The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
Mark Krikorian and Heather MacDonald dissent from the conventional wisdom concerning the Republican stance on immigration. President Obama has helpfully suggested that the Republicans should embrace amnesty to help the GOP's electoral outcomes, and many establishment Republicans agree (The Wall Street Journal has four articles defending the conventional wisdom in today's edition.) The idea is that Hispanics don't vote Republican principally because the Republicans are the anti-immigration party.
Of course, it is pretty hard to say that the Republican Party is anti-immigration. George Bush helped promote the housing bubble to fund easy lending for illegal immigrants, and John McCain embraced amnesty with all his heart, mind, and soul. Romney had already agreed to go along with Obama's illegal amnesty, and Mitt never met an H1-B visa application he didn't like.
But I digress. Setting the stereotype of Republicans as anti-immigration hardliners aside, Krikorian and MacDonald point to the data that shows that Hispanics are heavily Democratic chiefly because they agree with the Dems on the redistributive agenda of the welfare state. The heavy Hispanic support for raising the income tax in California is recent evidence of this fact.
If the Republicans want the Hispanic vote, they need to embrace the welfare state with the same fervor as the Democrats. And a majority of Hispanics like gay marriage according to a recent Pew poll cited by MacDonald, so Republicans should apparently drop criticism of that too.
We should of course not ignore the relevant social science. The facts show that Republicans stand to gain far more by getting self-identified conservatives to vote for their candidate than they do by getting even a substantial number of Hispanics to join the Republican coalition. (Krikorian does the math on this.)
Since the advent of modern liberalism in the mid-1960's, Republicans running to the center have been trounced pretty regularly. Establishment candidates like Gerald Ford, Bush 41 (after it became clear he was no Reagan) Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney come to mind. Bush 43 ran to the right and governed to the center-left, but his electoral success came from running to the right.
One might also think of mid-term elections here. A comparison of 2006 and 2010 shows what happens to "centrist," establishment Republicans versus Reaganesque conservatives.
But I don't think those who believe the Republicans need to embrace unlimited immigration and stop speaking about moral issues need to fear--the conventional wisdom is very strong. The arguments of the establishment (Karl Rove anyone?) possess a zombie-like tenacity.
- Comment (32)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Nov '11
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
AIG
Legislation is created by us, and it is not always wise legislation. It is a poor argument to say that something should be opposed simply because it is illegal. We oppose legislation we don't like (e.g. Obamacare), yet when it is convenient we say "it's the law!"?
You can oppose illegal immigration, but when you make legal immigration so impossible to achieve that people have no other alternative, it's no longer the same argument. . . .
I'm in the choir you preach to.
But also on the other end of the economic ladder, we must be realistic about economic forces that motivate unskilled or low-skilled illegal immigrants.
Passing laws to try to prevent illegal immigrants from migrating in repsonse to economic forces is like passing laws to prevent birds from flying north in summer.
Free markets allow free movement of goods, capital, and labor. Even for unskilled workers we need to increase the levels of legal immigration to reflect the market demand. But we must do so in a way that does not put our own native workers at an unfair disadvantage.
Edited on November 9, 2012 at 2:02amMay '12
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
I agree with you Astonishing 100%. But, once we get to the argument of how do we allow for "legal" immigration (of low or high skilled labor) in such a way as to not "unfairly hurt" our own workers, we may get into trouble. After all, the majority of the opposition to "illegal immigration" comes from arguments of protecting American jobs. I remember how "proud" some people were when one of the states (Alabama was it? I can't remember) started a program limiting illegal participation in the work force, how this program "decreased unemployment!". Well, any protectionist program (including in labor) will increase employment, but at the cost of economic output.
So far I'm with ya, but I can see this quickly deteriorating into a bureaucratic interest-group program, like we have right now with the guest worker program, or H1 visas where we tell Chung, Boris or Ahmed that they need to leave the country after they get a PhD because Billy needs special protection.
In America there is no such thing as "illegal" immigration, intrinsically. We invented this term as a protectionist measure. The real problem, is the welfare state.
Oct '10
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
Patrick in Albuquerque
Of course, I hope you're right. But, what metrics will allow us to know that your suspicion is coming true? How many presidential elections should we wait? What should we do if you're wrong? I hope it's not that we're then going to say something blaming Latinos. · 4 hours ago
What other choice is there? Let's be honest: Democrats have us in a vice. We Republicans are basically faced with a choice: oppose unskilled immigration and the implied transfer of wealth from the unskilled white workers in our base it implies, or support an amnesty and lose those voters. Democrats can get away with supporting amnesty because they have fewer voters who lose from it, and because they promise to "take care of" the losers.
We can't win. We should reach out to Hispanics in other ways. I suspect that if we're honest, and respectfully explain our reasons for opposing an immigration amnesty, we may win some respect (liberals will call us racist, but who cares).
Oct '10
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
That's completely unfounded. Democrats rather like having sub-minimum-wage workers cutting their grass, cleaning their houses, and waiting on their every whim. They definitely support immigration of unskilled workers. Besides, the Democrats have moved on from entrapping poor people in government programs—nowadays, they concentrate their efforts on getting the middle class dependent on the government.
Jul '10
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
Joseph Eagar
Patrick in Albuquerque
Of course, I hope you're right. But, what metrics will allow us to know that your suspicion is coming true? How many presidential elections should we wait? What should we do if you're wrong?
What other choice is there? ... Democrats can get away with supporting amnesty because they have fewer voters who lose from it, and because they promise to "take care of" the losers.
I agree with the second part of your statement. To that point, I'll also note that the non-stop soak the rich rhetoric gives them street cred with those voters. Obviously, I don't want to emulate that approach, but it does reinforce the "They are out to get you, but we care" claim.
I do dispute the first part: in the (not as competitive as we hoped, but still competitive) Upper Midwest Dems have plenty of votes to lose from blue collar whites. They lost some of them in the last two cycles, not as many as I'd have liked, but some. There is a reason that Obama didn't really address immigration in his first term.
Nov '11
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
I take your point about the law potentially being unwise, but doesn't ignoring the law because it makes economic sense to you undermine the rule of law and further erode its veneration? Also, how do you propose we deal with the challenges to civil society produced by unregulated mass-immigration (especially unskilled/illiterate)? Even if we eliminate the welfare state entirely, I am not sure the vision you advocate is sustainable.
May '12
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
Jace those are good points, but I think that law is eroded more through the passage of "unwise" legislation than their breaking. We had mass unregulated immigration up until the 1920s. The benefits the US got from that mass immigration of illiterate and unskilled people are undeniable. I can't deny that there may be social problems, we've all seen Gangs of NY. But then again, these are different times.
I understand that what I am advocating is politically impossible without first solving the problem of the permanent underclass which the Dems feed through welfare. But there are certainly middle grounds.
The only point I wanted to make is that conservative principles are in favor of immigration, and conservative principles don't allow, imho, for concepts such as illegal immigration in this country. Illegal immigration was created as a tool of protectionism; we as conservatives cannot denounce protectionism when it is practiced in trade (tariffs), in labor (Unions), or in competition (cronyism), while at the same time holding anti-"illegal immigration" as a corner stone of the "true conservatism". We have to uphold the paradigm of freedom, and then we can discuss limiting contingencies (the current political infeasibility)
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
Your facts are incorrect. Bush won 40% of the Hispanic vote. And he had to promote the housing bubble to do it. (The initial exit polling was incorrect.)
Romney lost because he couldn't motivate his base. He couldn't motivate his base because he was soft on immigration and in general embraced special interest group politics.
Astonishing: The math that matters most: Obama won.
Dubya captured enough Hispanic vote to win twice. (In 2004 Bush won 44%.) But hardliners shot down Dubya's rational attempts at comprehensive immigration reform.
Hispanics took note, Romney took less than 25%, and Obama retained the presidency in 2012.
So instead of Dubya's more reasonable version of immigration reform, now wewillget Obama's more extreme version of immigration reform, whichwillsink the GOP into an even deeper hole with Hispanics.
Politically: Estúpido!
. · November 8, 2012 at 9:59am
May '12
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
Anti-illergal immigration is also interest group politics.
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
This is strange logic. We allow over 1 million legal immigrants a year in this country.
And by the way, so what if people want to come here? The whole point of the social compact theory of the founding is that immigration requires mutual agreement between the immigrants and the citizens. You are not doing anyone an injury by not allowing them to come in as legal immigrants.
AIG
Legislation is created by us, and it is not always wise legislation. It is a poor argument to say that something should be opposed simply because it is illegal. We oppose legislation we don't like (e.g. Obamacare), yet when it is convenient we say "it's the law!"?
You can oppose illegal immigration, but when you make legal immigration so impossible to achieve that people have no other alternative, it's no longer the same argument. · 20 hours ago
Edited 20 hours ago
May '12
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
It's not about absolute level, but relative level. I came to this country legally, and the hurdles to do that, are enormous. Not to mention we kick people out after they complete graduate degrees here for trivial reasons
This doesn't contradict what I'm saying. People come here, they become citizens, they become Americans. That's the way it has always been.
Really? Where did you ancestors come from and when? Would it have cost you any harm if they were not allowed in the US? Would it have caused harm to the people you contribute to, if you hadn't been born in the US?
Protectionist policies, be it for goods or people, are the opposite of the founding principles of this country.
Edited on November 10, 2012 at 1:55amNov '11
Re: The GOP and Immigration: Dissent from the Conventional Wisdom
So, are you for any restrictions on immigration whatsoever?