Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Are Asians and Hispanics Really Just a Fifth Column for Big Government?
I don’t know, really, whether it would be good or bad politically for Republicans to tackle immigration reform this year. Some say it would be divisive and distract from the party’s Obamacare critique. Others argue that waiting would inject the issue into the 2016 GOP presidential race.
Generally, however, I am in favor of implementing good policy ideas ASAP. And reform that would legalize undocumented workers and create a more-skills based system would be a big net plus economically. (Timing-wise, as Reihan Salam argues, passing a jobs act for the long-term unemployed might be of higher priority.)
Columnist Ann Coulter apparently doesn’t want that sort of immigration reform today, tomorrow, or ever. But’s it’s not just a piece of legislation she’s against. Coulter is pretty much dubious of all immigration, full stop.
Immigrants — all immigrants — have always been the bulwark of the Democratic Party. … This is not a secret. For at least a century, there’s never been a period when a majority of immigrants weren’t Democrats. … The two largest immigrant groups, Hispanics and Asians, have little in common economically, culturally or historically. But they both overwhelmingly support big government, Obamacare, affirmative action and gun control. … At the current accelerated rate of immigration — 1.1 million new immigrants every year — Republicans will be a fringe party in about a decade … why on Earth are they bringing in people sworn to their political destruction?
1.) Of the 11 million illegal aliens, only 80% are Latino, and only 40% or so might actual seek citizenship. And probably less than half of those will vote. So amnesty might provide Dems with an additional 1 million votes. How would amnesty have played out in the 2012 election? Sean Trende: “Using these numbers, not a single state would have cast its votes for the electors of a different candidate in 2012. In fact, in 28 states, the president’s margin would have increased by just a half-point or less.”
2.) I have been worried that fears of a further influx of unskilled Hispanic labor would metastasize into undifferentiated restrictionism. Well, here we are. So now (some) conservatives don’t want the brainiacs, either? According to a Harvard study, immigrants generally account for about a quarter of the US workforce engaged in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields.What’s more, according to Pia Orrenius of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, immigrants accounted for well over 50% of the growth in employment in STEM-related fields between 2003 and 2008. So we want those foreign PhDs only if they are big 2nd Amendment supporters?
3.) Such a static way of viewing the world. Maybe Republicans will always have electoral problems with low-income immigrants. But can’t Republicans improve their showing with them — not to mention those Hispanics and Asians natives and immigrants in the middle and upper class — with the same set of pro-growth, pro-mobility policies that might appeal to all Americans? A CBS News report earlier this year points out that Hispanic households earning more than $100,000 were actually more likely to call themselves Republicans than Democrats, but warns that “if over the long term Hispanic voters see a distinction between the parties based more heavily through the lens of group attachments, economics matters less” Republicans won’t be able to make much progress.
And that scenario seems far more likely to happen if Republicans treat Hispanics and Asians as a fifth column for Big Government rather than voters to be persuaded by policies that appeal to their concerns and by politicians who see them more than just a category in a poll’s crosstabs.
Published in General
Owl
Is there any limit on immigration you would accept? If so, why are those that think we have passed their acceptable limit morally wrong. Second, do you think it’s racist to oppose programs like chain migration of family members over a more rational skills based point system? Third, you mentioned that you lived in Texas in the past, what interaction do you have with illegal aliens now? Thanks for responding if you’re not watching football.
Convieneintly omitted are the challenges to JP’s assertions of how many people will seek citizenship and how many will vote. This is pure speculation on any level, and I will not accept his willy-nilly predictions. That you do shows a lack of objectivity.
“…only 40% or so might actual seek citizenship. And probably less than half of those will vote.”
Particularly questionable is the speculation that less than half of people who seek citizenship will vote, since there are very few reasons to seek citizenship once you have a green card other than voting priviledges.
All these figures are important because they are the foundation of his assertion that this population, given voting rights, would make a difference in elections. In fact, these numbers grow daily and looking at a particular election in 2012 with a particular outcome and retrofitting stats isn’t pertinent to future elections in the least, just a convienient talking point meant to mislead those who won’t look past their noses and think Harvard is a bastion of scientists who know better than the rest of us and that a methodology exists that can count millions who don’t wish to be counted.
Ross Douthat expresses many of my sentiments in his column today.
