What Mike Murphy Should Have Said

 

My reaction to Mike Murphy’s recent appearance on the Ricochet Podcast can be summarized with one word: frustration. I think it safe to say that my reaction is one shared by many – probably most – members. That said, the cause of my frustration puts me in a minority on Ricochet. Though I do not support comprehensive immigration reform at the present moment, I think it will be necessary at some point and I was deeply disappointed at how poor a case Murphy made for immigration reform as a political necessity. There are few things I find more frustrating than listening to an argument to which I am sympathetic put poorly. Now I don’t expect everyone to be persuaded by this, but here’s what I think Murphy should have said:*

First, we need to recognize that the GOP’s problem with the Hispanic vote is a serious one. Hispanics are the largest minority group in the United States and are the fastest-growing segment of the American population. There are currently around 25 million Hispanics eligible to vote in the United States, a number set to rise to 40 million by 2030. Even if Hispanic immigration (both legal and illegal) were stopped entirely today, if the Republican Party cannot get a significantly higher percent of the Hispanic vote than it has in recent elections it is headed for long-term minority party status. This is particularly true in the case of presidential politics. The GOP cannot achieve an Electoral College majority without Texas and Hispanics are on track to become the largest ethnic group in Texas in about a decade. A Republican Party that receives less than 30 percent of the Hispanic vote is in trouble. Since 1980 (the first election for which such data is available and reliable), no one has won a presidential election with less than 30% of the Hispanic vote. In 2012, Romney received only 27%.

Fortunately, Hispanic voting patterns are not set in stone. While it is unlikely that the GOP is going to win a majority of Hispanic votes anytime soon, it should be recognized that the Republican Party’s standing among Hispanic voters is currently at a twenty year low and that it was much higher fairly recently. George W. Bush did quite well among Hispanics. In 2000, he received 35% of the Hispanic vote and in 2004 he won between 41 and 44% (depending on the source).

This brings us to the question of why the GOP currently does so poorly among Hispanics. Between 2004 and the midterm elections of 2006, the Republican Party saw its share of the Hispanic vote fall by between one quarter and one third. While the GOP lost ground among pretty much every demographic group, the drop in support among Hispanics was substantially greater than among other groups. One thing that likely contributed to this collapse in support is that W’s attempt to pass a Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) was thwarted by a GOP-controlled Congress.

Perhaps more at fault than the actual failure of the CIRA was the nature of much of the right’s opposition to it. Groups such as the Minutemen received prominent news coverage and, while their motives may have been benign, they were portrayed as anti-Hispanic vigilantes and bigots. Such coverage may have been unfair, but it was not without a factual basis. In 2008, Minuteman founder Jim Gilchrist expressed dismay at the number of organizations with “sinister intentions” that grew out of the Minuteman Project saying, “I very well may have been fighting for people with less character and less integrity than the ‘open border fanatics’ I have been fighting against.” On a less extreme level, it’s hard to argue that conservative commentators like Rush Limbaugh help the perception of the GOP among Hispanics when they argue against immigration reform on the grounds that Hispanic immigrants are welfare-dependent, job-stealing, criminally-inclined drains on America’s public finances planning to reconquer the Southwest for La Raza (not that La Raza wouldn’t like a reconquista).

So why, you may ask, if the GOP is generally perceived to be unwelcoming to Hispanics, is immigration reform necessary to improve the GOP’s standing among Hispanics?

Well, immigration is more of a threshold question than a magic bullet. Passing immigration reform would demonstrate to Hispanic voters that the GOP is not hostile to them. There are currently large numbers of Hispanics who might be receptive to the conservative message on the value of hard work, traditional morality, and opportunity, but who reject it out of hand because they perceive the messengers to be hostile to them. We cannot persuade someone of the rightness of our position if they aren’t willing to give us a hearing in the first place.

But shouldn’t Hispanics already be receptive to our position? After all, polling tends to show that Hispanic voters care far more about the economy than they do about immigration.

It’s true that polling suggests that Hispanic voters care far more about the economy than they do about immigration reform, but that doesn’t really matter in this context. As Mickey Kaus astutely pointed out, the fact that voters in Virginia’s 7th Congressional District stated that the economy was a higher priority to them than immigration doesn’t mean that immigration doesn’t matter. Sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander, Hispanic voters may care more about the economy than they do about immigration, but that doesn’t mean they don’t care about immigration.

