Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The right needs to drop the racial component of their immigration argument
Posted by: McQ on Friday, May 25, 2007

One of the more irritating threads running through the immigration debate, specifically on the right, is the one that sees the granting of "amnesty" to 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants as some sort of grand conspiracy to destroy the Republican party or make whites the minority (and thus destroy the Republican party).
For a certain kind of conservative, any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie. One conservative commentator claims that the law is "going to erase America" — an ambition even beyond Ted Kennedy's considerable powers. Another laments that "white America is in flight" — and presumably not just to Jackson Hole or Nantucket for the summer.

At one level, any immigration debate concerns a raw political calculation: Who ends up with more voters? Conservative critics of the Senate bill argue that because most Latinos identify themselves as Democrats, a larger pool of American Latinos will mean that Republicans are voted into irrelevance. Most Republican political strategists respond: That is closer than you think. Given current demographic realities, Republicans cannot rely on their white base alone. If a Republican presidential candidate doesn't get about 40 percent of the Latino vote nationwide, he or she doesn't stand much of a chance on an electoral map where Florida and the Southwest figure prominently. A nativist party will cease to be a national party.
If, as Republicans claim, they are the party of principle, then they should be able to attract voters of like principle. Take the Mexican immigrants, to include the illegal ones. Point to a more socially conservative group, please.

What many people discover as they mature is they become more conservative or adopt more conservative principles. Life just does that. So unless the color of the majority of your country is honestly a big deal to you, I have no idea what all this concern means. But I can tell you what it does. It lends credence to what many on the left believe about the right: that underneath the veneer of racial tolerance, many on the right are really closet racists.

Personally I don't care what color my country is in 20 or 50 or 100 years. What I care most about is that my country still reflects the principles upon which is was founded 200+ years ago.

If conservatives and Republicans really believe that their principles are the best then it shouldn't be a hard sale to those seeking to immigrate here, to include the illegal ones. Hard work, delayed gratification, family and religion are all supposedly important conservative principles, and, for the vast majority of all immigrants in this country, both legal and illegal, those are their principles as well.

The conspiratorial fear-mongering being put out there by many on the right concerning illegal immigrants is simply unworthy of those who claim that it is the content of your character and not the color of your skin which matters. And there is nothing self-evident among the illegal immigration population that says to me, "automatic Democrat".

As far as I'm concerned, the real argument, on principle, is that uncontrolled illegal immigration is a national security problem. As such the first actions taken should be to solve that problem to our satisfaction (i.e. at least a modicum of control over the borders which will in turn, lead to better control over the problem of illegal immigration).

Then work to resolve the problem of the illegals which reside in the US now.

But the right needs to drop this racially tinged argument some are making like a hot potato ... and they need to do it now.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
I think part of the "Death Knell" republicans hear is the fact that many of the illegals will end up on the recieving end of entitlements, and once there (and likely will remain there since so few have any real command of English and thus won’t get too terribly far in the business-end of America) they will not be likely to vote against the party that is handing out the free money...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I think part of the "Death Knell" republicans hear is the fact that many of the illegals will end up on the recieving end of entitlements, and once there (and likely will remain there since so few have any real command of English and thus won’t get too terribly far in the business-end of America) they will not be likely to vote against the party that is handing out the free money...
Well that all assumes a lot of things which aren’t in evidence.

1) That once out of the shadows they’ll continue to work for less wages than paid legals.

2) That welfare is what they really want.

3) That their desire to get ahead and better their position and that of their family will be abandoned for government hand outs and subsidies.

4) That all of them want to be US citizens.

5) That contrary to our history, the lowest quintile of earnings will remain static.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"The conspiratorial fear-mongering being put out there by many on the right concerning illegal immigrants"

Who are these "many"? You cite one Washington Post article which names one Hispanic individual who claims that many conservatives are racist. Even though I am deeply touched by the Post’s concern for the best interests of the Republican party, I cannot help but note that they are not usually so helpful, and that the bulk of the article is opinion and conjecture. And just to be a real nitpicker, what is the definition of "race" used here and who gets to define it?

"As far as I’m concerned, the real argument, on principle, is that uncontrolled illegal immigration is a national security problem."

