Red Racing Horses
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About

Elections have consequences, from the race for President to the race for one seat on a city council. Those elections are the products of fascinating interactions between campaigns, party affiliations, voter turnout, and the media spotlight. Red Racing Horses analyzes and discusses elections from a Republican-leaning perspective. Thank you for visiting, and we hope you'll enjoy the blog.

~The RRH Moderators: BostonPatriot, Daniel Surman, GoBigRedState, Greyhound, James_Nola, Right Reformer, Ryan_in_SEPA, and Shamlet.

Problems logging into your account? Inside information? Complaints? Compliments? E-Mail us at: redracinghorses@yahoo.com. We check it often!

Please read our site Terms of Use.


Immigration

by: Left Coast Libertarian

Thu Jan 24, 2013 at 21:44:30 PM EST


Immigration became a hot topic today and it'll clearly be a hot topic going forward.  
Left Coast Libertarian :: Immigration
Who will it help Republicans with?
I believe that immigration reform should help Republicans with a lot of swing or potential swing voters. There are certainly a lot of minorities who'll never vote GOP, but there are others who fit the GOP profile in income, age, education et al who could. I maintain that the biggest hurdle for Republicans with these people is that the party is perceived as racist/sexist/xenophobic/homophobic and full of religious people who want to impose their religion on you. Any immigration package can soften and possibly eliminate this image, at least with some people.

As we know, the minority population is increasing and it's not just increasing in a few states. Hispanics aren't that important in Georgia now, but some day they will be.

These potential swing voters aren't just minorities, but Whites who perceive the GOP this way. A lot of these people are suburban swing voters in places like Philadelphia and Virginia that are very valuable to Republicans. What's more is that we steal these voters from Democrats.

This is also a win with business. The Chamber of Commerce and the Club for Growth have been calling for immigration reform that'll provide businesses with legal employees. Of course the businesses who'll like Republicans for this may already be voting Republican. Still, it's nice to have those who spend money on elections with you and not trying to bring down people who vote for it.

Who will it hurt Republicans with?
Any package will draw the ire of some in talk radio and in the blogosphere. Immigration reform opponents are certainly loud. That's how it died in 2007. You are going to get a backlash from movement conservatives. Some will stay home. Some will find a third party to vote for. But will we really lose a lot of these people?

The GOP strayed from party ideology on spending in 2001-2007 and while we lost some people it certainly wasn't that many. They may complain but they'll still vote Republican.

Blue collar Whites could be an issue. The GOP's hold on some of them is tenuous. I don't know what percent oppose immigration reform, but I'm sure some could take another look at the Democratic party as a result. Of course it's likely Republicans will still be to the right of Democrats on the issue.  

What should it consist of?
A path to citizenship is a definite no no electorally. You're creating people who are likely to vote Democratic heavily. It has to be something perceived as compassionate, so we can take aim at the idea we lack compassion. it has to address our business allies needs for employees. If we're doing this we have to make sure it delivers to our supporters.

We need to do something. One of the problems on issues like immigration, gay marriage, and climate change is that we seem to be against things and not have a clear vision of what we're for.

I'd much rather have a Republican bill than a Democratic one and the GOP needs to earn points with Latinos and other minority groups.

Please throw in your two cents, but let's keep it to whether it'll help or hurt Republicans electorally and leave arguments of whether providing a solution that allows illegal immigrants to stay in this country is the right or wrong thing to do for somewhere else.  

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Immigration | 32 comments
The most obvious problem
Is that any proposal we can make along these lines will be attacked as 2nd-class citizenship.  Particularly since our messaging with Hispanic voters is terrible.

Another problem is that we'd have to trust the Democrats holding up this arrangement.  Otherwise, the next time they get full Federal control, priority number 1 would be giving these people immediate path to citizenship and they'll probably be lauded for it and reap the electoral rewards.

The real question then is how willing the Democrats are to play ball on the issue.  Democrats have loved beating the Republicans with this issue, and given that talks of the "emerging Democratic Majority" have started again, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Democrats decide that negotiating isn't in their best interests.

23, Libertarian Republican CA-14

Liberals dream things that never were and ask why not.  Conservatives shout back "Because it won't work"


Good points
Actually it's not 2nd class citizenship. It's no citizenship. Yes, Democrats will attack the GOP for not giving the illegals everything but we need to present it as giving them legality. Other countries don't bestow citizenship on legal immigrants, let alone illegal ones.

You can't make policy based on what they'll do the next time they control everything. They're going to do that regardless of what we do. We need to make policy that makes sense to us.

