Immigration

Anti-Immigration Restrictionism Is for Losers

Conservative intellectuals are pushing a turn that will alienate millennials, not secure the GOP's white base.

|

Donald Trump seems headed for an epic defeat next month. Several states that should be GOP strongholds—Arizona! Georgia! Indiana! Utah! Alaska!—are suddenly swing states. And it's pretty

Trump Casino
Donkey Hoter via Foter

much all Trump's fault.

But even as Trump prepares for a blowout, many conservatives have convinced themselves that Trumpism—The Donald's brew of economic populism and anti-immigration restrictionism—needs to be taken seriously. Trumpism, these conservatives say, proves that the GOP ignores the restrictionist wishes of its working-class base at the party's own peril.

This is a dubious lesson to draw from the 2016 presidential race that Trump himself seems to be slinking away from given that at the final debate he talked about his Great Wall of Trump stopping drugs more than workers. But if the GOP still insists on going down this path, it won't secure the party's existing base as much as it'll alienate its future one.

Restrictionism used to be confined to the fever swamps of right-wing extremists—think Rush Limbaugh and Joe Arpaio. But today, the who's who of conservative intellectuals has embraced restrictionism in one form or another because, they claim, "mass immigration" is overwhelming the country's capacity to absorb immigrants. (For the record, America's immigration level—3.5 foreigners per 1,000 people—less than half of Canada's 8.5 per 1,000.)

But many of the country's top conservative thinkers—from National Review's Reihan Salam and The New York Times' Ross Douthat, both separately and jointly, to The Week's Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, to National Affairs' Yuval Levin—are all touting restrictionist remedies for restoring America's economic and cultural health. These are all smart, thoughtful people whose arguments are by no means frivolous. But it is striking that although all of them are appalled by Trump's harsh deportation talk, they are now pushing measures that few respectable conservatives would have touched five years ago.

For starters, they openly call their agenda "restrictionism," a term that was anathema just a few years ago. More strikingly, even Rush Limbaugh-style immigration hardliners used to maintain that their quarrel wasn't with immigration as such, only illegal immigration. They weren't opposed to increasing legal immigration, provided those who are here illegally don't get "amnesty."

No longer.

The new conservative restrictionists would never favor a guest worker program with Mexico because they claim that low-skilled immigration threatens native wages and jobs. (In fact, low-skill immigrants have a relatively small impact on jobs one way or the other, while delivering enormous benefits to American consumers in the form of lower prices of goods and services.)

The most troubling shift, however, is on high-skilled immigration. In theory, these conservatives are in favor of ramping it up. In practice, they have attached so many caveats that one wonders if they are serious. They want any increase in high-tech immigration accompanied with offsetting reductions in low-skilled and family-based quotas to reduce overall immigration levels. Mitt Romney, by contrast, wanted to staple green cards to the diplomas of foreign techies graduating from American universities. But if they were truly serious about letting more high-skilled immigrants in, their media outlets wouldn't be constantly demonizing and questioning the H-1B high-tech visa program, one of the few legal avenues for foreign techies to legally work in the country.

But the good news is that so far, at least, these conservatives aren't shifting public opinion. To the contrary, in fact.

A Pew Research Center poll released in March found a dramatic shift in attitudes toward immigration—in a pro-immigrant direction. In 1994, 63 percent of Americans said immigrants burdened the country and 31 percent said they strengthened it. Now, it's the exact opposite with 59 percent saying strengthen and 33 percent burden.

Millennials, who are more ethnically diverse and open minded than older generations, are even more positively disposed toward immigrants. The same Pew poll found that 76 percent of millennials say immigrants strengthen the country, up from 59 percent in 2013.

Likewise, even though millennials have grown up in the age of terrorism, border enforcement is just not a big deal for them. A mere 20 percent favor building a wall, compared to 34 percent of the general public. Relatedly, 82 percent of millennials say they want undocumented immigrants to stay in the country if they meet certain conditions instead of being deported—compared to 75 percent of the general public.

The Pew poll was consistent with trends revealed in a 2012 analysis by the Opportunity Agenda that found that millennials were more favorably inclined toward immigrants than their elders on virtually every dimension. Fewer millennials thought that immigrants hurt the economy, even though they were entering the job market during a downturn. And they weren't as worried about immigrants burdening social services or bothered by those who didn't speak English.

If escalating restrictionist attacks are having any effect on younger Americans, it is in the opposite direction of what conservatives want. This should not be surprising. Typically, anti-immigration animus runs deepest precisely where people have little direct contact with immigrants. But Americans growing up in a diverse country rub shoulders with immigrants on a daily basis and are less likely to buy into negative portrayals. And this imperviousness will only grow as every generation gets more educated, acquiring skills that make it more globally competitive and less in need of artificial protections.

It is ironic that conservatives, believers in limited government and the free market, should be pushing heavy-handed government intervention in the labor market to shield Americans from competition. It is doubly ironic that they should be doing so now.

They are fighting not just a losing battle on immigration, but the last war. In an effort to consolidate the GOP's vanishing base, they will lose everyone else.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: Sheriff's Deputies Shoot Pregnant Single Mother While Performing 'Wellness Check'

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. Donald Trump seems headed for an epic defeat next month.

    Still stupid and clueless.

    1. I was referring to Dalmia of course.

      1. I think a lot of people are repulsed by the disgusting, ugly, fat ass, crippled, hideous, loudmouthed, bitch, cunt, hag devil and I think if he loses, it will be close.

        Most americans are uninformed morons after all and still vote based on someone’s looks and how they carry on TV.
        At that the dipshit trump is far less repugnant than her.

        1. Ha! You really think the Low information voters are breaking for Hillary? Please.

          And yes, Trump is on track to lose, huuuuuuge.

          1. And if he doesn’t, it will be because the Russians interfered. Right? Right?

            /Clinton supporter

            1. Sure but if he does lose its because the elections are rigged. Right? Right?

              1. Well the polls are rigged.

              2. I’ve got my FIRST check total of $4800 for a week, Working from home saves money in several ways.I love this. I’ve recently started taking the steps to build my freelance Job career so that I can work from home. Go this web and click to tech tab to start your work… http://www.Trends88.Com

      2. Georgia is not a swing state. Just because the progressive media says it, does not make it so.

        Georgia did not even go to Obama in 2008 nor 2012 and there are many black folks who voted for him. Hillary will never get 1.7M Democratic voters like Obama did.

  2. Immigration is such a black and white issue. If you’re not in favor of wide open borders and instant welfare for everyone who crosses the border, then you’re just against immigration period and you’re a racist bigot monster. You’re either for immigration or you’re not, there’s no grey areas. No room for discussion. The science is settled.

    1. bring the troops home, enforce border crossing illegally, let as many people in as long as they want to come over legally and pay taxes.

      We need population growth to ultimately have production growth.
      A long as they cannot be on the dole, I don’t see the harm in cheap labor and people with a work ethic.

      They should just have to play by the same ridiculous rules as we are all forced to at gun point.

      1. I don’t think we’re badly in need of population growth in the USA. Not that I’m against it, but we already have 350 million people in the USA, a 3rd of who are not in the workforce. I’m not sure how having 500 million residents residents and 300 million on welfare, which is where I’m guessing we’re heading, is going to make things much better.

        1. Indeed.

          But population growth = GDP growth. So by that reasoning, immigration is the greatest thing in the world and will always be so until we have more citizens than China.

          Just forget the decreasing percentage of people with jobs. It’s not important.

        2. When I was a kid the country got along just fine production-wise and otherwise with only 150 million population.

          1. And the middle class suburbs of the country were filled with families who only had one person working. We’re going to need child labor pretty soon to pay for the government’s spending.

          2. Whrn you were a kid there wasnt a crushing demographic gap in social security funding. over the next 50 years the US desperately needs workers funding social security to stay solvent. The combination of untouchable entitlements + nativist, byzantine immigration policies is a 1-2 punch set to knock the US economy the f*k out in the coming decades. The only solution is to get more younger workers paying into the system & reforming social security. The former cant be achieved with native birthrates alone.

        3. What is the current birth rate. Last I saw it was hovering at replacement rate. I don’t think it’s that high now. In the long run immigration doesn’t matter. Immigrants will eventually adopt the same low birthrate as natives.

        4. Its depends on what kind of population growth you want. Democrats want to buy votes through immigration give-aways.

          America will not be the great nation if most of the people who come here do not like free market and limited government [period]. The progressives know this, which is why they are fine with illegal immigration.

      2. “A long as they cannot be on the dole, I don’t see the harm in cheap labor and people with a work ethic.”

        How many hard working big government voters do you want to import?

    2. Re: Hyperion,

      The Trumpistas turned into a black-and-white issue. Have younever visited the comments section of Townhall dot com? Or Breitbart? Or the Dailly Caller? For the people who comment there, it would seem the only good immigrant is a dead one. It gets to that point.

      1. Yes, I know this, and it’s one half of why I posted that comment. They’re the one extreme side and the other extreme side is the open borders with free stuff crowd. I’m somewhere in the middle and both ends of the spectrum think there is no middle.

        1. “… the other extreme side is the open borders with free stuff crowd.”

          It is the free stuff crowd who are anti-immigration. They view the economy as a static pie that has to be shared; a fixed number of jobs, cash, benefits, entitlements, etc. that should go to “our people” first – white baby boomers for the Trumpkins, progressives and “minorities” for the Dems.

          Anti-immigration hysteria is a byproduct of the (bankrupt) welfare state. If you believe in free enterprise you understand that it is impossible to protect an economy by walling it off. A closed economy is a recipe for stagnation and decline. America is the new Soviet Union. The walls that are being put up will eventually keep Americans locked in.

          A strong and self-confident society would have open border and invite/challenge people to come in and compete and reach their full potential.

          1. problem is, we need to end all taxpayer funded welfare and entitlement programs. I am all for open borders as long as i am not paying for it.

            1. We won’t be getting rid of welfare and other related programs. Immigration is a net positive. Massive uncontrolled immigration undermines welfare. A little immigration can be absorbed. The only way I can see to compromise is to deny welfare benefits to anyone who is not a citizen. Leftists want both welfare and open borders. This is unsustainable.

          2. problem is, we need to end all taxpayer funded welfare and entitlement programs. I am all for open borders as long as i am not paying for it.

      2. “The Trumpistas turned into a black-and-white issue”

        That is nonsense. It was a black and white issue long before Trump, largely defined by the open-borders crowd as “you are with us, or you are a xenophobic bigot”.
        The only thing Trump brought to the argument was a yuge ability to simply not care about being called a xenophobic bigot.

        1. Plus, the illegal immigrant issue is black and white. Either you are for letting in illegal immigrants or you are not.

          Another issue is visas and paths to citizenship.

          Being for legal immigration and against illegal immigration does not make someone a xenophobic bigot.

    3. Yep. There’s no room for nuance whatsoever. Look at this racist George Borjas:

      Economist George Borjas: Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers

      Quote:
      … it’s not too farfetched to conclude that immigration has barely affected the total wealth of natives at all. Instead, it has changed how the pie is split, with the losers ? the workers who compete with immigrants, many of those being low-skilled Americans ? sending a roughly $500 billion check annually to the winners. Those winners are primarily their employers. And the immigrants themselves come out ahead, too. Put bluntly, immigration turns out to be just another income redistribution program.

      Once we understand immigration this way, it’s clear why the issue splits Americans – why many low-skilled native workers are taking one side, and why immigrants and businesses are taking another.

      1. No shit it hurts some workers. Where do you think the took-oor-jooobs battle cry comes from? The point is that it benefits the economy as a whole.

        1. You think this will benefit the economy as a whole?

          Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

          Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

          1. Latinos tend towards a corporate view of society and government.

            Mexico is, after, ruled by a Socialist International affiliate.

            1. We may be heading there with or without getting pushed by immigration from those culture that support the paternalistic view of government.

            2. Such a BS argument. Immigrants understand the importance of economic liberty, free enterprise and limited government much better than “native Americans”. They left their countries for a reason.

              Trump supporters are mostly old white baby boomers, clinging to their artificially propped up “American living standard”; house in the burbs, two cars in the garage, kids to college and their benefits and entitlements, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

              Trumpkins expect government to guarantee them jobs and “the American way of life”. That is the 20th century progressive statist mindset. That is not how the real world works and it will end one way or another – let Hillary Clinton take the blame when it happens.

              1. “Immigrants understand the importance of economic liberty, free enterprise and limited government much better than “native Americans”. ”

                Simply wrong as a matter of fact, based on PEW data.

                Immigrants want bigger government.

          2. It must be because of how great the government was in the places they left.

          3. Central Americans definitely lean left as a culture. Many of them see all their problems as the government not providing enough of their needs. Not all of them are like that, but too many are.

            1. That’s certainly the case in Venezuela. There is a burgeoning pro-capitalism movement I’m sure, but by and large most people there regard it as a problem of having the wrong Top. Men.

              1. “people there regard it as a problem of having the wrong Top. Men.”

                This is what leftists always believe. And it always ends the same, but they never learn.

            2. “Central Americans definitely lean left as a culture.”

              no. It’s South and Central American cultures lean toward crony socialism. It’s not “left”, its culturally unique.
              There is an expectation that everything in society is about greasing palms, connections, families, and working the system. It is directly incompatible with Anglo “rule of law” societal structure.

              this is why Brazil is barely even a 2nd world power and the rest of south/central Americas is a hodgepodge of crony corporatism, banana republics, and socialist revolutions.

              The only successful states have adopted higher amounts of Anglo-based structures.

              1. Unfortunately, this is what Democrats want to import to the United States. I’d much rather have more Chinese and other East Asians.

                1. Even the asians can be fine with the Nanny-State. Europeans are mostly fine with the Nanny-State.

                  Its not really about race. Its about faith in free market and limited government. If you have it, you are welcome in the USA. Race just does not really dictate who is socialist and who are more classical liberals.

                  Pushing this issue without race makes progressive’s heads explode.

          4. My numbers weren’t quite as bad, but still make the same point. Hispanic immigration imports big government supporters.

            PEW Research on Hispanic Americans
            http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
            Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
            http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
            Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

        2. “The economy as a whole” vs. “screwed over individuals” is the sort of collectivized argument that does not sit well with those screwed over.

          1. Like the collectivized argument that Latinos want bigger government?

            1. I would imagine, yes, those Latinos who are not for larger government do feel somewhat screwed over by the assertion. However, that doesn’t mean that the assertion is false. It would be if one were to say all Latinos, but I don’t think anyone is saying that.

              1. The fact is that zero latino countries are Democratic Republics that favor limited government, free market and no welfare.

                The USA was created in spite of English “Democracy” (British Parliament) not because of it. The USA is unique and I would like to keep it as free as possible.

            2. Recognizing statistical facts of reality is not “collectivism”.

      2. The open borders issue, as Borjas sort of gets at, has seen and unseen aspects. Open borders advocates are happy with the “seen”, i.e. cheap lawn care, nannies, field workers, indentured H1b programmers, slaughter house workers afraid to complain about bad conditions, and such.

        They miss the unseen, like the welfare and education cost loads plus social dislocation that come with uncontrolled immigration.

        1. Yep. As just one example, every illegal alien’s child is entitled to a public school education (even if the child is also illegal) and the average cost of this education is $10,500 per year (2012 figures). An illegal alien’s child enrolled in first grade will cost the taxpayer $126,000 to graduate from high school.

          Illegals (who usually have a low income) are definitely not paying taxes to the same extent that they are consuming public school funds. And they are consuming public school funds at the expense of native-born taxpayers, including minorities who struggle with underfunded schools to begin with.

          Basic math: Each child costs the public school $10,500 per year. Very few illegal aliens are paying this much tax into their local school districts.

