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.
Taking Our Country Back: From Whom?
Let’s assume, for fun, that Donald Trump’s supporters are thinking with their brains, not their viscera. If so, they will want to know that the issue he has lassoed for self-aggrandizement has been utterly demagogued. Trump is playing them for chumps.
A young woman was murdered by an illegal alien in a so-called “sanctuary city.” Awful, of course. San Francisco’s officials bear some of the blame for Kate Steinle’s death by declining to enforce the law.
But Trump has abused the trust of his audiences by suggesting that an illegal immigrant crime spree is the great threat to our nation. Trump admirers yearn to “take our country back.” From whom? From Barack Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Al Sharpton, the New York Times, Jon Stewart, and Hillary Clinton? Or from Mexican illegals?
The United States is very much in decline, but the role of illegal immigration in that slide is negligible. Our lack of economic growth, our withdrawal from world leadership, the decline of work and the rise of dependency on government, law flouting by those in power, the degradation of our entertainment culture, rent-seeking by entrenched interests, the stultifying politicization of education (especially higher education) – to say nothing of the nuclearization and enrichment of the world’s worst terror state – those are the great challenges we face.
Obama’s flagrantly illegal waiver for illegals living here made everyone who values the rule of law see red. (The judiciary has thus far stayed the amnesty.) And yet, a little perspective is in order.
Illegal immigration is declining. Between 1990 and 2007, the number of illegal immigrants tripled. In 2000, an estimated 1.6 million illegals entered the United States. Since 2012, that number has dropped to about 400,000 (even accounting for the flood of underage migrants last year).
We’ve built fences along all but the most inaccessible areas along the border. Over the past decade we’ve spent $10.7 billion on fences, cameras, and other measures, including doubling the number of border patrol agents to 18,000. We’ve also spent billions on biometric identity management and other things, bringing the total expenditure for border control to $16.2 billion last year. Those truly serious about ending illegal immigration altogether must grapple with national identity cards. Another fence isn’t going to do it. Forty percent of illegals are visa overstays.
The population of illegals here is aging, which suggests that fewer young people are making the increasingly treacherous journey across the desert. Meanwhile, the dramatic drop in Mexico’s birth rate, from 7.3 children per woman in 1960 to 2.4 today, suggests a problem that is on the way to solving itself. Demographers say that when the birth rate falls below 2, emigration stops. Other Central and South American nations are experiencing similar drops.
As for the epidemic of crime for which illegal aliens are said to be responsible – it’s a myth. Crime rates have declined as immigration has increased. Much has been said about the percentage of federal prisoners who are illegals and/or Hispanic. But federal prisoners represent only about 14 percent of total U.S. inmates, and according the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only 7 percent of federal offenders are incarcerated for violent crimes (most violent crimes are state matters). As the Pew Research Center notes, the past two decades have seen a spike in the number of immigration-related crimes leading to federal prison sentences. These “unlawful reentry” convictions have changed the complexion of federal inmates. Whereas in 1992 Hispanics comprised 23 percent of federal inmates, that share has grown to 48 percent today.
Second- and third-generation Hispanics commit crimes at higher rates than non-Hispanic whites, but at lower rates than African Americans. As for the foreign-born, that is, first generation immigrants, for the most part, they keep their noses clean. The American Immigration Council records that “among men age 18-39 (who comprise the vast majority of the prison population), the 3.5 percent incarceration rate of the native-born in 2000 was 5 times higher than the 0.7 percent incarceration rate of the foreign-born.”
Having stoked rage about illegal immigrants, Mr. Trump now urges that after deporting 11 or 12 million people, he will “let the good ones come back,” force Mexico to pay for a “wall,” and “impound remittances” from “illegal wages.” A candidate for student council president of a third-rate high school could devise more serious solutions than those. But then, student council types tend to be in earnest. Trump is simply on the ultimate ego trip.
Published in General
Thank you all for your comments.
A few points in response: The Republicans have lost the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 presidential contests. If we hope to win the presidency in 2016 and save the greatest nation in world history, we must think and act strategically (and besides, it’s the right thing to do). That means taking into account the feelings of the 12 percent of eligible voters who are Hispanic. These are American citizens, not illegal immigrants.
While it’s true that even winning 40 percent of the Hispanic vote, as George W. Bush did in 2004 (when it was a smaller share of the total electorate) would not have been enough for Mitt Romney to win in 2012, this doesn’t suggest that Republicans should throw up their hands and say “they’re never going to vote for us anyway.” Diligent courting of the immigrant vote has paid off for the conservative party in Canada, for example.
But even if earnest efforts to include Hispanics under the Republican tent didn’t yield a surge in new voters in 2016, it would begin the very crucial process of changing the image of the Republican Party among ALL voters. That image is already one of a party for wealthy white people. Many voters, not just Hispanics, are put off by that image. That, I believe, is one of the chief reasons why Republicans don’t do better among working class white voters, Asians, blacks, and others.
To double down on that image and become not just the party of rich, white people, but the party of mass deportation would be a catastrophe.
I have long maintained that Republicans should adjust their tone on immigration. Many Hispanic voters understand a tough stance on illegal immigration. Many even share it. But what they understandably bristle it are suggestions that Hispanics are undesirables. There are many sensible reforms that are possible with the right tone. The much-denigrated “Gang of Eight” bill, for example, would have eliminated chain migration if I recall correctly.
As to dealing with illegals: As I said in the column, another fence is not going to solve the problem. If you really prioritize ending as much illegal immigration as possible, you should consider a national ID card with biometrics. Many conservatives hate this idea because of the power it places in the hands of the federal government. It’s something to weigh in the balance.
A smart Republican approach to the issue of illegal immigration would constantly stress how much we value the rule of law, how illegals are line jumping and this isn’t fair to those who abide by the rules, how much we value the contributions of Hispanic Americans to this country, and how much we want to include Hispanic Americans in the Republican coalition.
The Trump surge has the potential to cripple the Republican Party by tainting it. During primary season it’s easy to lose sight of the larger electorate. But the ad makers are taking notes and pulling quotes for use next summer. The Democrats are self-destructing. There is a path — clear and inviting — to Republican success. But Trumpism could kill it.
no to both.
The only thing you should have to prove is that the person is here legally…either a citizen, or a welcomed guest.
In this I think Trump’s message is wrong “Hire Americans.”
Now, Immigration laws dictate how many legal guests we can have. If we aren’t going to let them work, they should be on a tourist visa.
When they fraudulently use a tourist visa to stay and get work, they should be deported.
A visa is an invitation. Whether you stay for a short or long time depends on the kind of visa you have.
I don’t know why this is such a big deal…isn’t that what nearly every other country in the world does: have visas for specific purposes?
I think the United States should make laws that INVITE the best people in.
Guests should always be by invitation.
People don’t always appreciate the neighbor who stops by, at dinner time, and they certainly don’t like it when the neighbor might impose to stay for a week, or longer.
I have no problem with foreigners at all, I just think they should enter, stay, and participate in our country, on our terms.
First, we will never be able to out pander the Democrats.
Second, we are doing fairly well among working class white voters with two main exceptions and a lesser one. The first is union members (some might separate government employees from unionized private sector workers, but I won’t here). The second is ignorant people who can get tricked by Democrats pretending to be to the right of the Republicans. This is how Obama won the rural New Hampshire vote over Romney. Your assertions are irrelevant to these. The third group is residual ethnopolitics among Irish, Italians, etc. Probably the best thing we can do to convince them we are not the party of the rich is to be restrictionist. Same for blacks. As for Asians, how about opposing affirmative action?
Third, how about correctly portraying the Democrats as the party of the extreme rich whites who are seeking to keep everybody else down and are using immigration to do so? As part of that, they are deliberately seeking to keep immigrants in ignorance and dependency as Walter Williams says of their treatment of blacks. The problem is that anyone doing so would get backstabbed by the RINOs.
[Edited to correct quoting bug]
Thank you for replying Mona, we really appreciate it. A few comments:
Diligent courting of the immigrant vote has paid off for the conservative party in Canada, for example.
All we are asking for is an immigration system similar to Canada’s, instead of the supine masochistic arrangement we have now…
I have long maintained that Republicans should adjust their tone on immigration.
I agree, that’s one of the reasons I’m a Kasich supporter.
There are many sensible reforms that are possible with the right tone. The much-denigrated “Gang of Eight” bill, for example, would have eliminated chain migration if I recall correctly.
The Gang of Eight bill supporters loudly proclaimed they had removed those provisions, while Schumer et al played three card monte with our negotiators and put them back in a different section.
As I said in the column, another fence is not going to solve the problem.
this is the most frustrating aspect of your argument – an effective temporary fence could be put in place by executive order in a matter of weeks, a real fence, not the kabuki boob-bait fence we waste money on now, could be constructed within two years. We built the Alaska pipeline up and down shear cliffs in -40 below weather, we can build two fences 50 yards apart with a dirt road between them that will be as effective as Israel’s.
“Xenophobia” and “nativism” are terms intended to frame the debate over immigration and border security by casting those who favor stronger controls as evil. I reject that premise.
Ok, what is the immigration system of Canada like? What are its features? What are its bugs?
Needless to say, is the world clamoring to push its way into Canada?
Canada ejects anyone who does not follow the rules. It has a system of evaluating the education and skills set of prospective immigrants and allows in those that will contribute the most to the general fisc, and not be a burden on the taxpayers. I believe, for example, the age cutoff for immigrants is in their early 40s so they don’t burden the social security system.[That may be hard-hearted Australia, which also has a rational system.] Canada has a higher percentage of foreign born residents/citizens than we do, and except for their PC coddling of Muslim extremists have far fewer problems. The Muslim issue arises, I believe, because Canada and Pakistan are both technically part of the British Commonwealth and that has influenced the points system they use.
shockingly sane approach.
very interesting.
Bear in mind that what works in Canada might not work in the US. Canadian culture is similar but different to American culture and has more immigrants from europe and asia while american immigration has more from central and south america. I don’t know how it shakes out but culture matters.
Plus Canada has desperate need for doctors, for instance, but I don’t see why a program like the H1B visa needs to be expanded when I think up to 30% of STEM graduates aren’t working in their fields and so many people are out of the workforce in the US.
Ball Diamond Ball asked the right question: What is an immigration policy for? In many countries you have no right to immigrate and/or become a citizen. Part of the reason the US and Britain have the issues they have was because they adopted policies to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”. Just like how saying “I’m not racist I have black friends… really!” doesn’t work I can’t see how Mona’s plan for “outreach” works either.
The “plan for outreach” must start with asking, and really listening to the answer, “What do you think of the Republican Party?”
I know so many people who are reasonably thoughtful about most aspects of life, but have a flawed understanding of what the Republican Party stands for, believes in, what it wants our country to be like.
The last thing we need is for the segment of that group who might be swayed by the truth properly explained to be put off by a false belief that the right is anti-Hispanic, anti-black, anti-Asian, anti-woman, etc. There are a lot of middle-of-the-road people who are fed up with Obama and don’t like or trust Clinton, but are certainly not going to vote for Donald Trump. They might be persuaded to vote for a sensible, well-spoken candidate who holds reasonable views, and doesn’t seem to hate them and all the people who are like them.
Bingo.
Recycling the same RINO talking points over and over again won’t make them any more true.
Mona, Trump is not going to be our nominee. Our nominee can go into the debates and give speeches telling Hispanics that America is a generous country, even Republicans. We will be 100,000 times more generous with you than Hispanic culture would be with us if the ratios of power and influence were reversed. But we have to secure the border first. What we have tolerated in the past we cannot tolerate in the future, but after the border is secure we can address your situation with compassion.
Which RINO talking points are you referring to?
Even though I’m a RINO/squish on immigration, I reject that premise, too. My concern is that some of our people sound like nativist xenophobes, not that they are them. And they refuse to temper their language.
I would never call you or anyone else here a nativist or xenophobe.
And that sound is clearly costing us votes. Yes, if Romney retained Bush’s 40% of the hispanic vote, he would have lost anyway. But 40% is still more than 27%.
Calling points you don’t agree with “RINO talking point” won’t make them any less true. That’s ad hominem. Make the argument. People will listen.
Unproven assertion and misdirection. We haven’t TRIED a real fence AND control of the visa system to catch the overstayers.
Why? Why not just fingerprint anyone who comes on a visa, anyone apprehended here illegally. Lets enforce the laws we HAVE on identity theft etc. No need for this red herring.
Fine. So they should be OK with a fence, visa controls, E verify, prosecution for identity theft, and deportation of criminals because, NATION OF LAWS.
I’m no fan of Trump, but unfortunately for the GOP he’s the ONLY candidate that actually articulated a largely reasonable approach to our immigration problem. Thanks to people like you in the GOP, they have abandoned it to him, and now they have to try and recover. If a serious conservative like Cruz or Walker lines up on the right side of this issue maybe the GOP can right the ship. If not, they deserve to lose.