There is also a good economic argument.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Thank you McQ. You are the first blogger I’ve seen to make this important point. This has been an irritant to me for some time. I include in this the ludicrous idea that Mexicans are motivated to immigrate to the USA by dreams of "renconquista" ot Atzlan. These are abstract ideas that are not motivating anyone outside of graduate schools at universities. Poor Mexicans are not making huge life decisions about picking up and moving to a foreign land because they are part of a conspiracy to recapture the US demographically.
 
Written By: Aldo
URL: http://
"1) That once out of the shadows they’ll continue to work for less wages than paid legals."

Most illegals are poorly educated and in low paying jobs. Making them legal will not qualify them to suddenly become well paid lawyers, accountants, etc. They will continue in the low paying jobs they now do, albeit there may be some small upward pressure on their wages.

"2) That welfare is what they really want."

Irrelevant. Welfare is what they will get. Also education, health care, etc. The taxes they will pay will not offset the benefits they receive.

"3) That their desire to get ahead and better their position and that of their family will be abandoned for government hand outs and subsidies."

Irrelevant again. Benefits are also available to those who strive to better their positions.

"4) That all of them want to be US citizens."

From what I have seen, that is the only way they can stay in this country continuously and permanently. Why wouldn’t they want to become citizens rather than be returned to their country of origin for a year every two years, and permanently after 6(?) years?

"5) That contrary to our history, the lowest quintile of earnings will remain static."

The lowest quintile will remain the lowest quintile. The members of that quintile will change. I fail to see your point.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
The issue for my part has never been race, but, rather, culture.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
"Thank you McQ. You are the first blogger I’ve seen to make this important point."

I am sure there are Republicans that believe in UFOs, also. Therefore, the party is obviously in danger of being taken over by UFO fanatics.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"The issue for my part has never been race, but, rather, culture."

Culture is, of course, just a code word for race. You have read the official manual. You evil man, you.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
"...there is nothing self-evident among the illegal immigration population that says to me, "automatic Democrat"."
Well, I’m certainly relieved to hear that.

Ugh, would you describe a group with a common (non-English) language, similar incomes and social position, similar traditions and similar skin color (to be objective) as a "special interest group"? If someone approached you and asked you which party in America is famous for pandering to special interest groups, what would you answer?

So, yeah, I can see how some could see that this group is made to order for successful special pandering by the Democrats and I’m not thinking about Welfare, either.

On the opposite side of the coin; how successful has the Republican party been in attracting black voters? Voters who, on paper and by their beliefs should clearly be voting for Republicans on principle.

Not to mention Independents. After all, if the Democrats add that many voters to their current coalition, by the time the illegals mature into the citizens you describe them to be in the future, we will be so far from our founding principles that there will be no going back.

Anyway, absent any closet racism, there is IMHO a great deal for Republicans to fear from this group.

Maybe the Democrats could replace the netroots in their base with Hispanics. That seems to me to be a very good idea (where they gonna go, to the Rethuglicans?). Then Democrats could return to making sense; having ditched the wackos. They could move on.

 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Who are these "many"?
Just off the top of my head, and these are people I’ve actually heard saying this: Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan and Senator Jeff Sessions. There are more, but I can’t recall their names at the moment.

All but one above are self-identified Republicans or conservatives. And the callers the talk show hosts discussed this with were also self-identified Republicans or conservatives agreeing with the hosts, lamenting the possibility and calling Republicans who were pushing for passage as, and I’m paraphrasing, traitors to their party.

This isn’t something being whispered, Tim.

Limbaugh, for instance, with a very cursory search:
They don’t dare say this publicly. They’re not going to come out and say we’ve aborted too many kids and we need new taxpayers. They’re not going to say that, so they cloak it in all of this other rhetoric that they think will sell, "jobs the American people won’t do," and so forth and so on. Plus the Democrats want these voters. They want as many warm bodies in here to be able to fund future retirement benefits and Medicaid and Medicare benefits because we simply aren’t reproducing fast enough. Well, we are, but we’re aborting too many.


Now that’s his twist on the subject, but as a matter of fact, he’s also talked about how this could lead to death of the Republican party.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
...they will not be likely to vote against the party that is handing out the free money... Scott Jacobs
That would be "parties," I believe. And free citizenship, as well as money. That, I believe, is the message the Bush Republicans are attempting to deliver to the soon to be legally recognized US denizens.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Mexico has a libertarian culture. Didn’t you know? Look at their government. Ours will look just like it in 20 years. Viva libertopia!
 