What about the argument that amnesty would add millions of new Democratic voters to the electorate?

Opponents of the path to citizenship frequently make the claim that it will result in 11 million new Democratic voters, ushering in a permanent Democratic majority. While it’s true that providing a path to citizenship to those illegally in the country would lead to an increase in Democratic votes, the actual net effect is likely to be far less than the 11 million figure. First, it needs to be recognized that 11 million is the total number of illegal immigrants in the country and that not all of these are going to become citizens. I have a friend who is an immigration lawyer and staunch opponent of comprehensive immigration reform. His best estimate is that between 40 and 50 percent of current illegal immigrants will not end up becoming citizens — some because of ineligibility or return to their home country, most because they don’t really care about citizenship and would be content with legal status as permanent residents. Let’s assume the high end of his range opts for citizenship. 60% of 11 million is 6.6 million. That’s not the end of the analysis. Hispanics have a voter turnout of 48%, so of the 6.6 million eligible to vote only 3.17 million are likely to actually vote. Not all of these will vote Democrat. If we assume that the GOP is able to increase its share of the Hispanic vote from the currently abysmal 27% to a 2000 level 35% we end up with 2 million new Democratic votes and 1.1 million new Republicans for a net increase of only 900,000 Democratic votes. If the GOP can revive its share of the Hispanic votes to 2004 levels, the net increase in Democratic votes shrinks to 380,000.

And that doesn’t take into account the effect of comprehensive immigration reform on the larger established Hispanic vote. The first amnestied voters won’t go to the polls for a decade. By then, the established (non-amnestied) Hispanic electorate will be around 35 million, of which around half, or 17.5 million will actually vote. Under current voting patterns, the GOP will receive about 4.72 million of those votes. If the GOP share of the Hispanic votes rises to 2000 levels, it will receive 6.13 million votes and if it rises to 2004 levels it will receive 7.7 million votes for a net increase of between 1.41 million and 3.02 million votes. Thus a path to citizenship, taken on its own, will likely lead to a net increase of between 380,000 and 900,000 Democratic votes, but the overall effect of comprehensive immigration reform will likely be a net Republican gain of between 500,000 and 2.6 million votes.

What about the risk that amnesty will just induce another wave of illegal immigration?

I agree that’s a real problem. That’s why I oppose comprehensive immigration reform at the moment. At least until we control the Senate, preferably until we retake the White House in 2016.

* In fairness, Murphy did make some of these points, or points of a similar nature.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 179 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_1938 Member
    user_1938
    @AaronMiller

    I have a terrible memory for dates. What was happening around 2004 and 2006 beyond any talk of immigration reform and the elections? 

    By a quick Google search, I see that in 2006 that our economy experienced “the sharpest housing downturn in 15 years.” Might that be a factor considering how many hispanics work in construction?

    • #31
  2. tomjedrz Member
    tomjedrz
    @TomJedrz

    Arahant:

    … 

    If you break the law, you deserve punishment, not rewards. Amnesty of any kind will only incite worse behaviour. There is no path to being a good citizen for those willing to commit felonies for that status.

     The problem here is that WE IGNORED THE LAW OURSELVES for 4 decades.  To make a u-turn, decide that all of a sudden this particular law matters, and punish those who were responding to our clear signals and behaviors is disingenuous and hypocritical.

    My approach:
    1. Border Security first
    2. Deport those who have committed other crimes.
    3. Start tracking down “over-stays” beginning with the newest first.
    4. Work the political process to setup a legalization program for those who have been here for “x” years, and have broken no significant laws.
    5. Remove/eliminate eligibility for government benefits and programs for those here illegally.
    6. Change the “family first” standards to those that favor education, skills, and ability to support oneself economically.

    This is reasonable, allows those who have been otherwise law-abiding to get legit, and turns the system into one that benefits the existing population instead of one which harms the existing population.