        2. Holy shit, you did not just use Bastiat’s unseen argument to argue for restrictions on free trade in labor. That is, like, desecration, man.

    4. Might be for a lot of people, but not me.

      The economist in me sees great value in free movement of labor. The problems with that are unfortunately many and I don’t see any solution except to maintain the present course: artificially slow permissible influx. People focus often on the “immigration” but not on “naturalization.” Of course proggies love the idea of the border gates flung wide and openly embracing any comers. They realize that most of the people who might come here can be swayed to their cause because many nations are more socialist than the United States. A new intergenerational crop of socialists means more voting Democrats in short time.

      It’s not about the people. It’s about the culture and values those cultures engender. Imagine that you could wave a magic wand and import every Venezuelan wholesale into the U.S. Who would their kids vote for, even if the adults never got voting rights or became citizens? The only legitimate purpose of slowing immigration at all is to mitigate this effect; to keep what we have and expect newcomers to adapt to us, not bring the terrible ideas that ruin their countries into ours and help like-minded Americans run roughshod over the freedoms everyone takes for granted.

      Usual disclaimer about article: sd;dr.

      1. I neglected to mention why that makes it a gray area for me: I’d easily fall back on what economics suggests is the best answer if the unintended consequences could be mitigated.

        I agree that we’d be enriched by different cultural viewpoints but we are not enriched by socialism. I hate socialism with all the burning passion it deserves. I’d love for someone to give me good reason to believe that the trickle of creeping socialism would not turn into a flood with fully open borders, but I’m extremely skeptical.

        The author of the article might laugh and assure me that some of our immigrants might be libertarians too. “Libertarians” who fully intend to vote for Hillary Clinton. That is not very assuring.

      2. Wait until this gets going both ways and American hipsters are building Starbucks and McMansions all over their lovely mountain villages. The Mexicans are going to be rallying against open borders very quickly.

        1. um…Mexico doesn’t have open borders. Far from it.

          1. Yup. A few months ago I read a book about an American Indian ufologist that traveled all throughout central America getting stories about UFOs (which are quite different than ones in Western countries)

            In southern Mexico, she was constantly stopped by military patrols and checkpoints.

      3. Good post. I lean toward maintaining the status quo, though with improved border enforcement. If someone came here illegally, it’s not unreasonable to expect them to remain illegal and bear the associated burdens.

  3. Gallup Poll: In your view, should immigration be kept at its present level, increased or decreased?

    Quote:
    Increased: 21%
    Present level: 38%
    Decreased: 38%

    So 76% of the population wants immigration to be kept steady or decreased.

    1. Shikha will now have a word with you, you heathen Trumpet!

  4. Of course, if people were actually familiar with the facts, they might see things differently.

    60% of the budget already goes to entitlements and they’re only expanding. 6% of the budget in 2015 went to paying interest on the debt and that’s with interest rates at historic lows. And of course, over half of immigrants receive some form of federal welfare.

    All those numbers only continue to get worse. Anyone who can’t see the problem is incapable of doing basic math.

    1. Yep. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:

      Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare

      Quote:
      About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households? Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

    2. It seems like the focus of the democrats has now turned from those poor brown hispanics to those poor brown middle easteners. Europe has done a very poor job of integrating their middle eastern migrants, they mostly just get welfare. I’m not saying the USA will not do a better job of this, as they have been doing. But the fact that most immigrants think it’s perfectly normal to receive these benefits without ever having done anything to earn it is disturbing. Sure our country was built by immigrants. Immigrants who worked hard and built industries, not immigrants on welfare.

      1. “Sure our country was built by immigrants. Immigrants who worked hard and built industries, not immigrants on welfare.”

        So much this!

      2. Well, at least from a welfare perspective, the majority of immigration moving from Central America to the Middle East would be an improvement. Central American immigrants are on welfare at the highest rate of anyone from anywhere at 73%. Meanwhile some Middle Eastern immigrants like Iranians actually out-earn the average American.