Written By: Tog
URL: http://
Tim:

More:
Inside the mind of Sen. Teddy Kennedy:

I see that many of my fellow liberal Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, are trashing my immigration bill.

Those fools! Can’t they see the gift I’m giving them?

This bill will not only improve social justice and enhance racial diversity in America, but will also wreck the Republican Party – what’s not to like?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And more:
Don’t tell me that the bill will win Hispanics over to the GOP? As we both know, Hispanics split roughly two-to-one for the Democrats in almost every election. Those Hispanics who lean Republican are generally hostile to illegal immigration. So the two main political effects of this national row over immigration are to dispirit the GOP’s non-Hispanic base while driving Hispanic Republicans into the arms of the Democrats by “racializing” the immigration issue — i.e., by making it a test of ethnic loyalty.

I’m forgetting the most important point — there’s a third effect, too. If this bill goes through, it will result in citizenship down the road for between 12 and 20 million Hispanics, mainly poor, mainly low-skilled, and so mainly Democratic voters. That represents a net gain of between four and seven million votes for the Democrats at the very least. That’s why the Democrats are supporting this bill.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Take the Mexican immigrants, to include the illegal ones. Point to a more socially conservative group, please.
Does that count the "following the rule of law" part of being socially conservative?
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
Does that count the "following the rule of law" part of being socially conservative?
You mean like speeding or jaywalking, Mark?
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
And more. Entitled "Republican Euthanasia":
Now it seems that conservatives will once again be asked to throw away their principles for illusory political gains. Bush will no doubt explain to congressional Republicans that they must vote for the immigration bill without taking any time to study or analyze it because otherwise they will forever lose the large and rapidly growing Hispanic vote.

According to a Census Bureau report released last week, Hispanics are now the largest minority group in America. There are 44.3 million of them, compared to 40.2 million blacks and 14.9 million Asians. Furthermore, the number of Hispanics is growing faster. Between 2005 and 2006, their population grew 3.4 percent. Meanwhile, the non-Hispanic white population grew just 0.3 percent. Consequently, Hispanics accounted for almost half the total U.S. population growth during this period — 1.4 million out of a total population increase of 2.9 million.

Perhaps if there were some reason to believe that Hispanics would be so grateful for this immigration bill that they will vote heavily Republican for years to come, then it might be worth supporting purely out of political expediency. But there is no reason whatsoever to believe that this will be the case, since the Democratic Congress will at least get equal credit for passage.

It’s worth remembering that despite Bush’s support for an immigration bill last year, congressional Republicans only got 30 percent of the Hispanic vote, versus 69 percent for Democrats. This was a sharp decline from the 44 percent of the Hispanic vote Bush got in 2004. Thus whatever gratitude Hispanics might have for him because of his support for immigration reform, it is not going to transfer to other Republicans.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Bravo, well said.
A rare conservative who seems to actually have principles, rather than just pretend to.

Maybe you should consider becoming a conservative Democrat. Then you could advance your POV amongst people who actually share those even-deeper principles that you espouse here.
You could also get in on the ground floor of the political movement that seems destined to dominate American politics for the rest of your lifetime.
 
Written By: Abe
URL: http://
Well Abe, if you’d read the site you’d discover that what I said is completely in character with what a libertarian would say as well.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"You could also get in on the ground floor of the political movement that seems destined to dominate American politics for the rest of your lifetime."
Oh dear. Is this what I think it is? Have the conservative Democrats seen the success that the liberal Democrats have had with the LN and now we are going to have to contend with the CDN?

I say that because, in the real world, conservative Democrats do not seemed "destined" for anything other than the Joe Lieberman gulag. Who knew?
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
conservative democrat? Isn’t that the worst of both worlds? well at least a socially conservative democrat.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
It lends credence to what many on the left believe about the right: that underneath the veneer of racial tolerance, many on the right are really closet racists.
But the right needs to drop this racially tinged argument some are making like a hot potato ... and they need to do it now.
I had a lot to say about this, but there really isn’t any more to say than bravo on a particularly outstanding example of non-specific emoting. It seems to be working because Abe came along and took the hook.

Hey Abe, if I become a Conservative Democrat do I get a membership card and a certificate suitable for framing?



