Immigration

Republicans See the Light on Immigration

The GOP takes small steps away from its infatuation with big government as a weapon against new citizens.

|

In 2012, the Republican Party stood for the ancient biblical proposition that the sins of the father should be visited upon the son. Mitt Romney captured its presidential nomination while vowing to veto the Dream Act, which would allow immigrants brought here illegally as children to gain citizenship.

Not coincidentally, Romney lost the election while getting just 27 percent of the Latino vote. Many Republicans concluded they had no choice but to revamp their policies on issues of particular concern to Hispanics. As prominent conservative blogger Erick Erickson so bluntly put it, "The fastest growing demographic in America isn't going to vote for a party that sounds like that party hates brown people."

The new statement of "principles on immigration" issued by congressional Republicans does not sound hateful toward brown people. In fact, it flatly contradicts Romney on the Dream Act. "It is time to provide an opportunity for legal residence and citizenship for those who were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own, those who know no other place as home," it declares.

That's not the only change. The 2012 party platform heaped scorn on "any form of amnesty for those who, by intentionally violating the law, disadvantage those who have obeyed it" and promised steps to force what Romney winningly called "self-deportation."

But this outline agrees, a bit grudgingly, that "these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S." if they meet certain requirements, like paying back taxes, passing background checks and learning English. Only a "special path to citizenship" is categorically rejected.

On the latter point, the Republicans disagree with President Barack Obama, who wants to create a new avenue for the undocumented to be naturalized. But Republicans don't rule out eventual citizenship, and they do address the most pressing concerns of the people here illegally: ending their fear of deportation and letting them work legally.

It's a major change, which makes it significant but also risky—not because of the response it may draw from Hispanics but because of the reaction it may provoke among Republicans. Many of them see unauthorized migrants as an affront to the rule of law, an alien cultural influence and a political threat.

The House GOP leadership has the thankless task of changing the minds of these conservatives—or at least keeping them from a revolt that would derail legislation and further alienate Latino voters. The need to appease tea partiers explains why the blueprint contains so many tough but ill-considered demands.

"We must secure our borders now and verify that they are secure," it says, which is like saying we must eradicate all criminal activity or ensure that every childhood is happy. Our borders will never be made secure as long as large numbers of poor foreigners see America as the end of the rainbow. They will find ways to get in.

Republicans generally oppose burdensome regulations of business, and many of them are leery of giving the federal government more power to monitor law-abiding citizens. But somehow they are infatuated with E-Verify, which would require the federal government to confirm the employment eligibility of every new hire in America.

This system, endorsed in the new statement, is billed as a weapon against foreigners who break our laws. But it would apply equally to native-born Americans who have never so much as missed a dental checkup. When the federal employment verification system makes mistakes, as it does, businesses are forced to postpone hiring and applicants end up cooling their heels.

"Every tyranny silences opponents by controlling their ability to earn a living," wrote economist John Cochrane of the University of Chicago and the Hoover Institution in The Wall Street Journal. "How is it that so many supposedly freedom-loving, small-government Republicans want to arm our nation's politicized bureaucracy—fresh from the scandals at the IRS and elsewhere—with the power to do just that?"

The good news is that these GOP members grasp the need to moderate their policy. They also offer an authentic compromise: granting legal status to millions of people but not assuring them eventual citizenship. The bad news is that the statement perpetuates the fantasy of wiping out illegal immigration by empowering government.

But the congressional Republicans are halfway toward reality, which represents big progress. And who knows? Maybe in time they'll realize that reality isn't going to meet them in the middle.

NEXT: Russian DPM: Sochi as Safe as New York, Washington, Boston

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 House should pass a bill tomorrow that grants 10 year green cards to anyone who wants one at the price of agreeing to never get citizenship. That would solve about 90% of the harms of the current system. But the Democrats would never agree to it because they want voters not workers. Let the Democrats explain to Hispanics why they turned down the chance to grant legal status to anyone who wants it.

    1. Silicon Valley would hate such a system as well since it grant the coolies they bring in from India and other places the freedom to quit and look for a job elsewhere without losing their VISA.

      Passing a bill like that would expose an epic amount of hypocrisy on the open borders side.

      1. This fantasy that “Silicon Valley” wants to enslave their workers is asinine. Do you know how much it hurts to lose good talent, especially talent that you’ve trained and who knows the ins and outs of their position? Places like Microsoft and Google would love to bring over more skilled workers with less hassle, especially with the carrot of “you get to be a citizen”. They already go out of their way to make things as easy for them as possible, like hiring accounting firms to do all their taxes for them, including dealing with all their overseas properties and holdings and stuff.

        I know that you’ve been suckered into the “coolies” mentality, but it’s just flat out bullshit. Stop promulgating it.

        1. Do you know how the H1 Visas work? If you lose your job you lose your VISA. So that allows them to bring people in and treat them like shit because they can’t quit without basically immediately having another job.

          I would get rid of that system and make Visas time not job based. That way if someone comes to work here and don’t like their employer, they can say fuck you and quit.

          The biggest reason they want foreign workers so bad is that they have the added leverage of the HB1 Visa hanging over them. Take that away and they would suddenly be a lot less interested in the program.

          1. Episiarch, I think there’s some truth to what John says. After all, an American has the ability to threaten to quit and walk down the street to get another job. Not sure it’s as easy for these people, though you’d think they could just go find another sponsor before quitting.

            1. After all, an American has the ability to threaten to quit and walk down the street to get another job.

              Technically, yes. In this economy it’s a lot easier said than done.

              1. True. And that is another harm of creating the jobless economy Progs seem to want so badly.

                1. creating the jobless economy Progs seem to want so badly

                  I don’t think they necessarily want a jobless economy. They want jobs. Thing about progs is that they require everything to be controlled, and that results in the economy going to shit. I don’t think they intend for the economy to go to shit. They just want to prevent anyone from doing anything without asking permission and obeying orders. The only problem is that turns the economy into shit, regardless of their intentions.

                  1. I don’t think they intend for the economy to go to shit.

                    few things open the door to govt control than an economy gone to shit. Look at how they’re spinning the CBO report on lost jobs due to O-care. If it leads to more dependency on govt, and as such more power for it, progs are in support.

                    1. few things open the door to govt control than an economy gone to shit.

                      There’s definitely a feedback loop.

                      Let’s control this to make it better! Oh, no, it got worse!
                      Let’s fix it by controlling it more! Oh, no, it got worse!
                      Let’s fix it by controlling it more! Oh, no, it got worse!
                      Let’s fix it by controlling it more! Oh, no, it got worse!
                      .
                      .
                      .

            2. After all, an American has the ability to threaten to quit and walk down the street to get another job.

              I thought Obamacare solved this problem of needing another job?

            3. You have time after your job ends. Something like 3-6 months to find a new sponsor. This still limits an H1-B holder to people with H1-B sponsorships, but the set is larger than one.

          2. I have seen some shitty, smaller companies do that. But the big ones? The ones that can get good talent? They have no need to do that, nor do they want to; they want happy, non-coerced employees. And most smaller companies and startups don’t take H1Bs anyway because the paperwork is too much.

            The idea that it’s the software companies that keep the H1B the way it is is ludicrous, because even if they were benefiting from coercion of shittier employees (which really isn’t what they want), it means it’s too easy for them to lose their best employees. They would much rather have a simpler system where they can say to the best and brightest prospective employees: if you come work for us, we can guarantee you US citizenship. But they can’t do that.

            1. Indeed. Blaming the private sector as opposed to union thuggery over preventing H1B reform is silly.

              1. Can’t it be both? The unions want to keep the numbers down. But the unions have no real interest in it being based on employment. The employers certainly do.

                Who wouldn’t want an employe that you could threaten with deportation if they quit?

                1. “Who wouldn’t want an employe that you could threaten with deportation if they quit?”

                  Companies do do this, yes, especially in CA where the supply of cheap immigrants from Mexico and China is plentiful. The Chinese seem particularly vulnerable to threats of deportation by their employers (who tend also to be Chinese).

                  These don’t tend to be very successful companies, though. Workers that you’re keeping via threats of deportation don’t tend to be the greatest workers, and the companies that do that (that I’ve seen, anyway), are constantly struggling with low productivity and quality control issues.

