RSS Feed MenuMickey Kaus alerts us to the latest Greenberg-Carville’s Democracy Corps poll suggesting that 6% of likely voters might vote for Lou Dobbs in a Romney-Obama race in 2012. Even tossing a hypothetical Green party candidacy by Ralph Nader into the mix, their numbers raise the possibility that a Dobbs candidacy might well take a serious bite out of the Republican vote.
As a third-party candidate, Dobbs does bear some resemblance to Ross Perot in 1992: he’s focused on nationalism issues (trade, immigration) rather than moral issues; his style is secular rather than religious; he speaks in specifics that create the impression of knowledgeability; and he channels his anger in highly telegenic ways. The perfect candidate for the unemployed southern California engineer.
The threat from Dobbs underscores a point I made in Comeback: immigration is to the 2000s what crime was to the 1960s. The risk that racists might exploit the issue did not make the issue inherently racist. Just as Nixon took the crime issue from Wallace, Republicans have to begin planning now to take the immigration issue from Dobbs.
Some guidelines.
1) The issue is not just illegal immigration. The problems associated with current immigration policy – very large numbers, very low skills – are associated with the legal dimensions of current policy too.
2) It’s time for Republicans to revisit the actual economics of immigration rather than the slogans. It’s often assumed that immigration is economically beneficial. That’s no longer true, anyway it’s not true for the host population. (Obviously immigration is beneficial to the immigrants themselves, or they would not do it.) The gains to the U.S. economy from current policy are vanishingly tiny. The costs to state governments are surprisingly huge: last I checked, immigration costs every California household $1200 a year in higher state and local taxes.
3) Immigration should be conceived not as an “ethnic” issue, but as a human capital issue. Inadequate schools and low-skilled migration are together pointing the U.S. to a future workforce (as the ETS has warned) of dramatically lower skills and even literacy.
4) Here’s the toughest nut for Republicans to swallow. We’re going to have to discard the old language that the Bush economy was the “greatest story never told” and squarely face up to how bad the economic record of 2001-2007 was for most Americans. We can’t put immigration as one cause of the disappointment while denying that the disappointment existed in the first place.
Reason60 // Nov 25, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Well-
I think WillyP actually makes Sinz’ point. That this is not a fight over economics, but culture. So we can agree that they are a net plus, economically speaking?
Actually, Willy, I agree tht when we absorbe large numbers of anyone, it changes our culture. The wave of Irish immigrants DID change our culture; My own great grandparents were illiterate uneducated people. They never learned English, and my uncle went to his first day of school not speaking a word of English.
But he learned and assimilated, just as every other immigrant group did. Contrary to the fears of many, immigrants are assimilating, and adapting to this culture. The parents may not speak English, but their children do.
But thats what this is really about; it is the deep primal fear that they will change our culture, and there are many who see that as a terrible thing. I see it as a good thing.
I live in CA-47, which is heavily Hispanic and Vietnamese, and what I see are hardworking stable families that are tremendously beneficial to the local economy and culture. The Vietnamese used to be the “illiterate uneducated and unskilled” people- but no longer. Most of the businesses here are owned by Vietnamese, and they are growing extremely prosperous, judging from the proliferation of gaudy Buddhist temples and McMansions they are building.
I will grant you that it is disconcerting to drive down the street and see entire shopping centers where all the signs are in Vietnamese; and there is that sense of feeling alientated, estranged from your own hometown.
But then you go in and speak to people, socialize with them, and you discover they are just like any other Americans, working hard and looking for a better life. They are changing this culture, even as we change them.
This is a good thing; this is helping our society grow and adapt to a global culture, and we should encourage it, not resist it.
Salud, amigo, and có một ngày tốt đẹp!
WillyP // Nov 25, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Reason,
That all may be well and good, but you’ve conveniently overlooked the problem of the welfare state, and promising freebies in exchange for votes. I’m not one to enforce language laws, or “English First” … after seeing what these laws do in Canada, I strongly advise against them. (And by “advise,” I mean write on this website.)
I have no real problem with cultural change, and am not looking to freeze societal norms. Everybody likes their culture and probably looks to preserve it, but I’m too realistic to think that any government can do that. Disconcerting? Maybe. I’ve lived in New York (almost) my entire life, so I’m very used to a mix of cultures.
No, we should not have open borders, and we MUST CONTROL our borders. I mean, there’s always national security measures, as well.
DFL // Nov 25, 2009 at 2:58 pm
sinz, you make a very good point about how debates would have altered the 2000 election. Both Nader and Buchanan would have won more votes by the exposure, especially when compared to intellectual lightweights in Bush and Gore. I do not expect Dobbs to be part of any presidential debate against Obama and the Republican challenger.
Reason60 // Nov 25, 2009 at 4:19 pm
WillyP:
If what concerns you is the expansion of the welfare state, then by all means, lets restrict welfare entitlements.
But lets look at this- when illegal immigrants work cheaply, they are deprived of things that you and I take for granted, like health insurance and a meaningful wage.
When they get sick, working for sub-minimum wage, they turn to public assistance.
Who benefits from this status quo?
The employers benefit by shifting the costs of health care onto the taxpayers; the consumer benefit from lower prices- but then pay again in higher taxes to cover said immigrants.
If all these illegals were to get work visas tomorrow, what component of this equation would change?
Not a bloody thing. What we have is not an immigration problem, what we have is a surplus of cheap labor problem. People often like to say, “let the marketplace take care of it”; but in fact the marketplace IS taking care of it. Cheap labor is a component of the consumer society that we all benefit from. And cheap labor is available in China, Indonesia, Mexico, and Philadelphia. We import cheap labor because the marketplace demands it. If we increased the number of work visas to around 5 million per year, we wouldn’t have illegal immigrants, we would have legal guest workers. But they would still be cheap labor.
So there are a number of solutions; we could accept that in exchange for low prices, we have to let illegals use public assistance (The status quo);
Or we could demand that employers provide health insurance, and accept higher prices;
Or demand that employers pay higher wages, and let the workers buy insurance themselves.
But the bottom line, is that old truth of conservatism- ‘THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!” We will get low prices, but pay for them in taxes, or get higher prices, and see lower taxes.
sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 12:42 pm
WillyP: How would Democrats gain from the legalization of 30 million illiterate, mostly poorer Latin Americans? They’d play the same game they play in the inner cities – promise payouts in turn for votes.
Thank you.
You just gave the game away.
The real reason behind opposition to immigration is fear that all those newly arrived Hispanics will vote left of center, mostly for Dem candidates.
Just as every other minority group did that immigrated to these shores–but not their descendants.
Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans voted for Democrats. Their children, who were born in this country and thought of themselves as beneficiaries of the American Dream, voted for Nixon, Reagan, etc. They were, in fact, the “Reagan Democrats.”
As for Hispanic-Americans who were born in this country already: Bush managed to capture 44% of the Hispanic vote. If the GOP could equal that score in future elections, they would have a permanent lock on the Southwest.
So tell me: How did Bush do it–and why can’t other Republicans do it too?
sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Reason60: I think WillyP actually makes Sinz’ point. That this is not a fight over economics, but culture. So we can agree that they are a net plus, economically speaking?
Not all cultures are a plus.
The Muslim culture presents a special problem for us Americans–because a disturbing number of them just don’t believe in the Bill of Rights, or even in secular government. I was amazed that they were even willing to tell me so openly.
But that’s not what Hispanics are here for. They came here seeking a better life, not sedition or conquest.
Hispanics are NOT “invaders.” The only “invaders” we have to worry about today are the ones howling “Allah Akhbar”–just before they blow themselves up.
sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 1:02 pm
aDude: So an intelligent, English oriented immigration policy that matches numbers with demand would go far to position the GOP as a party committed to positive solutions, not inflammatory rhetoric.
That was the essence of the Bush immigration bill, which he, McCain and Ted Kennedy had worked on for a long time.
In 2007, it got shot down by the right wing of the GOP.
But they couldn’t have done it alone if they didn’t think the public would back them up. The Congress, attuned to what their constituents back home were saying, defeated the bill.
At the time, Rasmussen Reports asked Americans how they felt about this idea of providing illegal immigrants with a path to citizenship. The response was clear: Americans would support a path to citizenship, but ONLY AFTER America’s borders were secured. If America’s borders were secured, support for the Bush immigration bill rose substantially. If America’s borders were not secured, support dropped off to only a minority of respondents.
Bush tried to separate the two issues (and I fear Obama will too). That did not go over.
The only solution that Americans seem to want is one in which the border is secured so that we control the number of illegal aliens–and then provide a path to citizenship for those who manage to leak through anyway or who are already here.
So I’m sorry, an English requirement isn’t enough satisfy Americans who continue to see this unchecked flood of illegal aliens. They want that flood controlled–and then those who are here can be treated humanely. That makes sense to me.
shecky // Nov 26, 2009 at 8:32 pm
There is no such thing as border security. Unless one wishes to significantly change America into something it’s never been before.
Thing is, immigration liberalization greatly relieves the burden for border patrol. No longer must law enforcement waste resources chasing people with benign intentions, since those people could cross legally at any official border crossing. There’s no reason to cross in remote areas under desperate conditions.
Border security is nothing more than a ticket for expanding government. And it can all be avoided by refusing to pursue and prosecute people whose crimes do no harm to person or property.
Similarly, government immigration quotas are biased to dysfunction from the get go. The notion that the government can correctly determine the needs of the labor market is as absurd as the notion the government can determine the needs of any market. Such government regulation is something that we should move away from, not embrace in the name of immigration reform.
The problem with Republicans is that they are increasingly vested in driving away Latinos specifically, and immigrants in general, all to placate the shrinking white populist demographic. It wasn’t long ago that the pro entrepreneurial and business environment GOP was a fairly natural match for immigrants regardless of legal status. No more. The rubes are have a real problem hearing Spanish being spoken at the local Kroger. It was OK when it was limited to places like San Diego and Miami. But now that flyover country is being settled by new immigrants, nativist resentment is setting in. The era of the big tent will not return until the GOP is hungry enough and has enough new blood to bring it back.
rbottoms // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:45 am
he rubes are have a real problem hearing Spanish being spoken at the local Kroger. It was OK when it was limited to places like San Diego and Miami. But now that flyover country is being settled by new immigrants, nativist resentment is setting in. The era of the big tent will not return until the GOP is hungry enough and has enough new blood to bring it back.
Nearly everything the Republicans do these days is music to my ears. Short term thinking (get the rubes to vote for us in 2010) over long term viability (a***s kicked in 2012) and beyond.
sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:12 am
shecky: The rubes are have a real problem hearing Spanish being spoken at the local Kroger. It was OK when it was limited to places like San Diego and Miami. But now that flyover country is being settled by new immigrants
Your contempt for all those folks who don’t live in Blue States is hereby noted.
It’s truly remarkable how so-called “progressives,” who constantly bleat about saving humanity from this or that, can have such contempt for all those who don’t live like them.
sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:17 am
There is no reason to believe that Americans have become more tolerant of illegal immigration now than they were two years ago. Indeed, the bad economy, with tens of millions of Americans desperately looking for work, is liable to make them LESS tolerant.
Border security is the only way to get Americans to accept liberalized immigration. 2010 is a congressional election year.
No matter how much the Left dances and prances, moderate Dems, terrified of losing their seats to the GOP, aren’t going to go along with ramming any more left-wing schemes down the voters’ throats. They would be dooming themselves if they did.
BoolaBoola // Nov 28, 2009 at 3:59 am
David, it won’t work, your idea of getting the issue back from Dobbs by being smarter about it. The anti-immigrant voters PREFER the dumber version.
Border security in USA is, I’m afraid, a fantasy. An impossibility. Three words: border too long.
About cnn, lou dobbs | Find me About // Nov 28, 2009 at 8:09 am
[...] Mickey Kaus alerts us to the latest Greenberg-Carville’s Democracy Corps poll suggesting that 6% of likely voters might vote for Lou Dobbs in a Romney-Obama race in 2012. Even tossing a hypothetical Green party candidacy by Ralph Nader into the mix, …Read Original Story: GOP Must Reclaim the Immigration Issue from Lou Dobbs – FrumForum [...]
The Dustin Inman Society Blog » // Dec 1, 2009 at 10:07 am
[...] any case, as David Frum wrote last week, “It’s time for Republicans to revisit the actual economics of immigration [...]
The Dustin Inman Society Blog » GOP Must Reclaim the Immigration Issue // Dec 1, 2009 at 10:13 am
[...] 4) Here’s the toughest nut for Republicans to swallow. We’re going to have to discard the old language that the Bush economy was the “greatest story never told” and squarely face up to how bad the economic record of 2001-2007 was for most Americans. We can’t put immigration as one cause of the disappointment while denying that the disappointment existed in the first place. HERE [...]