 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Aldo says: I include in this the ludicrous idea that Mexicans are motivated to immigrate to the USA by dreams of "renconquista" ot Atzlan.

Not too many are claiming that as a primary or less motivation. However, those who are able to figure things out realize that:
1. 58% of Mexicans (in Mexico) said that the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.
2. There are very few MexicanAmerican leaders who aren’t some form of radical, in some cases (L.A.’s mayor, former CA Lt Gov, etc.) being former members of a racial separtist group.
3. It’s not hard at all to find a general popular sentiment among Mexicans that Mexicans have a right to move here because this used to be their land.

You add all those together, stir in a big dollop of intellectual honesty, and you realize there’s a serious issue here that hacks like Gerson refuse to acknowledge.

Note also that his own piece approvingly quotes someone promoting demographic conquest.
 
Written By: Much more here
URL: http://tinyurl.com/3cdh8d
You mean like speeding or jaywalking, Mark?
Only if you think that is equivalent to being in a country illegally.

I don’t.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
For some reason, this caught my eye. Austin Bay then goes on to discuss the existence of and the need for a narrative in Iraq. If that interests you, by all means check the link. My point is that he gives a definition of what the Democratic think tanks have on the blackboard on the first day for new recruits.

Oh, and Professor Erb; this is for you. You have had trouble recognizing the concept:
”... In most societies there are opinionmakers: local leaders, pillars of the community, religious figures, media personalities, [the MSM] and others who set trends and influence public perceptions. This influence...often takes the form of a “single narrative.” This is a simple, unifying, easily-expressed story or explanation that organizes people’s experience and provides a framework for understanding events.”
Interesting to note that the word "truth" was missing entirely from Mr. Bay’s article.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Just a small technical question but...... how does anybody propose to deport 12 million illegal aliens, dispersed across the country anyway? Martial law? Is somebody going to appoint an "illegal immigration czar"?

From a practical standpoint how does anybody think we can police thousands of miles of border and coastline to keep people out who want to come here? The US military can’t keep terrorists from crossing the border into Iraq, a country the size of Texas, but they can keep low wage workers from crossing an enormously larger border? I hope the US government isn’t planning on using the same laws, tactics and people who have so successfully kept illegal drugs out of this country for 30 years (sarcasm intended).

This whole debate is sort of academic unless we want to become a police state, which is still no gaurantee.
 
Written By: DS
URL: http://
Only if you think that is equivalent to being in a country illegally.

I don’t.
They’re all misdemeanors, Mark.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Just a small technical question but...... how does anybody propose to deport 12 million illegal aliens, dispersed across the country anyway?
Why is it that whenever anyone says they’re against "amnesty" for illegal aliens that the first response is "well how are you going to deport 12 million?"

Who said they had to be deported?

But then, who said they had to be given citizenship either?

I believe the argument is that since the entered illegally, they don’t deserve citizenship or even a path to citizenship. That’s a very debatable point. But it certainly doesn’t automatically mean round ’em up and deport ’em either.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Where’s the Beef?". I couldn’t find any racism in any of those "damning" quotes you provided, unless you adhere to the same logic used by the Democrats;

Republicans are racists.
QED.

I read the transcript of Limbaugh you linked and could find no trace of the "destruction of the Republican party" or "make whites the minortity" argument nor, judging from the quote you used, did you.

Your second link; "inside the mind of Sen. Teddy Kennedy"

Please. I do expect better from you.

The third link;
" Bush will no doubt explain to congressional Republicans that they must vote for the immigration bill without taking any time to study or analyze it because otherwise they will forever lose the large and rapidly growing Hispanic vote"

Bartlett is not advocating or supporting the "destruction of the Republican party" or "make whites the minority" argument. He is debunking what he says is Bush’s argument, which I cite from the same article you link to. He does this by citing census and other figures for voting blocs, something that is done by a heck of a lot of people including, I suspect, you. Where is the objectionable racial component here?


The John O’Sullivan article;

"destruction of the Republican party"? "make whites the minority"? Nope. Neither. Anaother analysis of the historical and likely future voting habits of a voting bloc, with a dig at karl Rove. Hardly anything new or unusual for EITHER party.

The next link is another to the same Bruce Bartlett article as above.

