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.
GOP Will Lose in 2016 without Sensible Immigration Reform
If the GOP doesn’t put together a sensible immigration policy it will lose the 2016 presidential election.
When Obama beat Romney in 2012, with the former Massachusetts governor attracting only 27 percent of the Hispanic vote with his self-deportation argument, Republicans across the map decided they must develop an immigration-reform policy with an outreach approach to minority groups. According to the Republican National Committee, the days of harsh language and punitive legislation must end. In its place, the GOP must reconstruct the Ronald Reagan/Jack Kemp “big tent” theory of politics, where there is plenty of room for all groups — blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Millennials, women, and gays. As Reagan put it, if you and I agree 80 percent of the time and disagree 20 percent, we are not enemies.
A lot of clear-headed Republicans have a strong dislike for identity-group politics. Me too. Instead, I prefer a program of economic growth, strong national defense, deregulation, low flat-tax-rate reform, free trade, and sound money to unleash American prosperity and bolster national security. If this positive message is sold — to everyone and all groups — it will work politically.
But unfortunately, the Republican desire for immigration reform — and inclusive outreach in general — has splintered. That’s why I fear the GOP may blow an election it absolutely should win.
Making matters tougher for the GOP, Hillary Clinton has come out with a very strong, ultra-liberal immigration policy. It emphasizes a path to citizenship and charges that Republicans will never make immigrants more than “second class” Americans. She would include illegals, the parents of illegals, the 11 million undocumented workers, and immigrants who have already been deported. She might even go farther than Obama with executive actions.
And while Hillary makes political hay with Hispanic voters, the GOP has no unified immigration response.
A recent Wall Street Journal story notes that former Florida governor Jeb Bush and Senator Marco Rubio favor a path to citizenship, but have stepped back to offer legal status. Governor Scott Walker, who was for a pathway to citizenship a few years ago, has shifted to a vague notion of legal-immigration reform that will do no harm to native-born workers and their wages. Senator Ted Cruz is unsure about legal status. Former governors Rick Perry and Mike Huckabee talk about tightening border security without any details on the rest of the problem.
All over the map.
Now, the Republican candidates rightfully agree on the priority of border security. They also correctly oppose President Obama’s extra-legal — or perhaps unconstitutional — expansion of executive power on immigration. But really, those are negatives, not positives.
Left unsolved are the H-1B visas for the high-tech brainiacs, visas for foreign students who are forced to leave the U.S. after going to our great universities, some kind of guest-worker program for the seasonal needs of farm and nonfarm employers, making the e-verify program mandatory, and granting portability.
The GOP should also favor legal status for undocumented workers who have no criminal record and pay their taxes. And Marco Rubio is right: “Every nation needs a unifying language; our unifying language is English.”
According to Hoover economist Timothy Kane, the majority of studies show that increased immigration has a small negative effect on the relative wages of low-skilled native workers. However, economists also agree that the overall effect of increased immigration is positive. More immigrant workers create more demand for goods and services, which creates net new jobs over time.
And if we permitted virtually unlimited immigration for the H-1B brainiacs and the foreign-born MIT students, the potential for new tech inventions and innovations would surge. The result would be more Googles and Intels, hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and tens of millions of dollars in new wealth.
Isn’t that the story of America, which I hope is still the land of opportunity?
And so many illegals risk life and limb to get here. That by itself is an act of entrepreneurship which will be continued in America.
Russell Moore of the Southern Baptist Convention adds to this issue. In a wonderful opinion piece in the Journal, he argues that immigration-bashing will alienate Hispanic Evangelicals. Moore talks about the rising tide of born-again Protestant Hispanic congregations. These people believe in “the sanctity of life, racial justice, economic growth, and the values of hard work.”
Sixteen percent of the nation’s Hispanics are Evangelicals. And they’re a natural GOP constituency if only the Republicans would reach out to them. Their cultural conservatism stands shoulder to shoulder with the economic-growth and prosperity issues that hopefully will form the Republican platform. But so far the outreach hasn’t happened.
All I can say is, the Republican candidates better getting moving. Hillary has fired an immigration shot across the bow. There must be a sensible response.
Published in Domestic Policy
Michael Stopa – You don’t have a problem with the current level of legal immigration? One million new Americans every year? Amazing – Have you been alive since 1965, when this unprecedented 50 -year period of open immigration began?
How do you expect policies and programs to be enacted that reflect conservative values in a country with a never-ending influx of people who by a 7 to 3 margin support the party that is lukewarm at best to those values and traditions? Has it been happening?
You cited smart political reasons for Walker’s immigration stance. Would liberals and Democrats be in favor of maintaining or increasing immigration levels if the immigrants voted 7 to 3 for Republicans? Are they smart politically?
Are you?
I tuned Larry out when he addressed the subject on his radio show. He only invites other number crunchers who agree with him. Even Jimmy P, my favorite, falls for this economic voodoo. They massage the numbers to make illegal immigration palatable, but they can’t.
Larry and friends are intelligent, successful, patriotic and well intentioned. It’s when they get away from technical stuff like The Russell Index (whatever that is) that they collapse intellectually. Larry thinks with his heart not his head. I don’t like bringing in personal stuff, but this is a guy who’s a born again 12 stepper. A convert from prep-school Jewish kid to Catholicism. Sorry, but it’s a recipe for holy roller, do-gooderism.
Larry and the Larrettes suffer from “act of love” syndrome. Jeb Bush brought the disease with him when he snuck across the southern border. And it’s spreading. More population creates jobs. Right! Doesn’t matter that the jobs don’t exist. They will, magically, if more applicants appear. Could it have something to do with low wages? All illegals want a job. Where does Larry think that coke came from? Greenwich, Conn. Re-cycled money encourages business investment. Yeah, re-cycled back to the familia. Foreign techies don’t work for less. Nah. Americans won’t wash cars. No way. Illegals aren’t interested in social benefits. Larry is a shill for the low wage conservatives, even if he doesn’t realize it.
Although I’m not as hardcore as most here on the “deportation” front, I don’t agree with the opening statement of tehe post that the GOP needs a unified immigration policy. Let the candidates hash it out. I prefer a primary with different ideas being presented and defended, not 12 candidates reciting the GOP talking points. Sure the Dems are united behind one policy….their policy is “anyone and everyone come and vote for us!” Illegal? No problem. Felon? No problem. Dead? No problem. All potential democrats!
You’re just a H8er.
Moreover, one should not be quick to assume that all Hispanics (especially those, like me, who have lived on the border) think that the fence/deportation is a bad idea. Having dealt with border violence first-hand a decade ago, both sound like very good plans. I’d reckon that if Kudlow and company had been through what I have – namely the worst border violence in generations (since the Mexican Revolution of 1910-20) – they’d be singing a much different tune.
Yeah, but you aren’t a real Hispanic. Get real, Mike.
My barrio pass has been revoked!
The key to winning more hispanics is simple: help more hispanic voters to prosperity through deregulation and lower taxes. Wealthier hispanics vote Republican to protect their property like anybody else.
Just don’t make them too wealthy. Millions make voters stupid again.
Mike’s a white Hispanic. Duh.
Ok, confession time: I read this thread just to bathe in the righteous anger in the comments.
For starters, border control and enhanced internal enforcement of existing laws. Beyond that, no amnesty for the violation of any law. One DUI–deport and take the family with. Identify fabrication or identity theft–deport and take the family with. Member of a gang or an affiliate of a gang–deport and take the family with. Overstay the visa–deport and take the family with.
Let’s see who were dealing with after that. Anyone remaining, perhaps, can stay if they find a financial sponsor who puts up a bond to cover any conceivable entitlement and social costs that they’d impose on taxpayers.
Some want cattle cars loaded and make more money for Warren Buffett, or so it seems. That ain’t happening except maybe in Hitler’s, Stalin’s or Mao’s universe.
Mr. Kudlow.
There are very few ways to put this nicely. The conclusions you’ve reached are not available.
Please hang up your ill conceived notions of immigration reform and try again.
No more republican options for leftist agenda items… Try the word no, for once.
You don’t need no stinking passes.
When a man steals to support his family, we don’t allow his wife and kids to keep what he has stolen. We do not refuse to imprison him for his crime on account of his innocent family who relies on him. That isn’t cruel. It is a sad necessity. What reasonable alternative exists?
This is the example I would offer to someone who thinks it cruel to deport those who violate our hospitality by forcing themselves into our home.
A person in need may ask for help. We should help as many as we can. But if we do not welcome someone into our home, that does not justify forcing himself inside and declaring it his house as well.
If the process of legal immigration is broken, then we should fix it… not pretend that the process wasn’t really necessary and that there’s no harm in ignoring millions of crimes.
Larry, I’d be interested in your response to Aaron’s very thoughtful comment.
“We completely blocked illegal migration across our borders, something that no other country in the western world has succeeded in doing. The fence that we built has completely proven itself.” Part of a victory speech by Netanyahu.
Why can’t a Republican candidate speak up about border security? Larry says it’s a negative. Only vague references permitted; nothing specific. If polls show this country wants a secure border who are we afraid to offend? No one who would vote Republican anyway.
Executive orders, that may be unconstitutional, are also in the negative column according to Kudlow. They are unconstitutional, so why be scared? Who do you lose exactly?
Forget that ‘rising tide lifts all boats’ crap. Take a chance Mr. risk capitalist. La Raza is working off different graphs than you and your financial homies. You think it’s all love and the American Dream. The invasion will undermine our sovereignty; change the culture for the worse. This ain’t Ellis Island. Along with all those latino Einsteins Guttierez mentions are some really smart Jihadi Engineers.
Wake up Larry! You made no sales around this neighborhood.
Mr. Kudlow, Have you ever read a dissenting opinion on this issue? Like the Heather MacDonald piece noted earlier, or anything by Mikey Kaus? I believe you are an honest man but it really sounds like you have either drunk the Kool-Aid or are playing three card monte with the facts.