    • #32
  3. user_1938 Member
    user_1938
    @AaronMiller

    Joseph Stanko: I also wish more conservatives would acknowledge the powerful economic incentives driving illegal immigration.  Restricting immigration to the extent we have creates a black market in labor, and history shows that no matter how much money we throw at suppressing a black market (i.e. Prohibition, the War on Drugs, gambling, prostitution, etc.) it never goes away entirely, and overzealous enforcement has unintended consequences and encroaches on our civil liberties.

    Are you sure that’s a bad thing? I know a lot of legal, non-hispanic citizens who wish they could participate in a black market and live with as much unregulated freedom as the illegals do. 

    It’s obvious to anyone in the border states that our police agencies would much rather perform the relatively easy task of enforcing regulations than stamp down on actually harmful behaviors. I believe it was Victor Davis Hanson who has written about our government’s splitting of society into those who are bound by laws and those who are not.

    • #33
  4. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    TomJedrz: The problem here is that WE IGNORED THE LAW OURSELVES for 4 decades.

    You got a mouse in your pocket?  Yes, I understand.  You are saying that our national leadership and hired employees did not do their jobs. This is not news to me.  Do we blame the stockholders of GM if the CEO makes bad marketing decisions? The stockholders suffer, make no mistake, but do we say it’s exactly what they wanted?

    I’d run for President myself on a Law and Order ticket, but I’d need some guy named Order.

    • #34
  5. Rawls Inactive
    Rawls
    @Rawls

    Frank Soto:

    The talk of “showing hispanics we aren’t hostile to them” seems intuitively like it would help, but I suspect a booming economy would be an order of magnitude more effective for creating GOP voters.

    Since we probably agree that the democrats will allow no real enforcement on the border, do you agree it’s probably best to drop reform until we retake the presidency, or until we have enough of a strangle hold on both house of congress that we can really set the terms of the deal?

    We can have a booming economy and show Hispanics we aren’t hostile to them. Those things are not mutually exclusive of each other.

    We should have Cruz and Rubio lead the “secure first, amnesty second” charge leading into 2016. It will be hard for the Dems to call us racists with that in place.

    • #35
  6. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Salvatore Padula:

    Arahant:

    Fredösphere: I’d love to see someone look carefully at this process and try to measure it carefully. Is the GOP the party of whites? Or the party of whites and ex-ethnics?

    Well, Italians didn’t used to be considered Whites, and Sal is with us. I wonder what that means.

    Ah, but I identify as Italian-American.

    How many opinion polls even offer ‘Italian-American’ as an option?

    • #36
  7. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Jager: George HW Bush won election in 1988 with 30% of the Hispanic vote.

    You’re right. 35% was a typo. I’ve corrected it.

    • #37
  8. user_96427 Contributor
    user_96427
    @tommeyer

    Will Collier: “Please keep nominating these sure losers like McCain and Romney who appeal only to the big Manhattan donors. Otherwise I might have to get a real job.”

    As opposed to sure winners such as…..?

    • #38
  9. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Joseph Stanko: But let’s at least be realistic and acknowledge that no matter how “serious” we get about border enforcement, some people are always going to find ways to sneak into the country (e.g. by overstaying a travel visa) just as someone is always going to find a clever new way to smuggle in cocaine. If the economic incentives are there, and people are desperate enough, they will always find a way.

     Trivially true. We will never attain 100%, but there is an enormous gap between perfection and the mess we have now.

    • #39
  10. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Tom Meyer:

    Will Collier: “Please keep nominating these sure losers like McCain and Romney who appeal only to the big Manhattan donors. Otherwise I might have to get a real job.”

    As opposed to sure winners such as…..?

     The guys Murphy’s candidates beat in the primaries.

    • #40
  11. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Salvatore Padula: Bush received more than 40%. McCain had moved away from his previous pro-reform position in order to win the primary. Beyond that after the failure of CIRA in 2006, the whole GOP brand had an anti-reform image.

     The Pew data I looked at said 40% it may have been a little higher. You still aren’t answering all the historical data. 1986 Amnesty passed. 1988 GOP 30%, 1992 GOP 25%, 1996 GOP 21%. Where did Amnesty help in the 3 following elections? How do you get from the history to an idea that a less generous Immigration reform than 1986 would have a bigger pro GOP push then 1986 did?

    • #41
  12. user_96427 Contributor
    user_96427
    @tommeyer

    Salvatore Padula:  The guys Murphy’s candidates beat in the primaries.

    Presumably, but I’m angling for specific names.

    • #42
  13. Ontos Inactive
    Ontos
    @Ontos

    It is insulting to presume that people who have a Spanish background want exoneration for those who came to the US illegally.  This is a Washington Beltway idea fed to them by La Rasa, which is a Marxist organization dedicated to Piven-Cloward destruction of America.   The Bushes should not be listened to on any subject.  Both 41 and 43 had one essential quality: an inability to follow through with anything to conclusion.  41 fought a terrific battle with Ted Kennedy, and others attempting to distort the truth big time [as they succeeded against  Robert Bork] with their bum’s rush against the Clarance Thomas nomination.  Well 41 did win that one, so what did he do:  He gave away the whole game by throwing to the Dems what he  saw as a “sporting” gift in order to seem like a “good” winner: Bush 41 agreed to the passage of the misnamed Civil Rights Restoration Act.  That Act basically enacted “disparate impact” nonsense theory as to how to prove discrimination in civil rights cases.  I saw that as a death blow to the long fought efforts to “correct” Administrative Agencies’ illicit adoption of “disparate impact” theory in the 1970s.

    • #43
  14. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Jager:

    The Pew data I looked at said 40% it may have been a little higher. You still aren’t answering all the historical data. 1986 Amnesty passed. 1988 GOP 30%, 1992 GOP 25%, 1996 GOP 21%. Where did Amnesty help in the 3 following elections? How do you get from the history to an idea that a less generous Immigration reform than 1986 would have a bigger pro GOP push then 1986 did?

     My argument is not that amnesty makes Hispanics vote Republican, it’s that the latest big debate over immigration reform, back in 2005-2006, poisoned the Hispanic electorate’s perception of the GOP. My point about the historic distribution of the Hispanic vote was to show that it no one has won a national election with the proportion of the Hispanic vote the GOP currently receives. When Bush 41 won with 30% the proportion of the electorate that was Hispanic was significantly lower than it currently is.

    Immigration won’t provide a boost to the GOP, but it’s currently acting as an anchor.

    • #44
  15. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Hispanics are the largest minority group in the United States and are the fastest-growing segment of the American population

    This is true but it is a somewhat Regional effect. Yes it is important in some stateneed to carry like Texas, Arizona, and Florida.  But it not as big a deal everywhere. There are 16 states where Hispanics are less than 5% of the population and 31 States where Hispanics are less than 10% of the population. Republicans generally need to win Ohio (Hispanics 3.3%) Other important “swing states” are Virginia 8.4 %, NC 8.7%, Pennsylvania 6.1% Wisconsin 6.2%, Michigan 4.6%.

    Upcoming Senate seats in Alaska 6.1%, Arkansas 6.8%, Iowa 5.3%, West Virginia 1.3%, South Dakota 1.6%, Louisiana 4.5%  

    It would seem that in these states the bigger risk is losing working class white voters.   What has the GOP “won” if they Pander to 6.8% of the electorate and are “hoping” to only lose that group by 56-44 margins.

    • #45
  16. user_96427 Contributor
    user_96427
    @tommeyer

    Salvatore Padula:  The GOP has a problem with the Hispanic vote in the sense that large numbers of Hispanics never consider our actual arguments because they think we don’t like Hispanics. You can argue that we shouldn’t have a problem with the Hispanic vote, but when we only receive a little over a quarter of it we do most certainly have a problem.

    Bingo.

    Right now, a great many Hispanics who might otherwise be amenable to our arguments won’t hear us out because they believe we’re racists.  That this is untrue — although not completely baseless — is of secondary importance to figuring out a way to get through to them without overly compromising our principles.  To the extent Murphy is arguing that, he’s right.

    That said, border security first then some form of limited amnesty seems the only viable solution.

