Immigration: divisive issue

In the last few days – as if fending off TEA Partiers and worrying about how new GOP wunderkind Scott Brown will vote isn’t enough – observers see a rift in the Republican Party over immigration.

Two pieces have drawn my attention. One is an article by Peter Slevin in the Washington Post and the other comes through the Center for Immigration Studies as a Backgrounder by James G. Gimpel, who is a professor of government at the University of Maryland. Both look at immigration as an issue which could permanently relegate the GOP to minority status.

But the two pieces disagree on why. Slevin and the Post, no friend of conservative Republicans, blames the hardline stance of TEA Partiers who want the borders secured and illegal immigrants frogmarched out of the country. Conversely, the Gimpel piece simply notes that, “The decline (in GOP voting share) does not seem to be associated with the local Republican Party’s position on illegal immigration.” Instead, the Gimpel study seems to indicate this has more to do with socioeconomic status and the state of politics where newly-arrived immigrants seem to congregate, large urban areas.

I’ve noted before that at the current time it’s better to not lose the base the GOP has by being soft on illegal immigration than cater to a group who is more likely to vote with their meager pocketbooks and support all the government goodies they can get. It’s going to be just as much up to the Latinos to bring themselves out of the ghetto that Democratic policies have placed them in as it is the black population’s own job to get off of the plantation Democrats have placed them on. Those who have immigrated here legally have just as much – if not more – of a stake in stemming the illegal flow as native-born Americans do.

For over 200 years, history has shown that the best way to get ahead in America is to assimilate into its culture. Certainly we can celebrate our heritage (I sure like my Polish cuisine) but the route to success over time has been to emphasize the “American” part of the moniker much more heavily than the “Polish,” “Mexican,” or “African.” In years past, immigrants were eager to shed their old ways and Americanize their first-generation offspring – now we only Americanize them insofar as striving to have them born in the United States to become “anchor babies.”

If a nation is to survive for long, it must have clearly defined borders and be prepared to only allow in those it deems worthy of entry. While I know some of my associates in the political and blogging worlds believe totally in the idea of a free market which includes providing labor, that policy has to have limitations or it will lead to chaos.

Immigrants in our history came for opportunities, and these opportunities only came to those who worked hard and were willing to sacrifice their blood, sweat, and toil. Unfortunately, our system of entitlements has brought forth a different sort of immigrants, and while they remain a few bad apples in a bunch that is still willing to work hard for little financial gain, those bad apples sap the strength of the whole.

But while the TEA Partiers are falsely accused of having a strain of xenophobia, it’s worth pointing out that the Gimbel study shows that ideology trumps race at election time among a larger and larger share of the minority population. Regardless of what the Republican Party does to attract minorities, it would never be enough for liberal Democrats to give them credit for trying. Just as we see in the black population, voting against their self-interest is becoming a problem for Latinos as well, and the immigration issue is just a red herring to the real problem of victimization practiced by poverty pimps of all colors.

Blaming the man for holding you down is a universal language.

Author: Michael

It's me from my laptop computer.

3 thoughts on “Immigration: divisive issue”

  1. You make assertions that are simply not based in fact. Latino immigrants today, whether illegal or illegal, assimilate the same as immigrants in the past. The first generation mainly keeps to its own customs and languages, the second is bilingual, and the third is monolingual. Today we are generally dealing with first or second generation immigrants, and so we are seeing much more Mexican or Honduran culture than we will see in subsequent generations. While there is some evidence that illegal immigrants assimilate more slowly than other immigrant groups, this is almost certainly due to the fact that they are illegal. If they were allowed into society they would likely assimilate much more quickly.

    What “system of entitlements” do illegal immigrants get? They aren’t eligible for welfare or most other government benefits. They come here to work, as do most other immigrants who aren’t refugees. Go to any city and you’ll see a vibrant immigrant population driving cabs, doing construction work (maybe this has slowed down recently), waiting tables, cleaning hotels, etc. The idea that immigrants, legal or otherwise, come here for welfare is completely false.

    It’s amazing that you stereotype Latinos as lazy and ignorant and then say that your side is falsely accused of xenophobia. Saying that people who have risked their lives to come to the U.S. to do hard labor at low-pay are lazy is also astounding.

    You also say, “If a nation is to survive for long, it must have clearly defined borders and be prepared to only allow in those it deems worthy of entry.” So I guess our nation’s open borders from the time of the Founding until the late 19th century means we weren’t a nation?

    You seem to base your anti-illegal immigrant views on your perception that they come here fore welfare and that they don’t work. Is that your position? If so, will you change your position if you can be shown that you are wrong on these points?

    I don’t like illegal immigration, either, but the fact that we have hundreds of thousands of people coming here illegally and finding willing employers indicates that our laws don’t work. We need a realistic way to allow people who want to come here to enter the country. I’m fine with saying that there are no government benefits of any kind for any immigrant. How about that? Will an immigration policy along those lines satisfy you?

    If the GOP doesn’t reject the subtle racism and outright ignorance of the Tom Tancredo and Joe Araipo crowd, it will lose more than Latinos. It will also lose many people like myself, people who know that illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for welfare, who know how hard-working immigrants are, and who embrace the free market.

  2. And where would you go? Would you throw your lot in with the Democrats who are keeping the minorities down with their hand out, not hand up policies? I know you don’t fit in with them politically aside from that issue, and even Frank Kratovil is cracking down on illegals given his recent sponsorship of legislation to expand employer penalties for hiring illegals.

    Perhaps welfare wasn’t the right word; however, can you deny that many pregnant women sneak in to have their babies in the United States in order to claim that tenuous branch of legitimacy?

    I agree with you that the laws don’t work and I don’t think illegals should be thrown out and never given the opportunity to return (they should apply for the permits to return from their home country, though.) But the Chamber of Commerce types who want unfettered immigration are only doing so to take advantage of the population who doesn’t know better – as do the unions. I still think we should secure the borders better and I don’t think the blanket amnesty President Reagan gave out was the proper solution either.

    The contention in the Post is that the Republican Party is being harmed by a tough-on-illegals stance, but in the short term my argument is that we lose more in appeasing the Latino population (which will likely vote Democrat anyway based on economic situation and local politics) than in a stance which keeps our base. The CIS study tends to back me up on this.

  3. Where would I go? How about this for my plan: any illegal immigrant who is here now and who has a job and no criminal record can apply to stay here, pay a fine (because they did commit a misdemeanor while they were here), and be put on the regular pathway to citizenship. Both state and federal welfare payments to immigrants are ended. The Constitution is changed so that so-called “anchor babies” aren’t automatically granted citizenship. A workable guest worker program is established and the requirements for low-skilled workers to get a visa are eased and the limits on high-skilled worker visas are lifted. What are the flaws with that?

    You say that businesses are “taking advantage” of people who don’t know any better. I wasn’t aware that you were a liberal paternalist, Mike. If an employer offers a job at a certain wage and a worker willingly takes it, no one is being taken advantage of. If you contend that employers are exploiting illegal immigrants than you have essentially conceded that the whole liberal critique of free markets is correct.

    As for the political aspect, you ignore the fact that the GOP did pretty well with Latinos throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and earlier this decade. Perhaps we didn’t get a majority of Latino votes (it’s hard to measure plus Latinos are a very diverse group), but we got a significant share of their votes. Now, with the rise of immigrant-bashing in the GOP, that share has declined dramatically. California was a GOP state before Prop 187. It’s not even necessarily about the policy; it’s about how the policy is presented. I’m sure many Latino citizens are discomforted by illegal immigrants but they are more discomforted by what they perceive as the barely-concealed racism of the immigrant bashers. If you perceive a party as harboring those who are bigoted against you, it doesn’t matter if you agree with it on policy.

    If Latinos perceive the GOP to be saying that Mexicans are lazy, ignorant criminals who only want to be on welfare, they aren’t going to vote for the GOP. You can protest that’s not really what the GOP is saying, but that’s how it comes across and that’s how many (even myself at times) see it. These criticisms are especially galling since immigrants generally work hard, can’t get on welfare, and have low crime rates. When the facts don’t support the immigrant bashers, it’s easy to jump the conclusion that something besides sound public policy lies behind their harsh words.

    Furthermore, if people really were concerned that illegal immigrants were just coming here to live on welfare, then a much simpler way to fix the problem would be to just cut off welfare to them. All the talk is about rounding them up and deporting them, though. The real criticism seems to be the immigrants themselves, not their use of public services.

Comments are closed.