Lets take your Hispanic evangelicals – even if they did just stroll out of a Frank Kapra movie, their children and grandchildren immediately assimilate into the underclass. Importing four or five generations of MS-13 gangbangers and 14 year old pregnant unwed mothers [ instead of Indians or Koreans that sweep our Intel or Westinghouse prizes] just does not make any sense. The Statue of Liberty holds a torch in one hand, she holds a law book in the other hand.
If H-1B workers can contribute so much why don’t we require companies to allow the workers more rights than an indentured servant? And why don’t the corporations have to pay at least as much as they would to find an American worker with a head hunter firm?
Will Kudlow defend himself or his arguments? Of course not. Ricochet is a place where he can scribble his graffitti and move on to tag other bridges and boxcars. No wonder he puts forth such lame arguments with a straight face, he has his fingers in his ear and his head up his you-know-what.
Asking Ricochet, what good is this guy? Did he bring anything to the table with this post? Should we just have him around to inform us what the WSJ folks are thinking – as though we don’t already? Yes they want amnesty and they want to try to convince everyone to their right that the GOP won’t win without it. In other words, unsubstantiated scare tactics.
The issue is addressed only from one side, that somehow the GOP will lose no votes and no enthusiasm from the base. There’s no calculation here as to which GOP candidate may or not be able to beat Hillary or whomever, just some hectoring pablum eveveryone has heard before with the addition of a few bits of silly speciousness about hispanic evangelicals. Showing his political naivite Kudlow seems surprised that Republican candidates have differing views on the subject. The implication is they should miraculously, come together and sign onto some kind of pledge.
Of course contributors are not paid here, but do they have to make their posts as worthless as thier paychecks? At least I pay to write here.
Passes? You don’t need no stinkin’ passes!
Franco, looked to me like that post was just a reposting of his article up at NRO. I think you would use agree, I don’t have a problem with the position as much as the refusal to defend/discuss it. I’m a little turned off by the attacks on Kudlow personally but he doesn’t seem to be on here to discuss anything.
Franco, I saw (essentially?) this same article posted on RealClearPolitics. A pretty flimsy regurgitation of the Wall Street position (and calling it a “position” rather than a “vested interest” is pretty generous) it seemed to me. I heard him peddling the same clumsy ideas on WRKO here in Boston a few days ago. The overall impression is that he is just crotchety.
Certainly Mr. Kudlow doesn’t seem to take an interest in this discussion (here on Ricochet).
But a question: am I the only one who is immediately suspicious of Republicans or conservatives who take the pro-amnesty point of view? Am I the only one who immediately starts wondering who their housemaid is or what business they own or things like that? My feeling is that for anyone with basic conservative values, the only way you can argue against the rule of law and in favor of amnesty is some kind of naked self-interest.
Am I way off base here?
So, it’s basically a Pat Buchanan situation, shotgun-posting the same article at numerous sites. At Townhall, Taki’s, etc, all these posters are going “Pat, you’re wrong about…. ” etc. I doubt the guy ever reads any of the sites his work appears at. Maybe Kudlow is the same way. But the point of Ricochet is supposed to be interaction with users. Ah, well.
But a question: am I the only one who is immediately suspicious of Republicans or conservatives who take the pro-amnesty point of view? Am I the only one who immediately starts wondering who their housemaid is or what business they own or things like that? My feeling is that for anyone with basic conservative values, the only way you can argue against the rule of law and in favor of amnesty is some kind of naked self-interest.
Am I way off base here?
Not at all. It isn’t a conservative position, not even tangentially. Every argument they make is weak, and especially weak coming from a Republican, considering they propose to get hispanic votes by increasing the pool of hispanics which are proven to vote Democrat by about 60-65%. To assume that we live in some kind of a media vacuum and that some heroic act of amnesty (with a bunch of difficult requirements) will forever have the Republicans in good favor with most hispanics is absurd. There will be continued demonization and racialization of this matter.
To pretend that in 5-10 years there won’t be a major push to just allow these folks to vote, whatever the plan is now, is also absurd.
It would be unAmerican to have millions of people here legally, paying taxes and unable to vote.
These guys think one fiscal quarter and one election ahead, and, judging from Kudlow’s post they aren’t thinking with their brains.
It’s elitism on parade.
I’m Larry Kudlow and I talk and punditize for a living. Let me tell you people something. The GOP will not win (and you are all afraid of that, right) unless all the candidates agree with me and my Wall Street friends.
Listen to me because I’m smart and I’m somebody. Ok, here’s a reason I heard lately as to why. Hispanic Evangelicals! Don’t want to lose them to Hillary, do we? Right. Hillary has made them promises, we need to counter so they will vote for us. We propose almost as much, but something sensible, like my plan which looks a lot like the Chamber of Commerce plan because money will flow to people like me! So get it together Republicans!
To assistant: Have that sent out to all the blogs on the list.