    • #46
  17. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Jager:

    Hispanics are the largest minority group in the United States and are the fastest-growing segment of the American population

    This is true but it is a somewhat Regional effect. Yes it is important in some states need to carry like Texas, Arizona, and Florida. But it not as big a deal everywhere. There are 16 states where Hispanics are less than 5% of the population and 31 States where Hispanics are less than 10% of the population. Republicans generally need to win Ohio (Hispanics 3.3%) Other important “swing states” are Virginia 8.4 %, NC 8.7%, Pennsylvania 6.1% Wisconsin 6.2%, Michigan 4.6%.

    Upcoming Senate seats in Alaska 6.1%, Arkansas 6.8%, Iowa 5.3%, West Virginia 1.3%, South Dakota 1.6%, Louisiana 4.5%

    It would seem that in these states the bigger risk is losing working class white voters. What has the GOP “won” if they Pander to 6.8% of the electorate and are “hoping” to only lose that group by 56-44 margins.

     Can you describe a winning electoral college map for the GOP which does not include Texas?

    • #47
  18. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Salvatore Padula: My argument is not that amnesty makes Hispanics vote Republican, it’s that the latest big debate over immigration reform, back in 2005-2006, poisoned the Hispanic electorate’s perception of the GOP. My point about the historic distribution of the Hispanic vote was to show that it no one has won a national election with the proportion of the Hispanic vote the GOP currently receives. When Bush 41 won with 30% the proportion of the electorate that was Hispanic was significantly lower than it currently is. Immigration won’t provide a boost to the GOP, but it’s currently acting as an anchor.

     But this still ignores the voting trends. Was immigration an anchor 1988, two years after Reagan’s Amnesty? Bush lost 7 points from Reagan. Did he need to argue for a new Amnesty 2 years after the last one? 

    • #48
  19. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Salvatore Padula:

    Can you describe a winning electoral college map for the GOP which does not include Texas?

     No I can’t but I cannot find one where we have white working class voters stay home/ vote 3rd party in states with smaller numbers of Hispanics and the GOP wins the Presidency. 

    • #49
  20. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Jager: But this still ignores the voting trends. Was immigration an anchor 1988, two years after Reagan’s Amnesty? Bush lost 7 points from Reagan. Did he need to argue for a new Amnesty 2 years after the last one?

    It isn’t ignoring voting trends to say that immigration reform doesn’t necessarily add to the GOP share of the Hispanic vote, but it can subtract from it. Or that there are more factors to the Hispanic vote than immigration. As I’ve said, immigration isn’t a magic bullet. It’s a threshold issue.

    What I contend is that the disastrous collapse in the GOP share of the Hispanic vote after 2004 is largely a product of the GOP’s opposition to immigration reform, an opposition which is perceived by many Hispanics to be at least partially motivated by GOP animosity toward Hispanics. Until Hispanics stop thinking Republicans dislike them, we’re going to have a hard time winning their votes. As long as immigration reform remains a contentious issue, that perception will remain.

    • #50
  21. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Aaron Miller: If so, what good would any policy do while Republicans continue to stink at PR? In particular, Republicans have not demonstrated competence at combating Democrats’ misinformation and demonizations, which proceed regardless of changes to facts of policy or campaigns. Without dramatic improvement to Republican messaging, can the GOP win this issue?

     This is a good and valid point. I think the Republican Party is fortunate at that moment that two of the most prominent national Republicans (Cruz and Rubio) are articulate and engaging Hispanics. Should they so choose and if they are supported, I think either or both of them could do much to improve the GOP’s standing among Hispanic voters.

    You’ve raise the larger issue of the GOP’s generally poor handling of its public image. I agree with you that much needs to be done (specifically what is a subject for its own post) and not just regarding the Hispanic electorate’s perception of the GOP. For the purpose of this question, however, I think it okay to assume that the GOP will get better at general PR. If it doesn’t we’re screwed, whatever happens with immigration.

    • #51
  22. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    Salvatore Padula: What I contend is that the disastrous collapse in the GOP share of the Hispanic vote after 2004 is largely a product of the GOP’s opposition to immigration reform, an opposition which is perceived by many Hispanics to be at least partially motivated by GOP animosity toward Hispanics. Until Hispanics stop thinking Republicans dislike them, we’re going to have a hard time winning their votes. As long as immigration reform remains a contentious issue, that perception will remain.

     This still only works if you ignore 1988. Reagan signed Amnesty in 1986. The GOP had an equally large collapse in 1988 compared to the collapse after 2004.  So grant amnesty and lose Hispanic voters, don’t pass reforms and lose Hispanic voters. 

    When Amnesty was granted last time they did not want to listen to the GOP on other policy issues why would it be different this time ? What does the GOP have to offer   now that is so much better than George HW Bush continuing Reagan’s plans? 

    • #52
  23. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Jager- Why do you think W did so well among Hispanics, particularly in 2004?

    • #53
  24. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    Jager: The GOP had an equally large collapse in 1988 compared to the collapse after 2004

     That’s not quite true. The drop in the Hispanic vote in ’88 was 7 points. Between 2004 and 2006 it was 14 points.

    • #54
  25. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Salvatore Padula:

    swatter: One sentence Salvatore: “Border security first”.

     

    I agree that border security should come first. Though I think that as a matter of practical politics the legislation will have to be passed at the same time I think it entirely possible to have legalization contingent upon the completion of a border fence and the adoption of e-verify.

    I would not concede in the name of practical politics. Border security is in the national interest. It is not a concession to conservatives. Conceding to ‘practical politics’ enables Democrats to use border security as a bargaining chip.

    With evidence of the porous border confirmed and widely reported in the news, now is the perfect time to challenge the Democrat position that the border is already secure enough. Most Americans (including most Hispanics) are capable of understanding that border security is of far greater urgency than all other items on the comprehensive immigration checklist.

    Republicans should be pushing this [border security first] hard and making Senate Democrats own the current border problems.

    That’s what Mike Murphy should have said.

    • #55
  26. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    rico: With evidence of the porous border confirmed and widely reported in the news, now is the perfect time to challenge the Democrat position that the border is already secure enough. Most Americans (including most Hispanics) are capable of understanding that border security is of far greater urgency than all other items on the comprehensive immigration checklist.

     Do you think there is much chance of implementing substantive border security that isn’t part of a comprehensive immigration reform?

    • #56
  27. EThompson Inactive
    EThompson
    @EThompson

    Will Collier:

    “Please keep nominating these sure losers like McCain and Romney who appeal only to the big Manhattan donors. Otherwise I might have to get a real job.”

     If you insist upon comparing Romney to a McCain, at least select Mitt’s financial equal- Cindy.

    • #57
  28. user_1938 Member
    user_1938
    @AaronMiller

    Salvatore Padula: I think the Republican Party is fortunate at that moment that two of the most prominent national Republicans (Cruz and Rubio) are articulate and engaging Hispanics.

     I agree that Cruz and Rubio are as good as it gets PR-wise. Cruz is a heavy-hitter willing to challenge political correctness. And Rubio excels at appealing to ideals and maintaining a kind demeanor, as Reagan did. 

    Don’t count Rick Perry out either. No, he’s not hispanic, but as a Texan he has a lifetime of experience with the target audience and knows where he stands without cue cards.

    Whatever Republicans’ legislative strategy, it should involve genuine compromise (assuming Democrats maintain some control) and not total capitulation to the Left’s demands. Democrats know to begin bargaining from an extreme to move the middle area of “compromise” their way. Boehner as begun negotiations from his actual goal before, which is laughably naive. The Right must demand more than the bare minimum at the start. 

    • #58
  29. rico Inactive
    rico
    @rico

    Salvatore Padula:

    rico: With evidence of the porous border confirmed and widely reported in the news, now is the perfect time to challenge the Democrat position that the border is already secure enough. Most Americans (including most Hispanics) are capable of understanding that border security is of far greater urgency than all other items on the comprehensive immigration checklist.

    Do you think there is much chance of implementing substantive border security that isn’t part of a comprehensive immigration reform?

    I think there is a better chance of implementing effective border security if it is not weighted by the political demands of a comprehensive immigration framework.

    It would be easier to pass ineffective border security as part of a comprehensive plan.

    • #59
  30. user_653084 Inactive
    user_653084
    @SalvatorePadula

    rico: I think there is a better chance of implementing effective border security if it is not weighted by the political demands of a comprehensive immigration framework.

     Could you elaborate a little upon what you mean by that? What do you think effective border security would entail?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.