            2. They would much rather have a simpler system where they can say to the best and brightest prospective employees: if you come work for us, we can guarantee you US citizenship.

              First, I am not convinced being a citizen means that much anymore. Second, they seem to have no problem filling their quotas now. So I don’t see how they need more incentive to get people. Sure, they would like to have more of them. But I have yet to hear where they think they need them to provide citizenship. If that were the case, how would they fill the ones they have now so easily?

              But if it is all about offering citizenship, they wouldn’t have a problem with making VISA’s time based instead of employment based.

              I would love to find out in practice how they would react to such a proposal. My guess is that they would not react well at all.

              1. Time based doesn’t solve their problems. They still potentially lose the employee after the time is up.

                I’m going to speculate, here, John, that you think the people operating these companies are TEAM BLUE so you want to find the most evil motives possible to prove that TEAM BLUE is hypocritical, instead of looking at the business environment itself.

                1. I’m going to speculate, here, John, that you think the people operating these companies are TEAM BLUE so you want to find the most evil motives possible to prove that TEAM BLUE is hypocritical, instead of looking at the business environment itself.

                  Why would Red Tony do something like that?

                2. I’m going to speculate, here, John

                  This isn’t meant to be snark, but would you happen to be employed in one of these big companies?

                3. Time based doesn’t solve their problems. They still potentially lose the employee after the time is up.

                  But if you made it ten years, it wouldn’t be much of a problem. How many people stay in the same job for ten years?

                  And I am not saying the are evil. I am saying they are people. Why would any employer not want leverage over their employees? And if what you are saying is the case, then the people recieving HB1 Visas should be people with the highest skills. But that is not the case. Most of the HB1 VISA requests are for tech support jobs, not engineering and coding jobs.

                  You make it sound like HB1 Visas are the way to get the super star programers and engineers. And that is just not what t he large bulk of them are used for. Most of them are for tech support nugs.

                  1. You have to use an H1B for a superstar too. That’s the problem. It’s a one-size-fits-all shitty solution to a dumb problem.

            3. I have seen some shitty, smaller companies do that. But the big ones? The ones that can get good talent? They have no need to do that, nor do they want to; they want happy, non-coerced employees.

              I work for one of the biggest data storage, information security, and virtualization companies in the world.

              What John describes is exactly how they treat H1Bs. The company lobbies extensively to increase the H1B cap so that it can hire more indentured serfs on the cheap, rather than paying an American who can go elsewhere for better wages or work conditions.

              You are wrong.

          3. It’s kind of like the added leverage of student loan debts or employer subsidized healthcare. It’s not like the H1Bs are the only people with strong disincentives to leave their job.

          4. Found on the DOL’s list of disbarred employers:

            Prince George’s County Public Schools
            14201 School Lane
            Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772

            They’re also marked as a willful violator.

          5. “The biggest reason they want foreign workers so bad is that they have the added leverage of the HB1 Visa hanging over them.”

            I work in Silicon Valley at a major internet company. This is horse shit.

            One of the reasons that people from the Bay Area don’t understand the shittiness of the rest of the economy is that the market there is insanely competitive.

            If you work for Intuit on an H1B, and you apply to Google, they don’t give a fuck. If they want you, they will take you and work out the paperwork. Trust me, it is an expense they would rather avoid. They would prefer to just pay the salary or give better benefits.

            Yes, having an H1B can make it hard for you to start your own company, contract, or join a small startup. But in the larger companies, it’s just noise and an expense they suffer but deal with.

        2. Places like Microsoft, Oracle and Amazon go out of their way to avoid hiring Americans. Lower pay, more control, what’s not to like?

          I know. I used to be a manager for one of those companies and they sent “specialists” around to teach us how to avoid hiring QUALIFIED Americans.

      2. Coolies? So, how is this comment not racist?

        1. Because it is meant to be a slam on the employer not the employees. The term coolie refers to Chinese who were brought here and worked to death. To the extent that it is pejorative, it pejorative against the people who brought them here, not the coolies themselves.

          1. Yeah, I got the slam on the employer, maybe I took your ‘coolie’ comment too literally. And I’m well aware of the history of the term.

            To engage your point, I do admit I’ve done some headscratching over how Microsoft screams bloody murder that it simply can’t find any domestic qualified workers so it simply MUST import them from India.

            However, I’m also willing to believe that some older, experienced domestic workers (indicated in the article) might have to start taking a haircut on their pay. I’ve seen too many of my own counterparts making way over six figures for a job that should pay maybe the high 70s or 80s.

            1. “However, I’m also willing to believe that some older, experienced domestic workers (indicated in the article) might have to start taking a haircut on their pay”

              I think this is really the biggest thing. I’m coming from construction, not tech, so the whole working environment is somewhat different, but the last time we hired a framing company that employed all white Americans the company went bankrupt before finishing the job in no small part because all of their white guys, who cost a bundle, would just sit around most of the day and complain about how hard they were expected to work.

              All around them were armies of various immigrants too busy working to stop and listen to these guys complain all day. My foreman actually complained to me that they were slowing him down because they just wanted to sit and talk all the time.

              1. Around here, those that are actually left in the business all work hard…

                1. Precisely. 2010-2011 put all the lazy people out of business.

        2. Shut up Coolie

    2. The House should pass a bill tomorrow that grants 10 year green cards to anyone who wants one at the price of agreeing to never get citizenship.

      How about a green card that doesn’t expire, but you can never be eligible nor have to pay for UE benefits, SS, Medicare, etc. You may work where you want and you are responsible for your own needs when you are not working along with the ability for citizens to opt out of those same programs.

      1. That would work too. I pulled the ten year figure out of the air. It doesn’t have to be that.

        1. When my grandfather immigrated to the U.S. in the 30’s, he worked for a company to, basically, make farms out of swamp land. That included recruiting other potential immigrants that were willing to stick a plow in the mud and try to make something better for themselves. Everything he had in his home, down to the forks and spoons, were recorded in a ledger, since he owed it all to the company. He did pretty well for himself, eventually owning his own businesses and employing the natives. It’s a shame that kind of opportunity isn’t available to everyone willing to take the chance.

    3. Yes, of course, young people who benefit from the crimes of their parents shouldn’t be made to pay. That’s why if your parents are bank robbers, their kids should get to keep whatever money they stole. Right?
      /sarcasm

      How about just enforcing the law in the first place?

      In fact, stiffen the law. Give criminal aliens 6 months to get out. Provide free bus service to the border. Help them fill out the paperwork to immigrate LEGALLY. At the end of six months, begin fining any employer who hires a criminal alien $1000 a day. Same for anyone who rents a property to a criminal alien, or provides transportation. Offer a bounty on criminal aliens, and when they’re caught, confiscate all their property and sentence them to two years at hard labor. When that’s up, dump them over the border. If they return, execute them.

      We don’t have to surrender America to a foreign invasion. And while it may seem cruel to “penalize” young criminal aliens by taking away the fruits of their parents’ criminal conduct, it’s crueler still to America’s youth to take away their future and give it to criminals.

    4. Oh yeah, let’s create a whole new class of American gastarbeiters. That’ll work great.

      No folks, we need amnesty with full citizenship AND effective border control. Hopefully afterwards we can see about reviving the old braceros program. But it is not our job to act as the safety valve for a violent narco-state and the utterly corrupt government that runs it.

      Citizenship has to mean something. So does the rule of law. We have the right and the duty as Americans to defend both.

  2. Mitt Romney captured its presidential nomination while vowing to veto the Dream Act, which would allow immigrants brought here illegally as children to gain citizenship.

    Romney… would’ve done it… too?

  3. OT: Cop arrests firefighter in the middle of attending to accident victims for Failure To Obey.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new…..ghway.html

    Apparently it is not uncommon for this police department do arrest firemen in the middle of helping people.

    Serve and protect? Yeah right.

    1. SErving and protecting THE LAW, sarc. Can’t have rogue firemens all over parking illegally. What if there were a fire and we needed to get a….

      LAW, sarc. THE LAW.

    2. The incident comes after multiple battles between police and fire crews in southern California

      That I’d like to see.

    3. Speaking of the Daily Fail…

      UPenn is making the news for four suicides since the beginning of winter? Shit, M.I.T. averages 4 suicides a week!

      1. There is a high school here in a well-off neighborhood that has seen something like 4 suicides this year.

        I’m not much about trend stories, but I don’t think anyone committed suicide in the entire 18 years I went to school– in the entire town I lived in, let alone the single school.

        Makes one wonder what in hades is going on.

        1. but I don’t think anyone committed suicide in the entire 18 years I went to school– in the entire town I lived in, let alone the single school.

          Where you from again? It could be due to the amount of sunshine. Up here when the sun sets at 4:30 on a cold November day…yeah, I can see how it could put you in a funk.

          1. Heathers.

            It’s the new “cool thing”.

          2. Northwest, but I grew up and went to school in the Southwest.

            I don’t know. Just seems strange. I understand clustering when you have very low numbers of something. Last year we had one, this year we had two. Rates have doubled!

            But like I said, where I grew up, it wasn’t like one this year, none the next three years, then one, then none… it was like… none for 18 years.

            I obviously can’t make any statistical claims about it, but four in one year from one school gets my attention.

        2. If the statistical average is one and you get 5 one year and zero for four… Also, teenagers are followers. Heathers makes the point in an 80s black comedy way, but it isn’t totally invalid.

        3. Antidepressants?

          I love how one of the main side effects of a lot of drugs that are supposed to make you happier is suicidal thoughts.

          1. I love how one of the main side effects of a lot of drugs that are supposed to make you happier is suicidal thoughts.

            Are they? I’ve always wondered about that. You give a bunch of people with dodgy hearts some medication to help with their dodgy hearts, and some have heart attacks. Could it be that the medication was simply ineffective for those users as opposed to the cause?

            1. I didn’t conduct the studies, so I can’t really say. But a well controlled study should be able to distinguish. All I know is that suicidal thoughts are listed as a side effect on a lot of antidepressants.

    4. ‘I normally give Cops the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I can’t see any way this couldn’t have been handled after the incident,’ James Johnson added.

      Translation: when they do it to other people they deserve it, but I work for the government and should get special treatment.

    5. “Hmmm…let this guy help his colleagues save the lives of accident victims, or wave my dick around? What to do…what to do…well, always go with your dick, I say.”

      1. You give the cop way too much credit.

        “This guy didn’t immediately obey me! Rage!”

        1. Probably what sarc said….maybe it was an NCO or LT, and they did both RAGE DICK WAVE!

          1. What if the overturned car was a cop car and the injured people were cops not just “civilians?” I’m sure the dick-waver would have been just as insistent on arresting one of the firemen saving the cops’ lives.

            1. I wonder if the cops understand that when they do things like this it makes the people very reluctant to help them when they actually need it. Probably not. When you never face any consequences for your actions you don’t have any reason to think ahead.

  4. When the GOP isn’t open borders enough for you, you’ve gone off the deep end.

    Unemployment is above 0%, right? So maybe, I dunno, HIRE FUCKING AMERICAN WORKERS.

    1. HIRE FUCKING AMERICAN WORKERS.

      As long as government continues to increase the cost of hiring Americans through taxes, regulations, workers comp, unemployment, etc. there will remain a strong incentive to hire those who do not also incur those costs.

      1. You have to pay those same costs if you hire an immigrant. The crucial difference is that the immigrant isn’t coming off of decades of protectionism creating an attitude of entitlement that necessarily breeds extreme laziness and surliness.

        1. Case in point at this very moment I’m catching heat from an angry owner because one of my few native-borns was supposed to be at the site an hour ago to look at a heater that isn’t working and no one knows where he is.

          Not to sound racist, but if I’d asked a Mexican to go, he’d be done already.

          1. Case in point at this very moment I’m catching heat from an angry owner because one of my few native-borns was supposed to be at the site an hour ago to look at a heater that isn’t working and no one knows where he is.

            Maybe if you hadn’t been so busy posting on blogs to keep up with your employees you could have prevented that. Not that posting on a blog is racist or anything.

            1. Point being that some employees you have to chase around and nag to get them to do their jobs, and some you don’t. Doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not you think I’m using my time in a productive way by typing this.

              1. It was just a joke, but…you wouldn’t happen to be a cracker would you?

                1. Pardon my failed sense of humor – I’ve a particularly loathsome bureaucrat who’s given me a bad year breathing down my neck on this one, and it’s putting a cramp in my smile meter this morning.

                  And as to your ethnic diagnosis, you are correct.

          2. Is there a functional difference between someone with a strong work ethic and someone who’s desperate?

            I really don’t like the automatic assertion behind this. Similar to the automatic assumption that American made products are inferior to imports, the assumption that American workers are automatically inferior to immigrants deserves some scrutiny.

            1. Is there a functional difference between someone with a strong work ethic and someone who’s desperate?

              There are quite a few tobacco farms where I live…even now. Try to guess the typical demographic quality of a tobacco harvester before migrant labor became easily available.

            2. That is a terrible assumption. There are loads of hard working Americans with excellent work ethics. Just not as many who are willing to work every day for $8/hour doing roofing or landscaping or whatever as the market demands.

              1. There is that. But even so, how much of that is being “entitled and lazy” (and it’s bound to be a part of it) and how much is just the cost of living?

              2. Just not as many who are willing to work every day for $8/hour doing roofing or landscaping or whatever as the market demands.

                If your skills meant you had the choice between sitting at home and earning $10 an hour or working on a hot roof for $8 an hour what would you choose?

              3. “There are loads of hard working Americans with excellent work ethics. Just not as many who are willing to work every day for $8/hour.”

                Yes. My point exactly.

            3. I simplify my observations in response to “HIRE FUCKING AMERICAN WORKERS” as if that is some sort of meaningful statement in the context of this discussion.

              There is absolutely a difference between desperation and having a work ethic. Telling the difference is an important part of hiring people.

              My main point is that the attitude that Americans should be hired just because they’re Americans has caused Americans (in my observation) to have a less robust work ethic than immigrants. Always? No. Generally speaking? Yes.

        2. The crucial difference is that the immigrant isn’t coming off of decades of protectionism creating an attitude of entitlement

          That isn’t necessarily the case either

        3. Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I’m gonna be watching you.

        4. You are completely muddled on the “costs” issue. When a licensed construction company is forced to comply with tons of regulations and costs but loses work to under-the-table workers he’s being “protected” right into bankruptcy.
          Every human is lazy – the hardest working framer I ever worked for said it of himself. Give someone, anyone, a short-cut and they’ll take it.
          By the way, even illegals who are taxed over claim dependent a and basically strip their taxable income down to nothing.
          Signed,
          One of the last white roofers/framers in California.

          1. “When a licensed construction company is forced to comply with tons of regulations and costs but loses work to under-the-table workers he’s being “protected” right into bankruptcy.”

            Exactly my point.

    2. When the GOP isn’t open borders enough for you, you’ve gone off the deep end.

      What?

      HIRE FUCKING AMERICAN WORKERS.

      What fucking business is it of yours who I hire? If I’d rather give my money to Mexicans than to Americans for whatever reason, that is no one else’s goddamn business.

      1. Then go do business in Mexico.

    3. HIRE AMERICAN WORKERS?
      Not good enough my friend. Not good enough by half. California has it’s own problems. It should be illegal for California companies to hire outside the state. Indeed no company should ever be allowed to hire anyone that doesn’t have an established residence (six months minimum) within five minutes of the place of work.

      In fact, you know what, nobody should ever hire anyone outside their own family. Take my cousin Bill. He hasn’t held a job for more than six months in the past ten years. But do you think my Uncle Robert will put him on the payroll at the lumber yard? NoooOOOooo.

      That’s why we have a shrinking middle class and are stuck in permanent recession.

      And when I say hire family, I mean blood relatives. Fuck those in-laws. Go back to Dorchester you gold digging ne’er-do-wells. Trying to marry into the West Cenosha dream.

  5. The new statement of “principles on immigration” issued by congressional Republicans does not sound hateful toward brown people.

    Hey Chapman! Are you prejudice against brown people? Because lots of immigrants are not brown. Or are you prejudiced against Republicans with your notion that they hate brown people? Either way, go suck a bag of dicks.

    1. Actually, when the word “immigrant” is used on Reason and many other places, it translates to “Mexicans”.

      When the immigration reformers start worrying about people who arrive by airplane as well as those who cross the Mexican border, I’ll start to listen to them.

      But the airplane people are very easy to stop so we save all our nativist border protectionism for them.

      1. I think you left your projector on.

        1. Cute, but you fail to convince me that the emphasis in immigration reform discussions ever moves far from Hispanics, read Mexicans.

          There are very few Poles, Swedes, Slovenes, or Scots in the 11-13 million dwellers in the shadows we are so anxious to accommodate. And there is nothing in any of the reform proposals that will allow an increase in non-Hispanic immigration.

  6. Sorry, I banged this broad yesterday. Today I’m sober. Next time, post it around 5PM and you’ll catch me in the mood.

  7. Republicans generally oppose burdensome regulations of business,

    The history of political decisions made by GOP legislators and executives belies this argument. Republicans only pay lip service to the principle of not burdering businesses with regulations. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former are at least more candid about their predilection for a regulatory regime than the latter.

    But somehow they are infatuated with E-Verify, which would require the federal government to confirm the employment eligibility of every new hire in America.

    Quite a few conservatives fall head over heels for E-Verify because they are completely and woefully ignorant of what E-Verify is, entails and implies. For E-Verify to work as advertised, every single person that is of legal age to work would have to be registered in the database, presumably by querying the Social Security database, which is full of errors as it is. A single error can stop a person from gainful employment, doesn’t matter if the person is an American Citizen. The COST to implement this system would make the Obamacare website seem like setting up a new blog.

    1. “The COST to implement this system…”

      Feature not a bug. The COST goes into the pockets of campaign contributors and other favored cronies.

  8. This has to be the worst pro-amnesty argument ever made. Republicans won 27% of the Latino vote in the 2012 election, so the only way to save the Republican party is…wait for it…more Latino voters!

    What was that Mark Twain line about some ideas being so dumb that only the highly educated could ever take them seriously?

    1. Orwell said that, but point well taken.

  9. Republicans seeing the light? You’ve got to be kidding, right? This is all about trying to buy votes, and you know it.
    It’s easy to point fingers at republican followers and say their stance is hypocritical since they’re supposed to be against big government. I call you a hypocrite, Chapman. LIMITED government is supposed to do what it is contracted to do – which in this case is controlling the borders and enforcing the laws against illegally migrating.
    The entire problem is recognizing we are a welfare state, and that the constitution has been completely overrun by the progressives. If I can be a supporter of the right of a citizen of Mexico to come and compete for labor, I can also be an opponent of allowing them any form of subsidization. I am the consistent individual; Chapman is not.
    The dream act is another example of the progressive “compromise” that statists and progressives continually bash the real libertarians/rightists with. The compromise over the past 100 years has been all going left.
    A libertarian view would recognize their beliefs are inconsistent with a welfare, protectionist state. Just as with so-called “free-trade” treaties; you are asking Americans to cut their own throats and recognize it as a smile.

  10. Immigration threads here crack my shit up.

    1. For once, a statement of irrefutable fact from our Tony.

  11. Becoming a citizen of the United States of America is apparently no longer based upon a legal presence here, but upon how many people can outwit the Border Patrol and sneak in to the country. Once in, staying depends on whatever political party will take you in and make you legal based on the whims of politicians who need your approval and your vote. A far cry from the many many thousands who wore their legal entry into this country through such places as Ellis Island and Angel Island as a badge of honor. All that back in the “olden days”. Yes I know, Latinos work hard and are family centered and all that. So what!! So were all those European Americans who came here decades and decades ago, and worked hard and had families and all that, and all through a legal entry into the country. I guess crossing on dry land through an essentially unprotected border makes everything different.

    1. One party wants to buy your vote with welfare state goodies and affirmative action privileges, the other one wants to use you to hold down wages.

    2. I guess crossing on dry land through an essentially unprotected border makes everything different.

      No. It actually makes it identical.