        1. “Meanwhile some Middle Eastern immigrants like Iranians actually out-earn the average American.”

          Misleading statistic.

          The Iranians immigrants largely were those whose families had money and connections to get to the US. The restrictive route to get here was self-selecting for higher achieving individuals. This is true of almost any immigrant that had to jump through hurdles to get somewhere. The poor and incompetent typically don’t have the means to move anywhere.

          When you make it easy to immigrate, the barrier is reduced and its less selective. You get far more of the chaff relative to the wheat. Encouraging illiterate ditch diggers and farm hands to pile into the back of a semi and welcoming them with free stuff when they arrive is pretty much the defining of “importing other people’s problems”

  5. I remember when Tancredo ran on virulent anti-immigrationism in 2008 and got 1% in the primaries. Do you mean to tell me that the GOP base has changed that much in 8 years? No, Trump’s appeal can only be explained in small part by his ant is immigration stance. His appeal for many GOPers has more to do with his anti-establishment patina and his Il Duce daddy charisma.

    1. The important part you’re missing is that if Hillary is elected, it means an end to deportation.

      How many people has the Obama Administration deported over the last eight years?

      As the following chart shows, the correct answer is zero:

      http://blogs.reuters.com/data-…..022515.jpg

      1. Hillary wants open borders and has a goal to bring millions of Syrians and other middle easterners here. Not just let them come, but actively recruit them to come. This is just a thinly disguised move to get a permanent majority democrat voter base. And she plans to raise taxes a lot on the middle class to pay for this. This really is treason, you can call it whatever you want, but that’s basically what it is.

        1. So, should we sterilize poor minority women, since their children are likely to vote for bigger government? You will probably balk at such an idea (hopefully), because of the obvious rights violations. But the rights of a business owner to hire cheaper labor from Latin America are not important? Whatever happened to that cherished right of free association? It only applies to baking cakes, but not to hiring employees?

          1. I’m pro-immigration and not in favor of anyone being sterilized. Except for progs /sarcam. So there you go. I’m just not in favor of a government using immigration specifically to manipulate the vote. That’s all.

          2. Poor women are the biggest users of abortion. They do it to themselves.

          3. We don’t have to bring in more and more known socialists or at least sympathizers.

            The number of new recruits for derpism is low which is why Democrats want to flood in new potential voters for them. Its the free shit crew just with free citizenship. No reason to encourage this undermining of our founding principles.

            It is our Republic’s death by a million cuts.

  6. I don’t know if you guys are gonna believe this, but it turn out that Shikha Dalmia isn’t anti-immigration and she thinks that Trump and his supporters are losers.

    1. And even more shocking, she’s a Hillary supporter.

      1. Shikha! When the walls fell!

  7. SHIKHAAAAAA DALMIAAAAAAAAAAA

    1. It’s the new DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  8. I’m pro-immigration.

    For a variety of reasons. Mainly based in a analysis of its longer-term economic/demographic impact which suggests is strongly net-positive – but that’s not the sole case at all.

    What seems to me incredibly stupid about Shikha’s case here is that its based 100% on “Polling which suggests (some) people are favorably disposed towards it”…

    With the exception of her one parenthetical (“In fact, low-skill immigrants have a relatively small impact on jobs…)… the case is basically, “Polls show that X group feels differently”

    And there’s also some assumptions being made for which zero evidence is provided

    Americans growing up in a diverse country rub shoulders with immigrants on a daily basis and are less likely to buy into negative portrayals. And this imperviousness will only grow as every generation gets more educated

    Its true that more education tends to be associated with greater favorability towards immigration. But greater than “None” can still be “less”. Differences between hs and college educated people are minor enough that there can still be a shared general consensus which is negative.

    Basically it strikes me as argumentum ad populum, “that which is popular is good” – which can be turned on its head the second the public will changes.

  9. It is amazing how important what people say is to some people–relative to what other people do.

    Obama has killed hundreds of innocent children in drone strikes, but if Trump says he’d bomb ISIS despite civilian casualties, he becomes the devil incarnate.

    It’s the same thing with immigration.

    I’m against the wall because I think it’s likely to be an ineffective waste of money–and I’m not anti-immigrant anyway.

    But what’s the real world difference between Trump and Hillary on immigration?

    Aren’t we mostly talking about semantics?

    If I had the stimulus and bailout money back, all the money Obama has wasted on ObamaCare and reimbursing insurance companies for their losses on the exchanges, etc, I wonder how that would add up compared to whatever Trump wants to spend on the wall. Meanwhile, isn’t Hillary promising everything from a public option to free college?

    So when we’re talking about the difference between Hillary and Trump on immigration, real world, what are we talking about? I see Trump getting money to build a wall as being about as far fetched as Hillary getting amnesty. She isn’t even arguing for amnesty in public!

    1. I’d be curious to see what people who are actually familiar with the border control budget say about the cost of building the wall.

      Obviously it would be a large upfront cost. But you would suspect that its existence would allow border patrol to be more judicious with how they spend their resources, saving money on a yearly basis. The question is how long would it take to recoup the cost?

      1. I suspect we could the same thing with less–with surveillance cameras and drones, etc.

        We don’t shut down the border because we don’t want to shut down the border–for various reasons.

        It isn’t an engineering problem. It’s just a lack of will.

        And that should tell us something. For one, that the American people don’t want a fortress on our southern border. For another, that we’re likely to get an immigration policy that most Americans tolerate regardless of who’s President.

        People despise Trump because of what he says. Not because what he’s proposing or would do is somehow different than what Obama has done or what Hillary would do.

      2. You could go to Hungary and Israel to get cost and technical information about building a long border wall. Turkey is building one 500+ miles long on its Syrian side, expected to be finished next February, so you might check with them as well.

        Building a wall or fence is not as hard as the open borders whoopers want to pretend it is.

    2. But what’s the real world difference between Trump and Hillary on immigration?

      Clinton’s wall will be economic while Trump’s will be physical.

      1. If I only get the choice between those two, I’d pick the physical one. Unfortunately we’d probably get both from both candidates.

    3. Kate Steinle and a few hundred other dead might not be dead had we serious border patrol.

      Since her killer was something like a 5 times (known) border crosser it is obvious that what we have now is a joke.

      Like TSA it is simply an employment program.

      But the program yields no actual benefits to the American people.

    4. Actually Trump is “devil incarnate” because he’s repeatedly bragged he will order the military to execute the families of terrorists.

      And when confronted with questions about how he will get them to commit war crimes like that, he just says they will.

    5. I’ve always interpreted “build a wall” as “beefed up border security”. I just treated “building a wall” as a shorthand for the sake of those who can’t think in more than short slogans and bumper stickers.

  10. anti-immigration restrictionism

    So…. They want to restrict being anti-immigration?

    No, they want “immigration restriction”. So why the confusing language? Because it’s a lot less inflammatory to say someone might want to restrict, not eliminate, immigration. Hell it even sounds like a reasoned position. And you can’t say that and miss the chance to use the phrase “anti-immigration”, even though it makes no sense in this context.

    For shame Reason, for shame.

  11. Yep. Couldn’ta said it better.

    (Actually I didn’t read it, but at this point I don’t have to. Thanks again, Shikha.)

    Jill Stein approves this message.

  12. RE: Anti-Immigration Restrictionism Is for Losers
    Conservative intellectuals are pushing a turn that will alienate millennials, not secure the GOP’s white base

    The irony here is most immigrants have left countries that were either authoritarian or totalitarian in nature. Some immigrants, usually from Mexico, Honduras or Guatemala have fled their countries due to the drug war violence. (Thanks America for not legalizing drugs. Only about 80,000 people have died from it, if not more.) None of them, at least not the sane ones, want to go back to socialism. If ever there were fans of the free market (or what’s left of it here in the USA), it is the immigrants. According to Forbes Magazine, some even have become millionaires. The real sad part is the Republican Party can’t connect these dots. Many immigrants would be good republicans if only the republican party would get their head out of their ass (maybe they like they view from there) and embrace the oppressed that sometimes risk their lives and long for our shores. Fortunately, the LP is wise enough to recognize the many benefits of welcoming these people to our country and see why they are coming here. What the LP needs to do for immigrants is to get the word out of the LP’s policy toward immigration and immigrants. Then perhaps the LP might get more supporters.