I do agree that Democrats may refuse to play ball. They don't want Republicans to win on any issue, let alone one that's one of theirs. Their fear is that this might help Republicans with minorities. But they also can't be seen as the ones killing something that'll help minorities.

Look at the debt ceiling bill. It's a Republican bill. Whatever we think of it, that makes it a Republican win. The senate will pass it and the President will sign it.  

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Problems
Restricting immigration (legal and illegal) is supported by 60-70% of Americans.  The Arizona immigration law is widely popular.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-50...

When has the Club for Growth called for "immigration reform"?  Not since Stephen Moore left, as least.

It's true that the media demonizes Republicans, but they are not going to give the GOP credit no matter what we do.  Particularly not for any bill signed by Obama.

Not making illegals citizens would only delay the problem, since their children born here would still become citizens via birthright citizenship.  Mass immmigration will eventually doom the GOP (and America) unless it is greatly restricted.

MI-6: Fed up with Fred Upton


Response
The Arizona law has absolutely nothing to do with immigration. It has to do with what the Arizona authorities can or can't do with illegal immigrants they've detained.

The Club supports pro-growth pro-business policies.

Using your theory Republicans shouldn't push any bills, because if they are implemented it'll be because Obama signed them.

Those children are already citizens. No immigration law is going to change that. I don't think anyone is calling for mass immigration, only a law legalizing those people who are already working in this country and developing a guest worker program for the future.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
Yikes
The Arizona immigration law has nothing to do with immigration?  I don't know how to respond to that.

The Club for Growth has said nothing about immigration in years.

The Republicans shouldn't push any BAD bills.  There's little danger Obama will sign anything good.

I'm talking about children who haven't been born yet.

In any case, you seem to be assuming that any "immigration reform" plan would actually fix the problem.  But the president is not going to enforce any sanctions, and any amnesty/citizenship/legalization is only going to encourage more immigration, legal and illegal.  The 1986 amnesty didn't fix the problem, it made it worse.  The same will be true of the next amnesty.

MI-6: Fed up with Fred Upton


[ Parent ]
Arizona immigration law
Has little to do with whether or not people support immigration reform in the form of a path to citizenship or guest worker program.

Polling, aggregated here: http://pollingreport.com/immig... , clearly shows that even if support for Arizona-like laws is at 60-70%, that support cannot be read to mean disapproval of things that LCL is talking about.

Libertarian-R New MA-5.  


[ Parent ]
Immigration
Perhaps respond by reading the law. It has to do with what the Arizona authorities can or can't do with illegal immigrants they've detained. It didn't deal with what to do with people who were here.

So you're advocating Republicans sit on their hands the next four years and not pass any bills that have a chance to become law. How will that benefit the Republicans at the polls?

The 1986 law didn't attempt to fix the problem of illegal immigration nor did it cause more illegal immigration. illegal immigration happened due to job opportunity. Are you assuming they'll pass the same law 26 years later? And that everyone's reaction to the law will be the same? There are ways to fix the problem and no one is considering amnesty as one of them. Clearly doing nothing isn't going to help the problem.

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2


[ Parent ]
People Respond to Incentives
That's a basic principle of economics.  If you create incentives (or reduce disincentives) for illegal immigration, you will get more of it.  That includes amnesty, legalization, or whatever you want to call it.  No legalization/amnesty will solve the problem, it will only create a bigger problem.

We shouldn't do nothing, we should enforce the law.  Illegals mainly come for economic opportunity, but enforcing the law can stop them.  Enforcing the law in Israel ended their illegal immiration problem.  We should do what they did.

MI-6: Fed up with Fred Upton


[ Parent ]
personally I'd suggest
Enforcement side: Instead of fighting Arizona, provide the requested resources. (Same to the other border states that want it)

Those already here:
Enforce the provisions against Employers hiring those without a legal right to work in this country.
(There's an existing form to be used for this purpose; with a list of documents that count as "A", another list that count as "B", and a few that count as both.)
Couple this with a stiff fine to employers found with employees with no legal right to be in this country ($100K per illegal employee) and I think this problem may be significantly reduced in scope.

Existing laws dealing with legal immigration:
I'd eliminate the per source country caps for those steps that have them. (First requested, first served regardless of country they are from) In addition, I'd give higher priority to those with education than current.

42 Male Republican, Maryland Heights, MO (MO-2). Previously lived in both Memphis and Nashville.


Good article.
I think Rubio has to be out in front on this issue, and it seems like he's actually been effective at soliciting conservative support (a major problem for Bush's attempts at reform).  

male, social, fiscal and foreign policy center-right Republican, in but not of academia, VA-08.

[ Parent ]
Rubio's Immigration Plan
Rubio's Ridiculous Immigration Plan: So Bad, It Might Sink Amnesty

http://www.vdare.com/articles/...

MI-6: Fed up with Fred Upton


[ Parent ]
Derb Debunks Rubio
http://johnderbyshire.com/Opin...

So here he is in the open-borders Wall Street Journal with his proposals for, yes, "comprehensive immigration reform."

Rubio leaves no immigration cliché unvoiced, no immigration lie unrepeated.

Quote: "the U.S. doesn't produce enough science, math and engineering graduates." End quote. That's a lie. Salaries in those fields have been falling for years. I know, I used to work in them. If there were a shortage, salaries would be rising. Let's stop all skilled immigration and see which fields' salaries then begin rising fast. That would indicate a shortage; though even then, seeing those rising salaries, young Americans would flock to be educated in those fields. The case for any skilled immigration at all is highly dubious.

Quote: "From Georgia to Washington state in recent seasons, unpicked fruits and vegetables have rotted in the fields." End quote. Let them rot. If farmers can't carry on their business without enabling massive lawbreaking, then their farming is essentially a criminal enterprise. The federal government should not be encouraging criminal enterprises.

Quote, on the mechanism Rubio proposes for amnesty of illegal infiltrators: "They would have to come forward. They would have to undergo a background check." End quote. Does Senator Rubio have a single freaking clue how overwhelmed the immigration service currently is? He wants to add to that some new, thorough background checks for 20 million illegals? Who, by definition, don't have documents that can be checked - unless you count the forged ones that can be purchased for a few dollars on street corners in any big city? To answer my own question: Yes, Rubio probably does have a freaking clue. He's just lying. He's a liar and a fake, a fake on the make.

Quote: "The waiting time for a green card would have to be long enough to ensure that it's not easier to do it this way than it would be the legal way." End quote. OK, Senator. My waiting time for a Green Card was twelve years, 1985 to 1997; and mine was by no means an extraordinary case. So it will definitely be more than twelve years, right? Yeah, sure.

Quote: "In an ideal world we wouldn't have eight, 10 million people who are undocumented. We have to address this reality." End quote. Another lie. Nobody thinks it's as few as "eight, 10 million people." Serious estmates start at twelve million and go up well above twenty million. But OK, Senator, let's address it. Let's firm up E-verify so that illegals can't get work and go back to their own countries. And let's deport any who come to the attention of the authorities: Barack Obama's drink-driving Uncle and welfare-queen Aunt, for starters.

Quote: "Most conservatives understand that immigrants are entrepreneurial and assimilate easily" End quote. If they assimilate easily, why are all the signs in my local Home Depot written in Spanish as well as English? As for "immigrants are entrepreneurial" - don't these damn fool politicians ever think to check the facts before opening their stupid mouths? I'm making a podcast for an audience of a few thousand, and I wouldn't think of making a factual statement here without checking the numbers. The internet makes it easy enough, after all. This nincompoop is proposing to make national policy, and he talks in vapid data-free clichés.

It took me less than ninety seconds to locate data on immigrant entrepreneurship. Executive summary: Overall, immigrants are a tad less entrepreneurial than natives, measured by percentage self-employed: 11.5 percent for immigrants versus 11.7 percent for natives. Some immigrant groups are more entrepreneurial than others: Koreans lead at 26.2 percent self-employed. Brits are a healthy 16.9 percent. Mexicans, let's see ... oh, here they are, a ways down the table: 8.9 percent, well below the average. Hispanic immigrants overall are 9.3 percent self-employed: compare native non-Hispanic whites, 13.2 percent.

MI-6: Fed up with Fred Upton


[ Parent ]
wait, your immigration expert is the guy
most famous for saying to stay away from "large concentrations of Blacks"?

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
politicohen.com.
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Immigration Expert
I do not know if that quote is accurate.  Even if it is, yours is a purely ad hominem attack that does not address any of ConservativeFirst's points.

35, conservative R, lives in PA-14, grew up in TX

[ Parent ]
The quote is basically accurate
Link: http://takimag.com/article/the...

They're also not ConservativeFirst's points, he copied and pasted that comment from Derbyshire (which is inappropriate by the way, the general rule of thumb is two paragraphs.)

(-9.38, -7.49), libertarian socialist, KY 01, "When smashing monuments, save the pedestals. They always come in handy."


-- Stanisław Lem


[ Parent ]
So what....
MSNBC has a prime time show from a guy who once said "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house", are liberals ever held accountable for associating with him today?