So far I have seen nothing supporting your thesis. The closest thing was, as I mentioned, standard analysis of voting bloc behavior which is done all the time by all the players and pundits on all the media. If this is an objectionable "racial component" of politics then everyone from Anarchists to Zoroastrians, from Jack Kemp to Donna Brazil to Barack Obama are racists. Every political consultant in the country is guilty.

***********************
"how does anybody propose to deport 12 million illegal aliens, dispersed across the country anyway?"

Probably the same way they intend to track them down and enforce all the provisions of the proposed new immigration laws. I would modestly propose that we at least seriously try to enforce the laws before we throw up our hands and say "impossible!".



 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Sorry, not buying it, I came from the state with the foremost in poor and uneducated "ethnic" groups, Louisiana. Once the Democrats get their hands on them they never let go. I cannot see any libertarian ideas which will have a ghost of a chance once a much larger group of poor and uneducated people start to vote. The fact that Mexicans are from a socialist background but conservative to the point of reactionary on social issues ought to scare the crap out of any libertarian.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
I cannot see any libertarian ideas which will have a ghost of a chance once a much larger group of poor and uneducated people start to vote. The fact that Mexicans are from a socialist background but conservative to the point of reactionary on social issues ought to scare the crap out of any libertarian.
Key words ... came "from a socialist bacground".

And they’ve seen, first hand, how well that worked out.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"Where’s the Beef?". I couldn’t find any racism in any of those "damning" quotes you provided, unless you adhere to the same logic used by the Democrats;
Well then just ignore it Tim as you seem inclined to do.

I know what I’ve heard however.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
One of the more irritating threads running through the immigration debate, specifically on the right, is the one that sees the granting of "amnesty" to 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants as some sort of grand conspiracy to destroy the Republican party or make whites the minority (and thus destroy the Republican party).
Yet I am sure that on this site I have seen some level of agreement with Mark Steyn and HIS argument about Islam and the West vis a vis the demographics of reproduction.

The principle here is basically the same- demography is destiny. How can there be agreemnent with that argument but not this one? All I can conclude is that you’re becoming a bit squeamish with the racial component to the discussion
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
The principle here is basically the same- demography is destiny. How can there be agreemnent with that argument but not this one? All I can conclude is that you’re becoming a bit squeamish with the racial component to the discussion
Not at all. The demographic question Steyn talks about is that of introducing an alien religion into Europe with stated aim of taking the place over. That of Islam. And that religion has no desire or use for democratic institutions. Or assimilation. It instead is more interested in its own form of law becoming the law of the land.

Roman Catholic Mexicans aren’t going to be introducing an alien religion here. Nor are they interested in a new form of law. And they have always shown a desire to assimilate.

Now, that doesn’t mean I want 12 to 20 million of them becoming citizens. That’s not my point.

My point is that arguing against them solely based on who they are is a self-destructive and stupid argument and one that a smart party would avoid, given the fact that there are plenty of good and valid ones to pursue instead.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
My point is that arguing against them solely based on who they are is a self-destructive and stupid argument and one that a smart party would avoid, given the fact that there are plenty of good and valid ones to pursue instead.
Now that is all fair. I agree that that particular issue isn’t the one you want to put chiefly forward in the public debate. But if you’re not thinking that is a component of the issue for the Dems, you’re mistaken. Why do the Dems do anything they do? To increase their voting bloc. Why do they want illegels or felons to get the vote? They see a chance to expand their voting bloc. Why do they want census counts twisted in certain ways? They want to expand their voting blocs. Why do they want Wal-Mart to become unionized? To expand their voting bloc.

This is no different, and I see absolutely no reason why conservatives/republicans can’t frankly acknowledge and be aware of the issue amongst themselves. It is something they have BETTER be aware of to be honest

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
They’re all misdemeanors, Mark.
McQ, if you think the only crime illegal aliens commit is being in the country illegally, then you need to visit the southwest for a while. There is a huge amount of felonies committed by illegals — a far greater number per capita than legal residents.

But I’ll stand with Mark: speeding and jaywalking aren’t on the same level as being in a country illegally, even if they’re both misdemeanors.
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
McQ, if you think the only crime illegal aliens commit is being in the country illegally...
That’s not what I said Steverino. Context. Check the thread and to what I responded.
But I’ll stand with Mark: speeding and jaywalking aren’t on the same level as being in a country illegally, even if they’re both misdemeanors.
That’s fine, but again, in context and legally, they’re no different. And the point of course had to do with "motes and beams".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
"And there is nothing self-evident among the illegal immigration population that says to me, "automatic Democrat"."