    1. It would be nice if more these pro-liberty and free market immigrants wouldn’t vote for statist assholes that push different versions of socialism.

      1. DesigNate,

        You are correct.
        I read a columnist who was La Raza that was shocked that so many Hispanic immigrants would be considered Libertarian. He blamed this phenomena on what he called “ignorance.” He said the incoming Hispanic immigrants were not enlightened on the ways of socialism but would be if they were “educated.” I emailed him and asked him why would these immigrants embrace the very liabilities they were running away from and did not get a reply.
        Too much logic and reasoning, I guess.

    2. “None of them, at least not the sane ones, want to go back to socialism.”.

      Data?

      The data I’ve seen from PEW says the opposite.

      PEW Research on Hispanic Americans
      http://www.pewresearch.org/fac…..democrats/
      Hispanics Lean Democratic over 3 to 1
      http://www.pewhispanic.org/201…..-religion/
      Hispanics Want Bigger Government Providing More Services over 3 to 1

      Facts. Get to know them.

  13. If being pro-open borders was the key to capturing support of the Hispanic community, surely it wouldn’t take a Trump/Clinton combo to push the L candidate above 1%.

  14. 4 dead and 100 badly injured at the Boston Marathon by Russian Muslim “political” refugees might take issue with our immigration policies.

    But hey, what are a few dead here and there in the grand scheme of things?

  15. For someone who clearly does not like the GOP Dalmia sure spends a lot of time worrying about it’s well-being.

    Curious, that.

  16. I oppose mass immigration for one simple reason. I do not believe it will be beneficial for me, my children, or their children to have my culture erased and to become a minority in the country I live in. Slow, careful and practical should be the model.

    1. I agree. Why does raising our population by 100-200M+ have to be the only way? I for one do not want the USA to be like any other country. We have fairly good open space and resources that would last our current population level for generations. 330M people should be enough for increased wealth production, protecting ourselves and feeding ourselves.

  17. I think we need a policy more like Canada – more well educated, English speaking middle class people and almost no non-educated, non-English speaking people.

    Especially from Asia. While most Asians vote democrat because they hate Christians and equate Republicans with Christianity, at the same time they at least aren’t socialist and might move the Democrat party rightward a bit, at least economically.

    1. It’s funny that Canada’s immigration rate is used as some kind of indication that the USA’s is actually no so much, but little details like this are conveniently ignored.

      But today, the who’s who of conservative intellectuals has embraced restrictionism in one form or another because, they claim, “mass immigration” is overwhelming the country’s capacity to absorb immigrants. (For the record, America’s immigration level?3.5 foreigners per 1,000 people?less than half of Canada’s 8.5 per 1,000.)

  18. I’m starting to notice the mad Trump hate around here.

    Headlines and articles of course. The commentary here is too sharp for some of this.

    Damn. Are these two not the same type of people (well except for showing that the DOJ doesn’t really mean anything)?

    Reason. Try it.

  19. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    —————– http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

  20. as Julia replied I didn’t know that a mom able to make $5776 in 1 month on the computer .
    see more at———–>>> http://tinyurl.com/Usatoday01

  21. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  22. “It is ironic that conservatives, believers in limited government and the free market,”

    What they should believe in is government of, by, and for the people governed, not government of, by, and for the ruling elite and foreigners. Representative government should represent those governed.

    “Restrictionism used to be confined to the fever swamps of right-wing extremists”

    The comment is completely ahistorical. As in a lie.
    Restrictionism was official policy for the first 150+ years of the US.

  23. Anti-Immigration Restrictionism Is for Losers

    Donald Trump seems headed for an epic defeat next month.

    Hahahahahahahaha!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.