We have got to stop this political correctness on our side, we will hamstrung ourself from talking about the the issues that the liberal media does not want us to talk.

So what if Derb said this or that.....argue with the statement on hand.

41, R, CA-10


[ Parent ]
And I wouldn't trust that man
if there were a policy debate about something relating to Judaism here.

John Derbyshire, however, is a racist, and race and immigration are very closely linked.  I would accept his thoughts on, say, Social Security/Medicare, but I think his racial biases make him a poor source on immigration.  That's not political correctness, it's skepticism.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
politicohen.com.
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Real facts
Yes John Derb may not like nonwhite people much, although he's married to an Asian woman I think. But that does not mean that what is saying about the current immigration/amnesty move is wrong.  For far to long, conservatives have played by the politically correct rules laid down by the elite media, which ends up precluding any discussions about the elephant in the room topics.  On the current amnesty push, my biggest concern is the huge burden it will push on our fragile welfare state, we simply can't afford to take on additional 11M+ low wage/low skill folks on our welfare system, all the media nonsense about Einsteins in waiting notwithstanding.  Yes these people get some kind of services already, but nothing like what they will take on when once they get the full legal status.  

41, R, CA-10

[ Parent ]
and that's a legitimate argument that I can respect
coming from you.  But I don't see it as legitimate coming from him.

Age 21, CA-18 (home), CA-13 (college)
politicohen.com.
Idiosyncratic, pro-establishment. Liberal but not progressive.  For the poor, the children, the planet, and the rule of law.

Berkeley Class of 2015.


[ Parent ]
Emphasize E-verify not Arizona style laws
The problem with supporting Arizona style laws is that they will net only a few illegal immigrants while alienating Hispanic voters, who (rightly or wrongly)believe they will be "profiled" by police simply by being Hispanic in appearance. It makes more sense to support E-verify laws, which while not perfect, use compuerized matching to detect workers who are not in the country legally.  Employers who have workers who are here illegally must then fire them; if you have no job then there is not much point in staying in the US. To date only 10 states have E-verify laws that pertain to private employers, while another 8 have E-verify laws that pertain to gov't contractors. Since this is a matching system that utilizes SS numbers, Hispanic voters will not feel they will be profiled because of their physical appearance.  In fact, lower income Hispanic voters who were born here or came here legally face competition from illegals for jobs in industries like constrution, hospitality, restaurants etc. My point is that you can oppose illegal immigration with legislation without passing laws that make Hispanics feel they are being profiled.  

Immigration in the House?
http://thehill.com/homenews/ho...

R, CA-37; hometown: PA-2

Research on immigration and Hispanic voting
https://sites.google.com/site/...

Forthcoming in Social Science Quarterly

Objective: I test the hypothesis that Latino voters were less likely to support Republican incumbents with strong anti-immigration records in the 2006 Congressional elections in comparison to Republicans with less restrictive records. I also test whether non-Hispanic white voters were similarly sensitive to incumbent immigration records when determining vote choice.

Method: To examine these questions, I created hierarchical models in which incumbent immigration records, individual views on immigration, and an interaction between the two were used to predict vote choice in the 2006 midterm elections. Individual-level data were provided by the 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study and incumbent immigration records were provided by NumbersUSA.

Results: This analysis found little evidence suggesting that Latino voters are less likely to support Republican incumbents with anti-immigration records. There was evidence suggesting that vote choice among non-Hispanic white was influenced by incumbent records on immigration, but the effect varied according to the respondent's own views on immigration.

Conclusion: This study found no evidence that incumbent Republicans could increase their share of the Latino vote by embracing less restrictive immigration policies. In fact, doing so may cost them votes among non-Hispanic whites.

MI-6: Fed up with Fred Upton


I will agree with
On the fact that Republicans will likely get little to no credit for passing Immigration reform if it does pass.  But does that mean they shouldn't do it?  That's a whole nother story.  

I also agree that if Immigration reform is passed with GOP support (Which it clearly needs to pass 60 in the Senate and to pass the House at all) it could force a lot of Conservative Republicans to stay home, but I doubt for more than a cycle or two.

I think Democrats & Rubio can get 60 in the Senate for a big sweeping bill, but I have no idea how it gets through the house.  I'm sure 90-95% of Democrats would support, but thats only 190-200ish Democrats.  Where do the other 30 votes come from?  Would Boehner even bring it up?

32/M/D/NY-01 DKE:Socks The Cat


[ Parent ]
Don't count out the D's
I disagree that Rubio and Democrats can get 60 in Senate for immigration/amnesty, not with many more stories like this to come:
http://thehill.com/blogs/healt...

Don't think Tester/Baucus/Heitkamp/Manchin will have easy time voting for this, not after the full fiscal impact of legalizing 11+M mostly low income aliens is realized.  Think of the Obamacare house of cards and how it deals with additional heavy users of medicaid and subisidies, all that talk of deficit neutral will go away quickly.

On R side, I only see Rubio/Heller/Kirk as Y votes primarily due to their states, if McCain/Flake go for it, they will take tremendous risk on themselves.

41, R, CA-10


[ Parent ]
Tester & Baucus
Already voted no to comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, so it's safe to say they'll be skeptical about whatever Obama proposes in a couple weeks.

From North Dakota, Conrad voted yes and Dorgan voted no in 2007. From West Virginia, both Byrd and Rockefeller voted no.

Landrieu, Pryor, and McCaskill also voted no in 2007. I'm surprised you didn't mention them.

In general, I'd say very few of the red-state Democrats will vote in favor unless a significant number of Republicans are also on board.

Democrat, NC-11


[ Parent ]
Donnelly opposes amnesty also
He was considered the Democrat's leading immigration hawk in the House.

50, Male, Conservative Republican, NJ-09, originally NY-18
Tell the "Food Stamps" President: self-reliance is a good thing!


[ Parent ]
Dems who were against the Dream Act
Not only do you have Donnelly(IND) in the Senate, who opposed the Dream Act when in the House, but Dems Bachus(MONT), Tester(MONT), Hagan(NC) and Pryor(ARK) also voted against it.  Manchin(WVA) announced against it, although he wasn't in the Senate the day of the vote.  

In the House there are currently 10 Dems who voted against the Dream Act: McIntyre(NC), Barrow(Ga), Higgins(NY), Owens(NY), Rahall(WVA), Kaptur(OH), Visclosky(IND), Lipinski(IL), Matheson(UT) and Schrader(ORE).

These Dems would be at the core of Dem opposition to a broad based amnesty, since one would assume if you were against the more limited Dream Act (aimed at children of illegal immigrants who were not citizens) then you would be against the current amnesty proposals being circulated.  There are also several more Dems in the House and Senate who might oppose the current amnesty proposals based on previous actions and statements.

Also keep in mind that while the Obama "executive action" to give a form of limited amnesty to children of illegal immigrants in well known, there have also been directives to immigration enforcement agents concerning illegal aliens
in general.  To put these directives in a nutshell, they instuct immigration agents to concentrate on criminals, national security risks, and those who already have outstanding deportation orders. Other illegal immigrants are considered "low priority".  So in a backhanded way, most illegal aliens currently don't have to worry about deportation.  Immigration agents have taken the Obama Admin. to court over this, so we will have to see how this turns out.  This is another example of how the Obama Admin achieves policy objectives by bypassing Congress and using executive power.  


[ Parent ]
Immigration
In theory, I think immigration should be a boon for the United States.  However, given the current state of the immigraion system, the culture and US politics, I tend to side with the restrictionists on most specific immigration issues.  Ideally, after a temporary reduction in immigration, the current immigrants would assimilate and become more productive.  As a pleasant side effect, they would be more Republican.  After those developments, I would favor larger levels of immigration.

35, conservative R, lives in PA-14, grew up in TX

Trende
"Gonna be great chuckles when GOP passes imm reform, nominates Rubio, still gets 30% of Latino vote."

and I may add, gets a lower share of a depressed white vote.

50, Male, Conservative Republican, NJ-09, originally NY-18
Tell the "Food Stamps" President: self-reliance is a good thing!


"Lower share"
I'm pretty sure that passing immigration reform would not doom us with the white vote. Sure, you may see some whites stay home or vote third-party because of it, but many of the union supporting blue-collar whites for whom this is anathema live in states that we don't have a chance in hell of winning presidentially anyway. On the other hand, this helps us greatly in Texas, and not for the reasons one may think it does: Texas business owners (like my dad) that form a core Republican constituency here want both reform and a better guest worker program. Doing this helps us solidify our standing with those crucial voters that are here for the pro-business platform, and don't want an immigration policy that is based on xenophobia or protectionism.

Somewhat necessary postscript: The industry my dad's business is in is famous for featuring immigrants...highly skilled LEGAL immigrants.

Lifelong Republican, TX-17


[ Parent ]
Very inside-the-beltway, but interesting, nonetheless
http://politicalticker.blogs.c...

An anti-public union, market-loving moderate.

Immigration | 32 comments
Search




Advanced Search


(C) RedRacingHorses
Powered by: SoapBlox