How about the fact the makeup of the illegal immigrants isn’t necessarily the makeup of legal immigrants.

I see some indicators indicators

1) The fact they entered without regard to our laws makes me believe they have a sense of ’entitlement’. Where have we heard that word before?

2) Extensive use of our social services.

3) Mexico’s parties are already Left of our own, fiscally. They will gravitate to their traditional allegiances. If anything the Democrats might be a little right of the Parties they supported back in Mexico.

The Illegal immigrant situation actually filters for prospective Democrats. Legal immigration actually filters for the more conservative (self-sufficient) and gives a false impression of who is out there.

Final note, the fact that they take part in their demonstrations on May 1st. Which just happens to be May Day around the world. Face it, the world is generally left of where we are.



 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
"Well then just ignore it Tim"

I have to see it first, before I can ignore it.

"I know what I’ve heard however."

Not if we go by the examples you have given.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Key words ... came "from a socialist background".

And they’ve seen, first hand, how well that worked out.

Written By: McQ
you mean like all the socialists in Europe and all the liberals in this country?

Funny I don’t see the Mexican immigrants trying to make their neighborhoods look like Des Moines, I see them making it look like Mexico.

You are, I think, a victim of extreme wishful thinking, I waited forty years for the ignorant people in Louisiana to wake up and reject their political system, I am still waiting.

People who never even read any Jefferson, Burke, Locke, Smith, or even Rand, and who don’t even know who these people were are not going to become Libertarians or Republicans any time in the near future.
 
Written By: kyleN
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
The issue for my part has never been race, but, rather, culture. - Bithead

Yes, exactly. Immigration beyond the assimilation rate endangers what remains of our founding principles.
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Funny I don’t see the Mexican immigrants trying to make their neighborhoods look like Des Moines, I see them making it look like Mexico.
Which has what to do with socialism?
You are, I think, a victim of extreme wishful thinking, I waited forty years for the ignorant people in Louisiana to wake up and reject their political system, I am still waiting.
Ah, and thus all people are like the people you knew in LA.
People who never even read any Jefferson, Burke, Locke, Smith, or even Rand, and who don’t even know who these people were are not going to become Libertarians or Republicans any time in the near future.
And, of course, they’ll never read them, ever, will they Kyle? But hey, if it’s all about the "near future" you may be right. My guess is, in the "near future" they’ll be too concerned with their "near future" to worry about politics at all.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Nevertheless . . .

To get a citizenship bill through Congress, President Bush and the Democrats probably need to convert a large bloc of anti-immigration Republican members, perhaps 40 in the House and 20 in the Senate. “Somehow,” said a Democrat lawmaker who is trying to build Republican support, “we have to convince them that voting for comprehensive reform does not amount to ‘enfranchising their defeat,’ ” a reference to the likelihood that two of every three new Latino voters would cast Democratic ballots. “Our problem,” he admitted, “is that we are hoping that the legislation will build the Democratic electorate.” ("Border Politics,” National Journal, Feb. 10, 2007)

“As the number of legal Hispanics increases, the number of Democratic votes increases as well. … Taking immigration off the table as a red-meat issue for conservative Republicans would be very helpful in a presidential year.” (Democratic “insiders", National Journal Insiders Poll, April 14, 2007)

Top Democratic leaders and activists see Hispanic migration as a long-term opportunity for the party. The arrival of additional immigrant workers is “bad for blue-collars,” Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told National Journal late last year. But immigrants can help elect Democratic majorities, and “if [a Democratic Congress] were to significantly strengthen unions, then you would offset the negative effect on the income of workers,” he said. ("Immigration Economics,” National Journal, May 12, 2007)
 
Written By: MacGhil
URL: http://
This is a tricky subject because I think some of it is latent racism, some of it is legitimate worry about the culture changing, and some of it is complete oppostion to any immigration - one way to split out the racists would be to loudly advertise that the GOP plan would increase legal immigration from Europe, Asia, and Africa.

No one is going to call a racist when you just bumped up the number of Nigerians who will be allowed in.