This is again frustrating, because every discussion here of immigration descends into guttersniping between the nativists and the open borders crowd.
There are solid reasons to reform immigration, and we absolutely should (Mr. Krikorian notwithstanding)- as soon as we have a median-range honest person in the White House. That means no earlier than 2017, and a lot later if we continue to destroy ourselves with this kind of internal warring.
There are solid reasons to reform immigration, and we absolutely should (Mr. Krikorian notwithstanding)- as soon as we have a median-range honest person in the White House. That means no earlier than 2017, and a lot later if we continue to destroy ourselves with this kind of internal warring.
You mean it doesn’t end with a consensus that agrees with your ideas? This is the same delusion the “No Labels” folks have, that R’s and D’s should just come to an agreement for the sake of everyone. Only that’s naive and holds the conceit that the advocate for ‘consensus’ has the answer, or that the answer always lies somewhere in the middle no matter what. It’s more of the same, just from a different angle.
How do you expect to be taken seriously with your admonitions here? The Now, now children, let’s-stop-fighting-about-this position is perhaps the most unrealistic stance of all.
Flaws in the analogy. 1) Everyone is not welcome (and they shouldn’t be)- read our current law. 2) They are able to hide in the nooks and crannies all over your large house such that you don’t know whoi is there, where they are, and they are still causing trouble for your family and guests.
How do you get them out until you first know who is there, where in the house, etc.? There are court cases that don’t let you call the SWAT team, and calling the Army in would ruin your home.
Now what?
There are solid reasons to reform immigration, and we absolutely should (Mr. Krikorian notwithstanding)- as soon as we have a median-range honest person in the White House. That means no earlier than 2017, and a lot later if we continue to destroy ourselves with this kind of internal warring.
You mean it doesn’t end with a consensus that agrees with your ideas? This is the same delusion the “No Labels” folks have, that R’s and D’s should just come to an agreement for the sake of everyone. Only that’s naive and holds the conceit that the advocate for ‘consensus’ has the answer, or that the answer always lies somewhere in the middle no matter what. ………
How do you expect to be taken seriously with your admonitions here? The Now, now children, let’s-stop-fighting-about-thisposition is perhaps the most unrealistic stance of all.
Franco, when a comment is addressed to you, I’ll let you know. That one was not. I have no wish to engage you.
I know you want that to be an open and shut response, but it’s not. There are lots of conservatives (and progressives) who adopt the paranoid style. What defines it (and Hofstadter is not the beginning and end of its discussion) is the closure to criticism.
For example, Franco has foreclosed my ability to address his position by denying my ability to draw from the best social science research, yet he insists on some hidden knowledge to know what would happen if America’s illegal immigrants were suddenly made citizens. The reason he can cite hidden knowledge but I cannot cite hard data is because he wishes to close debate off where his position is exposed. The reason is because I am “revealing my bias” in issues I wish to address or “parroting JP” who, again with some appeal to hidden knowledge, part of an AEI/Establishment conspiracy to undermine the nation.
How do I argue with that? I am denied entry. Duane probably has the best strategy here.
Parroting Richard Hofstadter’s long-discredited characterization of conservatives does nothing to strengthen your argument, which is little more than name-calling. ·February 2, 2014 at 2:50pm
What is the hidden knowledge? Bias. By denying access to knowledge, Franco is thrown back on his bias, and he attempts to use it forcefully in language in order to shout out folks from threads.
You’re doing the same by seizing on a term once used to malign conservative arguments, but you forget that it has often fit. For example, Charles Coughlin used paranoid style to denounce FDR and engage in anti-Semitism. The response most conservatives have to this is to say, “Yes, but he wasn’t a true conservative because he embraced welfare state ideas.” Well, so did Reagan, so that can’t be right. The real reason Coughlin was not a “true conservative” is because the paranoid arguments he made were marginalized by right-thinking people who could plainly see that Coughlin cited falsified data.
When the Birchers did it during the 1950s (they were essentially another Know-Nothing Party), WFB and other thinking conservatives pushed them into obscurity and, thus, ushered in an era in which conservatives had respectable, data-driven, and traditionally grounded arguments accessible the public square. Deny conservatives that ground, and we can listen to Alex Jones in our Idaho compounds.
As for what number of immigrants to allow in, I’m not sure. I’m inclined to say let them all in, but the problem is that the immigration lever does not work in isolation. Someone already mentioned the Douthat column, and I’m with him.
You mean it doesn’t end with a consensus that agrees with your ideas? This is the same delusion the “No Labels” folks have, that R’s and D’s should just come to an agreement for the sake of everyone. Only that’s naive and holds the conceit that the advocate for ‘consensus’ has the answer, or that the answer always lies somewhere in the middle no matter what. ………
How do you expect to be taken seriously with your admonitions here? The Now, now children, let’s-stop-fighting-about-thisposition is perhaps the most unrealistic stance of all.
Franco, when a comment is addressed to you, I’ll let you know. That one was not. I have no wish to engage you.
You are right to avoid engaging me because I destroy your points. This is a forum and you are addressing everyone. If you want private communications there’s a way to do that here. I’ll keep commenting for the sake of others and the general argument. Too bad for you.
For example, Charles Coughlin used paranoid style to denounce FDR and engage in anti-Semitism. The response most conservatives have to this is to say, “Yes, but he wasn’t a true conservative because he embraced welfare state ideas.” Well, so did Reagan, so that can’t be right. The real reason Coughlin was not a “true conservative” is because the paranoid arguments he made were marginalized by right-thinking people who could plainly see that Coughlin cited falsified data.
Coughlin “was not a true conservative”, because he wasn’t. Dude was just an economic populist with a nationalist bent. He was connected with Huey Long, and started the Union Party with Long’s followers.
You’re silly if you think the desire to not have one’s nation inundated with scofflaws, and the desire to not reward them, makes a person like Coughlin or the John Birch society. That’s the line of reasoning one would expect from a left-wing college professor.
Owl,
This debate didn’t begin yesterday. Jp’s numbers and his own speculations and his own claims ” to know what would happen if America’s illegal immigrants were suddenly made citizens” are what I’m questioning.
My position is that all of this is speculation, and then I cited two studies that conradict the 11 million figure. If you use a search engine, there are more studies. So who is being biased? You are choosing JP sources and ignoreing other sources merely because they aren’t cited by the poster.
As well, these numbers are not the central point of my argument anyway. I’m not forclosing anyone’s ability to counter my arguments.
I’m saying that JP is not arguing in good faith. You may be misguided in your indulgence in person-to-person compassion and wishing to apply that in a general sense upon the rest of us, I don’t know but JP is simply pushing his agenda without care for logical arguments. He claims he “doesn’t know” what the political fallout would be, and then proceeds to claim that it would be nil and the fears are overblown. Which is it?
Claiming people are part of some organization that has been effectively marginalized, however, isn’t exactly expanding this debate. Claiming that people using certain words or phrases means they may be part of a secret society is the real paranoia going on in this thread.
Talk about foreclosing arguments! Basically Owl is saying, You can’t say that because these are the same words and phrases Birchers used, hence you are a Bircher. I’m sure they said “Merry Christmas and Happy New Year” as well. Are those phrases off limits too?
No ones denying ‘conservatives’ – if you choose to label yourself such to the exclusion of others because you have some unique ability to define conservatism, data and grounded arguments. I’d like to hear a grounded argument from you or JP. So far they have been fairly ungrounded and over-optimistic.
This kind of holier-than-thou approach, whilst claiming the other side is some stereotypical Idaho based militant or conspiracy monger, all for wishing current immigration laws enforced in the same way every other sovereign nation on the planet does, is outrageous.
Me. Right now.
I destroy your points.
When the Birchers did it during the 1950s (they were essentially another Know-Nothing Party), WFB and other thinking conservatives pushed them into obscurity and, thus, ushered in an era in which conservatives had respectable, data-driven, and traditionally grounded arguments accessible the public square. Deny conservatives that ground, and we can listen to Alex Jones in our Idaho compounds. ·9 hours ago
Edited 9 hours ago
I don’t think you have any idea about the “Birchers” and I have skimmed the comments thus far to see if there is an informed point of view. So far I haven’t found one. I don’t mean to be insulting but I have spent 40 years dealing with illegals and I don’t think most of you know anything about them. The dominant group is from Mexico and many plan to return when they have made or saved enough money. Giving them the vote is like buying Irish votes by Tammany Hall. The people pushing amnesty, and that is what this is, know exactly what they are doing and could care less about Republicans or middle class Americans.