      Everyone who passed through Ellis Island before World War I with a first or second class ticket got into the country without question. Everyone else faced more stringent inspection, which 98% passed.

      And even after 1924 when Ellis Island was slammed shut, no one cared who crossed the Mexican border until the 1940s.

      What makes immigration different today compared to the days of Ellis Island is that almost all immigration was legal then and almost all immigration is illegal now.

      1. I’ll take your word for it on the points about Ellis island and immigration up until the 40’s. Although, they did at least get documented and go through a process.
        But, you make a crucial error in your facts. The difference between allowing free immigration then and restricting immigration now is this: We weren’t a welfare state then.
        I am a supporter of free movement of labor and capital in a free market. But, if the government is going to shackle me with forced labor (which taxation has essentially become) and fiat currencies that they reserve the right to counterfeit in lieu of a gold standard; you are going to have a hard time convincing me to share the bunk in my cell.
        The United States bailed out the peso in the early nineties and to continue to subsidize their poverty-making oligarchy is an unfair burden on regular people who are forced to pay for it.

  12. The year I began writing was also the year I joined the original Minuteman Project. Naco, Arizona. 5000 illegals crossing everyday in the peak seasons.

    The only issue is enforcement. There is not nor should be a “we’ll consider amnesty after enforcement is solved.” There should be no amnesty for those who broke the law.

    You enforce the law and continue with proper paths of citizenship as before. You give absolutely nothing to the lawbreaker. And if there are threats of violence from mass demonstrations then call in the National Guard. It doesn’t matter the color of your skin. If you’re saying in demonstrations that America belongs to Mexico, if you’re waving the Mexican flag in our country, then you are an enemy to this country. Period. And you should be treated accordingly as an enemy. The fact that a million people protest that we dare state we should have border security shows there is a serious attitude problem in the Latino community in the southwestern states. It is what it is.

    I’ve written in fiction what is based on history. These are the ingredients that produce the poison of future societal breakdowns. Or civil wars. As history shows if we do not regain our moral compass in law and values we will have one of the two in our nation and probably sooner than later.

    Charles Hurst. Author of THE SECOND FALL. An offbeat story of Armageddon. And creator of THE RUNNINGWOLF EZINE

  13. E-Verify is 98% accurate and where it isn’t accurate a citizen should know about it so they can ask the Social Security Administration make the necessary correction.

    Asking Illegal Aliens to get legal so they can work is easy. All they have to do is go to the post office and ask for one of the unlimited numbers of work permit cards that are available in the Agricultural industry where workers are desperately needed. As soon as they fill the card out and mail it, they can’t be deported.

    The reason they haven’t done this so far is because their home countries (and U.S. lax standards) have told them they have a right to be here without following our laws. Many Mexicans believe this is really their country and not ours.

  14. Yes, of course, young people who benefit from the crimes of their parents shouldn’t be made to pay. That’s why if your parents are bank robbers, their kids should get to keep whatever money they stole. Right?
    /sarcasm

    How about just enforcing the law in the first place?

    In fact, stiffen the law. Give criminal aliens 6 months to get out. Provide free bus service to the border. Help them fill out the paperwork to immigrate LEGALLY. At the end of six months, begin fining any employer who hires a criminal alien $1000 a day. Same for anyone who rents a property to a criminal alien, or provides transportation. Offer a bounty on criminal aliens, and when they’re caught, confiscate all their property and sentence them to two years at hard labor. When that’s up, dump them over the border. If they return, execute them.

    We don’t have to surrender America to a foreign invasion. And while it may seem cruel to “penalize” young criminal aliens by taking away the fruits of their parents’ criminal conduct, it’s crueler still to America’s youth to take away their future and give it to criminals.

    1. Simple solution?
      Charge the Mexican government for all costs incurred by harboring their refugees. After all, they are held captive by a corrupt gang of mafia-men.

  15. I just farted and it smelt better than this article. This would not be an issue if the dollar wasn’t consistently loosing its value. I hope these RINO’s see the light.

  16. I support that “In fact, stiffen the law. Give criminal aliens 6 months to get out. Provide free bus service to the border. “

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.