Meanwhile those worried about the culture aspect will be happy knowing that a wider mix is being brought in to restore some balance. (I was just in LA and it was a bit amazing at how much Spanish is needed now - not too worried about it, but I could see some people being nervous about it)



 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Also, perhaps this will be of some comfort to Americans...other countries are having the same exact problems. Taiwan now has more and more men marrying women from Vietnam. Signs are popping up in Vietnamese. The government now has to print information in more than just Chinese and English (which was very nice as it is) and have classes, etc. The kids have trouble with homework because Mom can’t read Chinese.

So, as the world gets smaller, and richer, this becomes the norm.

One more note: I think an excellent argument about restricting family re-union visas is that airfare is now so cheap. If you miss your brother or sister, they can fly over once a year or vice versa - there is no need for them to immigrate along with you so you can stay together.

Oh, and immigrants completely think them GOP is racist because of the immigration issue - that and any helpful liberal they meet explaining it to them. The GOP should come up with some INS reforms for legal immigrants and work hard to promote them in the media and deliver some results (call up Steyn and ask for some tips) - this would look GREAT to people who have been dealing with the INS bureaucracy for years.

Example: Friend of mine married a Thai woman who was already living and working legally in the USA - why did he have to hire an immigration lawyer to handle the paperwork? It should not be that onerous.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
"Example: Friend of mine married a Thai woman who was already living and working legally in the USA - why did he have to hire an immigration lawyer to handle the paperwork? It should not be that onerous."

And yet we are assured that processing an additional 12 million or so cases will be no problem. At the very least, we are obviously going to need many more lawyers, a fact which in itself is enough to justify opposing this new legislation.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Just a small technical question but...... how does anybody propose to deport 12 million illegal aliens, dispersed across the country anyway?
It depends how long you want to take. If you can manage the inflow by controlling the borders, then it’s a matter of deporting more than sneak in. 12 million people didn’t show up in a week or two and I wouldn’t expect them to leave that quickly either.
 
Written By: Mark A. Flacy
URL: http://
I was impressed with this post, McQ. I sort of sympathize with some of the people suggesting you didn’t really documenting the racialist argument in detail, but I happen to feel I’ve noticed the same thing, so I agree with you. It almost makes me want to apologize for the cr*p I’ve been giving you. And there’s no reason why, if libertarianism or conservatism genuinely serves the prefrences and best interests of human beings better, that immigrants, regardless of their culture, ideas, or upbringing on arrival, won’t come around to the best way to do things in the end.

It’s easy as a commenter to let one’s opinions flow with the vehement reaction to the subject at hand, which I guess is code for saying: sometimes I forget you have principles. Sorry about that.

For what it’s worth, you can of course find nativist Democrats on the ground level. I even saw Blanche Lincoln on C-SPAN the other day using immigration arguments I didn’t particularly like hearing.

Next subject.

McQ, if you think the only crime illegal aliens commit is being in the country illegally, then you need to visit the southwest for a while. There is a huge amount of felonies committed by illegals — a far greater number per capita than legal residents.

First of all, I flat out dispute this factually, steve, but even if I didn’t,
you should know that the rates at which people are convicted of crimes says just as much about who the police target as about who’s commiting the crimes. Broke, legally vulnerable, and easily intimidated, illegal immigrants are great low-hanging fruit for departments who only want easy targets. Not only that, but living in a country illegally, by reducing legitimate opportunities to earn money and creating dependency on the shadow economy, makes any person of any background more prone to becoming involved with crime. So even if the fake higher felony rate was true, it wouldn’t neccesarily demonstrate any accurate measurement of the neutral criminal proclivity of the average immigrant.

Immigrants have been called hordes of criminals for hundreds of years and hundreds of countries. Seems to make it less likely it has much to do with their mexican nature. Seems to make it more likely it’s a) an easy method of villification, and/or b) functionally interrelated with shadow status.

All the more reason why, really, people who are going to stay here need to be officially here in some form, be on the record - citizens or not - which is what the bill is about.
 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
McQ, please cite for me where breaking and entering is a misdemeanor?

Here in Texas, if someone enters into my house without an invitation, I can shoot him dead, no matter what his skin color. I don’t see my country any differently.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
McQ, please cite for me where breaking and entering is a misdemeanor?
I don’t make the laws, SDN, I just report them. Being here illegally is a misdemeanor, like it or not.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Placed to bookmark!
 
Written By: Kennedi
URL: http://www.google.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider