action to get into Harvard is beside the point. Lots of really smart people don’t get into Harvard. It doesn’t mean they’re lazy, ignorant, or stupid, which is what American has basically painted all Hispanics as

              1. Are you seriously that bigoted that you can’t trust my judgment about the qualifications of people I actually know just because they’re Hispanic?

                I don’t trust your judgement for the same reason I don’t trust nearly everyone else’s judgement, you don’t have a fucking clue about SAT demographic distributions or how “holistic” criteria treat whites and Asians, at the expense of blacks and (mostly white) Hispanics, the same way “holistic” criteria used to be applied to the Jews.

                And besides, you’re missing the entire fucking point. Mr. “American” made absurdly broad claims

                I’ve addressed Mr. American where I thought I could make a difference. Did you notice this? I’m not exactly linking to net-Nazi sites.

                which I think even you can admit is way too generalizing of a statement.

                You give anecdotes that are probably (data exists… deal) false and claim to be the probabilistic one. Fuck you.

                Lots of really smart people don’t get into Harvard

                Right. Which is why I’m skeptical about your Latina friend.

                which is what American has basically painted all Hispanics as

                It seemed to me like he was talking about averages. I think he’s wrong about a lot of stuff, but adding a populations characteristics and dividing by the number doesn’t seem like one.

                1. “I don’t trust your judgement for the same reason I don’t trust nearly everyone else’s judgement, you don’t have a fucking clue about SAT demographic distributions or how “holistic” criteria treat whites and Asians, at the expense of blacks and (mostly white) Hispanics, the same way “holistic” criteria used to be applied to the Jews.”

                  I’m a white guy in college and you assume I don’t know any of this? Go screw yourself. Are you one of those people who thinks they’re so much smarter than everyone else and assumes no one amongst the unwashed masses has the knowledge they do? Cause you sound an awful lot like those kind of people.

                  “You give anecdotes that are probably (data exists… deal) false and claim to be the probabilistic one. Fuck you.”

                  Except were not dealing with general data or a generic Hispanic you fucking moron. We are talking about real, specific, individuals. But I’ll go along with your game. I’m not in Harvard admissions so I can’t know exactly why they chose her. I can tell you for a fact (and fuck you if you try to tell me that this must be inaccurate cause of what your general data says) that she was at a very minimum, no less intelligent than the other people who got into Ivy League (and Ivy caliber) schools while I was in high school.

                  1. I’m a white guy in college and you assume I don’t know any of this?

                    Yes. You being in college means you don’t know much of anything yet. If you’d like to be less ignorant of this particular subject, you could start by reading this. It’s probably in your campus library. Then again, you didn’t bother to click on a pdf and read a couple pages, so why would you get up and walk somewhere?

                    Are you one of those people who thinks they’re so much smarter than everyone else and assumes no one amongst the unwashed masses has the knowledge they do?

                    How many people do you suppose read academic research on the extent of AA?

                    I’m not in Harvard admissions so I can’t know exactly why they chose her.

                    Right. Which is why I’m taking the odds.

                    I can tell you for a fact (and fuck you if you try to tell me that this must be inaccurate cause of what your general data says) that she was at a very minimum, no less intelligent than the other people who got into Ivy League (and Ivy caliber) schools while I was in high school.

                    Okay, I’ll accept that fact. Why did she get into Harvard while the others went to less selective schools?

                2. And affirmative action goes beyond race. In four years in high school, only four people from my high school got into Stanford, which was the most selective school for applicants from my school. All four (three white, one Asian in case you’re wondering) were legacy kids who had at least one parent who went to Stanford. All of them were very smart, but they weren’t clear cut ahead of the rest of their classes. There were other kids just as smart or smarter who didn’t get in. Stop judging people by what box they check off on the Census

                  1. Legacy admits aren’t AA admits. They may both be wrong, or right, or one right and the other wrong. But “legacy” and “affirmative action” are different things. You’re just being silly now.

              2. “It doesn’t mean they’re lazy, ignorant, or stupid, which is what American has basically painted all Hispanics as”
                I said that “Just 15% of the people enrolled in college there are hispanics.”
                I hope colleges teach reading comprehension.

          2. I don’t see how your evidence “destroys my arguement.” It is tangental to my point, which was that low IQ hispanics are going to resent high IQ whites. I guess in your simple mind by saying low IQ minorities vote democrat, I am implying the high IQ minorities will vote GOP. I am not. The same goes for your arguement about “statist governments.” And I am sorry for grouping 50 million individuals together. I think almost everyone here should also, calling them hispanics is grouping them together. True, in theory, hispanics can be of any race. But I have known many hispanics in my life, and to them, their mostly metizo nation is just as much of a race as blacks or whites are. I never denied that “plenty” of hispanics want to learn calculus. In my Calculus class back in my high school there was one hispanic there.(My school was 30% hispanic) I was talking about an “average.” Maybe you should ask your “Mestiza” friend or your asian friend, both of which went to harvard, a fact I find hard to believe, about what the word means.

    2. In case you haven’t noticed, the country has been going away from capitalism for decades, and it’s not primarily because of immigrants, or even Democrats per se.

      Take a look at the federal budget. You know what the three largest items are? Social Security, Medicare, and the military. All three programs benefit groups that vote Republican (which is why Republicans hate the thought of cutting them). The two biggest social programs benefit seniors, who are disproportionately white. Even if we cut all non-defense discretionary spending, we are still going bankrupt in the long-term just based on those three things plus interest on the debt. And that doesn’t even account for the fact that Republicans and white people in general, don’t want to cut the rest of the government. When asked for specifics, most people draw blanks. Spending skyrocketed under Bush and a Republican Congress. Same thing with Reagan and a Republican senate. More debt was added under those two and Obama than any other president. The federal register ballooned under Bush, as did regulatory spending and the number of regulators. Medicare Part D and NCLB were passed. No agencies or departments were cut. New ones were added in fact. (cont)

      1. And many white Americans objected to it. Hispanics Americans didn’t. Look at California, ruled by democrats, versus, say, Texas, ruled by republicans. You see a great difference. In the real world most republicans are supportive of capitalism. At the same time the paid all their lives into social security and don’t want it to be cut immediatly.(Niether did the LP this time around). The leadership is corrupt, but one of the reasons for that is because the republicans have to cater to centrists. So the idea that we should allow the our country to be overhwelmed with the avoedly socialist because we ourselves are pure, enogh, I don’t buy it. You probrably will never accept my views, but at least consider as a matter of practicallity, whether libertarians should focus our very samll amount of energy on an issue that will destroy our chances for sucess. Shouldn’t we be focussing on opposing socialism and imperialism?

        1. Really? White Americans objected to what exactly? And again, stop painting Hispanics as a monolithic group that agrees on everything. People are individuals. Most Republicans are not in favor of phasing out Social Security (as Ron Paul is). They don’t want to touch, or at best, they want to tinker around the edges. Same thing with Medicare. Mitt Romney even campaigned on restoring “cuts” to Medicare. And I already mentioned Medicare Part D. And you think Republicans are going to oppose imperialism? Don’t make me laugh

          It’s funny you compare Texas and California. Do you realize how similar their demographics are on a percentage basis? Almost the exact same number of whites and Hispanics, and Texas has more than double the number of blacks, while the opposite is true for Asians. Kind of shows how its not just brown immigrants who are ruining everything? We in California have our problems, no doubt. They’re far from the sole fault of Hispanics, immigrants, or even Democrats (Arnold was awful). And let’s not make Texas out to be some sort of capitalist libertarian paradise. And in the end, state level policies are going to seem all that important when the feds go broke.

    3. (cont) A majority of Republican senators voted for TARP, and a large number in the House did as well (and who knows how many more would have voted for it if they didn’t know it was going to safely pass without their vote, and they could vote against it to appease their constituents). It was signed by a Republican president. Many Republicans also supported the auto bailouts. And that’s not even going into the wars and civil liberties violations like the Patriot, NDAA (which most Republicans voted for). Both parties love socialism. The Democrats might love it a little more, but the system is unsustainable under the vision of both parties

  26. Question to reasonites: Are all forms of big government equally bad. Is the government telling gays they can’t have an equal share of government goodies the same thing as forcing the catholic church to buy birth control? Is having a system of citizens, something the constitution provides for, the equivalent of the governmentcontrolling the economy? Whenever someone points out the hispanics support of socialism, people just say that the GOP is jus as bad. Really?

    1. You’re asking whether a government that doesn’t give out certain privileges the same thing as a government that forces someone to comply with some mandatory decision?

      The problem isn’t that gays want their marriage rights, it’s that government is giving out MY crap to someone just because they’re banging the same person on a regular basis and have the paperwork to prove it.

      Yep really. The republicans are just as bad.

  27. Alright, I think I have a solution. Since reasonites live in a fairy tale world where every goverment power is equally illegitamate, even when it comes down to saving libertarianism, I propose a solution that will allow us to have our servants and not let them vote. You guessed it, they can’t vote. Anyone who wants to can immigrate, we’ll have open borders, but only citizens can vote, and immigrants won’t get citizenship. After all do reasonites favor a right to control your own government?

    1. Theoretically, I’m for keyhole solutions, though I need to see some evidence they’re sustainable.

    2. I didn’t have to guess. You flat out told me in the preceding sentence.

      Vote for what? Why should american citizens have more of a right to have a government wield illegitimate power over me than immigrants. Why should immigrants have less of that right?

  28. Suppose a foriegn army (with guns) was invading our country. Half of you would say, yes, the government should protect our country. Defending our system of liberty from foriegn invasion was something our founders recognized as the main role of government. But the founders also regonozed that foriegn armies hostile to liberty could use the ballot box, as well as the battleship, to take power in their country. Therefore they recongized the right of Americans to control who has the privilage of rulling them. If forieners were threatening their liberty, they could stop the forieners from immigrating. Under Reasonite libertarianism I wouldn’t have the right to decide who rules me any more than a mexican gangster or an afganistani peasant would. They could easily come into my communitty and vote themselves more of my money. This isn’t the system the founders had in mind.

    1. Except people coming here to pick tomatoes aren’t analogous to a conquering army. Oh and for the first 150 years of this country, there were no laws on who could come here. There were laws regarding naturalization and citizenship, but not who could move here

      1. The end result is the same, a society ruled by statist foriners. You ever pick tomatoes, my friend? I did, a few times I worked on a farm when I was young, the work SUCKS.

        1. So why should we stop people from coming here to do that exactly? Also, nice spelling. And if people are US citizens, they’re not foreigners. Contrary to what I assume you think based on your screen name, your not the only true American, nor are white people the only true Americans. Nor are minorities the only statists.

          In the end, you’re only making the argument against democracy. Rights shouldn’t be up to a vote

          1. “Rights shouldn’t be up to a vote.”
            Well they are, and as long as you are willing to give immigrants the right to vote, they will take away your rights.

  29. You mention Ross Douthat’s suggestion that supporting amnesty will hurt the party amoung white voters. You then ignore it throughout your essay. No attempt was made to refute it using facts or reason.(pun intended) Just think about it this way. Whites are 72% of the electorate, hispanics are about 9% That means raising the white share by 4% would be equivilant hispanic share by 32%. Which do you think would be easier?

    1. I think the problem is the youth / single female voters will increasingly take over the white vote.

      Having said, the GOP will have a much easier time winning additional white votes than winning over the Latinos, who are more entrenched in their positions.

  30. No attempt was made to refute it using facts or reason.

    This describes every article Dalmia has ever written. If you want to see what she’s like in action, check out her bloggingheads with Mark Krikorian.

    BTW, you should check out openborders.info. I’ve provided a couple relevant links ITT. There’s a lively comment section on the front page/blog and great summaries of proponents and opponents and their ideas.

  31. Some of you say “the Latinos aren’t monolithic”. But for the purposes of elections, if your group vote 70% for the party for almost 15 years, you’re pretty much monolithic as voting bloc.

    It will NOT be easy trying to change the minds of immigrants who come from a racially monolithic nation ripe with hardcore nationalism and one way / trend driven thinking. A few years ago when South Korea was going ballistic over the US supposedly importing beef infected with mad cow disease, I used to argue with hothead Korean netizens by pointing out the astronomically low chances of eating such meat. Of course I was branded as an American sellout, not a true Korean, etc.

    I had casual argument with older Asians about prop 30. The response I got was the typical “No nation can stand without educating their youth” line that could have been lifted from the DNC newsletter.

    Americans have a good laugh watching giant Asian parliamentary brawls, over the top demonstration (land dispute anyone) or stories about pissed off Asians email bombing FIFA when their national football team is “robbed” because fanaticism in it most undiluted form is still new to them. And the Asian voters who live here, they ain’t THAT removed from the crowd. They’ll defend their positions with vigor and conviction.

    Sensible amnesty is the right thing to do. But in agreeing to do so, the GOP is giving its already growing foe millions of newly legalized voters.

    1. “exporting beef”, I meant to say.

      Edit button, one day.

    2. I don’t think any amnesty plan on the table offers immediate citizenship

      1. But they’ll be citizens eventually, and when they do, they’ll probably vote democrat. Or at the very least, vote against limited government.

        The libertarian party is already what the libertarians are urging GOP to be. But there’s no tidal wave of disillusioned immigrants flocking to their side.

        Will the GOP’s evolution stop after amnesty? What if they agree to perpetual unionization and hikes in minimum wage to appease Latino hotel maids, house cleaners, and babysitters? Should they consider gender hiring quotas, or mandate paid maternity leaves and childcare on all businesses to attract single female voters? Those young college kids, they have debts crying out to be forgiven, you know.

        A divorced dad can’t buy his kids’s love with just one great Christmas gift. A guy who wants loving has to plan more than one romantic night or a box of chocolate.

        Maybe the conversation should shift to what anyone can do to solidify the 30% of minorities who will not vote for democrats? We’re outnumbered badly and there’s no outreach to us whatsoever.

        1. “The libertarian party is already what the libertarians are urging GOP to be. But there’s no tidal wave of disillusioned immigrants flocking to their side.”

          There also isn’t a tidal wave of native born whites flocking to it either.

          1. The point is, the GOP being more libertarian is unlikely to draw more of the emerging new electorate, because they’re not attracted by libertarians to begin with.

  32. Yet another entry into “Romney lost because of his stance on *insert my pet issue*.”
    He didn’t lose because of that or any other issue. He didn’t lose because he was too conservative or too moderate.
    He lost because a majority of Americans want their free shit, and judged Obama to be more apt at getting it for them.
    While there are things that exacerbated the situation (mainly Romney not exactly being the most convincing supporter for limited government for anyone inclined to vote for such a thing, or being able to argue for it in any remotely convincing manner), it really was as simple as that.
    “The rest of this is just smoke filled coffeehouse crap.”
    Obama is the Michael Phelps of the free shit Olympics, and that’s really all there is to it.

  33. Basically, all the things that make the Republican Party statist assholes.
    http://www.hqew.net

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.