Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Futile immigration folly

    Futile immigration folly

    Rewarding law breakers is not a good idea, whether we’re talking about the securities laws or the immigration laws.

    The Gang of 8 plan rewards law breakers.  We’re told that we need to legalize law breakers because it’s the humane thing to do.  But in so doing, whether it results in citizenship or not, we have advantaged those who broke the law to get here over those who respected our laws and wait patiently overseas or across the border.  Bad policy, pure and simple.

    That bad policy will be compounded if there is a path to citizenship for law breakers.  At a minimum, never becoming a citizen should be the cost of breaking the law to get here.  (Caveat to all that is children who were brought here at a young age and know no other country.  They don’t have legal or moral culpability, and hence are not rewarded.)

    The folly of the Gang of 8 is made even more clear when we consider why this is being done, for some imagined electoral necessity to do better with Hispanic voters.  Doing better with Hispanics and other groups is a worthy goal and should be a focus, but not at the cost of rewarding law breakers.

    And it probably would make no difference in presidential outcomes as Byron York points out, Winning Hispanic vote would not be enough for GOP:

    After six months of mulling over November’s election results, many Republicans remain convinced that the party’s only path to future victory is to improve the GOP’s appeal to Hispanic voters. But how many Hispanic voters do Republicans need to attract before the party can again win the White House?

    A lot. Start with the 2012 exit polls. The New York Times’ Nate Silver has created an interactive tool in which one can look at the presidential election results and calculate what would have happened if the racial and ethnic mix of voters had been different. The tool also allows one to project future results based on any number of scenarios in which the country’s demographic profile and voting patterns change.

    In 2012, President Obama famously won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote to Mitt Romney’s 27 percent. If all other factors remained the same, how large a percentage of the Hispanic vote would Romney have had to win to capture the White House?

    What if Romney had won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, the high-water mark for Republicans achieved by George W. Bush in 2004? As it turns out, if Romney had hit that Bush mark, he still would have lost, with 240 electoral votes to 298 for Obama.

    But what if Romney had been able to make history and attract 50 percent of Hispanic voters? What then? He still would have been beaten, 283 electoral votes to 255.

    What if Romney had been able to do something absolutely astonishing for a Republican and win 60 percent of the Hispanic vote? He would have lost by the same margin, 283 electoral votes to 255.

    But what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right? No, it wouldn’t. Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268….

    Likewise, the white vote is so large that an improvement of 4 points — going from 60 percent to 64 percent of those whites who did vote — would have won the race for Romney.

    So which would have been a more realistic goal for Romney — matching the white turnout from just a few years earlier, or winning 73 percent of Hispanic voters?

    It’s not an all or nothing analysis.  Republicans should try to improve with all groups, but the folly of thinking that bad immigration policy will win an election is just that, folly.

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Tags:

    Comments



     
     0 
     
     0
    crosspatch | May 4, 2013 at 2:47 pm

    Put me solidly in the camp that says “you treat Hispanic voters just like everyone else”. Policies of economic growth, individual liberties, and smaller government benefit everyone.

    I live in California and have friends in areas with large populations of people who have come from Mexico (and other countries, but mostly Mexico). One friend’s father had an apple ranch and some families worked that land for three generations. They go to church on Sunday and they have a strong family and worth ethic. The way we make headway is to point out to them how the Democrats want to destroy their families, incarcerate their sons, put their daughters on welfare and make them dependent on government programs. They want to do to the Hispanic immigrants exactly what they did to African Americans — trap them in slums with poor schools, trap them on government programs down through the generations, and make them dependent on voting for Democrats for their daily bread. Why should anyone want that?

    What the Republicans need to do is stop allowing themselves to be tied up in rhetorical battles over one issue after another, rise above the minutia, and set out a general framework for the vision they have generally for the direction of the country and then place each issue within that framework.

    Explain how the Gang of 8 proposal strengthens families, improves quality of life, gets people self-sufficient, improves education, and keeps people out of jail and off welfare. I don’t see anything that addresses any of these problems. The Republicans should hold up the number of immigrants on welfare as a measure of FAILURE of the Democrats polices. The Republicans should hold up the number of incarcerated immigrants as a measure of FAILURE of the Democrats. The Republicans should hold up the number of dropouts and the quality of schools in Hispanic neighborhoods as a measure of FAILURE of the Democrats.

    The basic notion is that the Democrats want to allow a bunch of people in the country, put them into low rent ghettos whose Democrat landlords collect government subsidies and get rich housing them, give them poor educations at bad schools that forces them onto welfare for life, and then demagog their political opponents as wanting to take the benefits away to scare those people into voting for Democrats.

    The Democrats don’t care about Hispanic people and families, they care about Hispanic votes. LBJ made many unsavory comments about how he was going to use welfare to make African Americans dependent on Democrats in perpetuity. They are now trying to do the same to Hispanics.

    I agree, no citizenship EVER for those that have broken our immigration laws to get here. I agree this doesn’t apply to the children who were brought here, however … someone IS guilty, the parents. The parents should receive some penalty for each child that they brought here illegally.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Estragon | May 4, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    Enforcement first, and the “orange card” idea has merit – but there is no need for a path to citizenship for those who came here illegally that puts them ahead of anyone who played by the rules, PERIOD. If that’s a “non-starter,” then we don’t start. They should be happy to be “legalized.”

    NO public assistance for five years for any immigrant, PERIOD. Repeal of the Kennedy guidelines and reasonable policy for those who can actually help us is good.

    Silver’s models all assume the record-breaking black vote Obama drew. Without him on the ballot, there is no reason to expect that vote, especially the younger voters, won’t go back to their historically low rates of participation.


     
     0 
     
     0
    BannedbytheGuardian | May 4, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    Haha. I know a kid who went surfing in Brazil on a 90 day visitor visa. He booked flights on the first of month one & return on the last day of month 3 – as you do when you want to get full stay.

    Unfortunately his generation did not rote learn that there are 31 days in a month except for April June & November & 28 in Feb .

    Thus on exiting he was over the 90 days by one day & got a stern lecture & a fine placed on any further visit valid for 5 years.

    I visited Mexico for 3 months & can remember being politely asked for ID many times. Ironically when I returned to e USA I had to chase down a border official to get my entry rest amped to match the Mexico entry. They originally waved m e through . Try getting out of a vehicle in that traffic & finding a booth.


     
     0 
     
     0
    BannedbytheGuardian | May 4, 2013 at 8:21 pm

    Interestingly I caught a bus from Tijuana down thru Sonora. In the middle of the night the bus was stopped & all passengers were searched for imported goods from e US. After showing my I’d I was excused but wow – those searches were thorough . Goods were confiscated & excise paid .

    At least I think they were Government officials .


       
       0 
       
       0
      stevewhitemd in reply to BannedbytheGuardian. | May 4, 2013 at 11:47 pm

      That’s how a state that isn’t free, that has corruption everywhere, and has a police empowered to lord it over citizens behaves.

      Would we want that here?

      You want to have to show your papers for every move you make? Every time you buy something? Sign something? Rent something? Drive somewhere?

      That’s what my ancestors came to this country to get away from.

      The cure proposed by some in this thread is far worse than the disease.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend