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, 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.
40 responses so far
1 BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:29 am
“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. ”
Not going to happen anytime soon. Bush was an economic disaster for this country. The people know it, the GOP is in total denial. Until the GOP owns that reality they will not be trusted in government. The problem is that the GOP is equally at fault as Bush. Where was the fiscal discipline durning those 6 years of a GOP held house,senate and Presidency.
It’s great to talk Fiscal responsibility but when the chance came to actually undertake some they blew it.
2 BarryS // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:31 am
To add to the above. Non partizans who make up a fair bit of this country want above all competence in Government. They just want the thing to work for their benefit. That was sorely lacking during the Bush/GOP years.
3 WillyP // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:35 am
This is hilarious… why do people listen to this guy again?
Says David:
“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.”
From Wikipedia: “He served as Special Assistant to the U.S. President for Economic Speechwriting from January 2001 to February 2002. ”
The word “duplicity” comes to mind.
4 joemarier // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:47 am
Okay, but, er… are we going to address the other half of Lou Dobbs’ message?
5 DFL // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:54 am
Lou Dobbs never had more than a few million viewers on his cable show and has fairly low identification. If he ran some sort of independent presidential race, he’d probably come closer to 0.6 % than 6 %. He’d be better off running as a Republican for the practical reason that all the other Republican candidates have either heavy baggage or are about as exciting as watching paint dry or mosquitos fly.
6 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 9:59 am
WillyP:
When Frum worked for Bush, prior to 9-11 the economy wasn’t in bad shape. After 9-11, the entire travel sector collapsed due to fears of terrorism, and the economy went into recession. (Airlines went bankrupt, travel agencies, went bankrupt, hotels cut their room rates by 50%, etc.)
Then Frum left.
The real problems started later. Frum wasn’t there when Medicare Part D was passed.
7 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:00 am
DFL:
He has had far more media exposure than Ross Perot did–and yet Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992.
If Dobbs gets himself into a Presidential debate as Perot did, his command of economic and investment issues will just blow away Obama and whoever the GOP nominee is.
8 MI-GOPer // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:01 am
David, I agree with WillyP –for you to advance item #4 in the supposedly “knock-off” strategy of Dobbs by GOPers, you jump the shark.
Like mayn of the far Left Trolls on your site, the words you’ve been choosing lately and the ideas you’ve been expressing come very close to projection… it’s like listening to Obama try to spin a govt takeover of health care by saying its all about competition –no, it’s all about expanding the welfare state and govt’s reach. It’s like listening to Clinton say that her recent meetings with diplomat x, y, or z –you take your pick because her comments after each meeting are equally rosey & hyped– “we’ve had a productive round of talks and reinforced the importance of our working together… blah, blah, blah” –which really means nothing got accomplished, they want the US’s foreign aid bribe increased.
For you to say that itme #4 is the toughest nut… makes me wonder if you learned ANYthing from the policy or political guys in DC while with Bush? The toughest nut will be for Lou Dobbs to withstand the rigors of any campaign, motivate a bunch of 6-pack/night angry bitter men to actually vote when most of them, his base, think H1N1 shots have hidden govt tracking devices in them.
Lou Dobbs isn’t made for politics anymore than FreddieThompson was. He’s a prima donna who expects a comfortable life, people and producers jumping to his beck & call and for the masses to give him standing ovati0ns each time he makes a point.
On this article, especially item #4, you jumped the shark. Are you trying to out perform Scott McClellan for Most Disloyal Bushie of the Year? And please, no “I call em as I see em” because your motivation here is all about blog traffic and self-promotion.
You can do better David. I’ve seen it before. Maybe hiring an editor would help?
9 rbottoms // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:20 am
I think you mean shouldn’t, denying that very fact is something Republicans do quite well and quite often from the lowliest congressman to the most powerful senator the mantra is that the Bush years were an economic miracle.
10 DFL // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:26 am
sinz, Pat Buchanan had even more media exposure than Dobbs and he embarassed himself with 0.4 % of the vote in 2000 four years after coming in second in the GOP nomination battle. Perot in 1992 came across as a very successful businessman who was non-ideological and would get “under the hood” to fix America’s fiscal and economic problems. Bush’s “Read My Lips” lie helped Perot gain traction with millions of disgruntled ex-Reagan voters. Many conservatives joined non-ideological Middle Americans in voting for Perot, who had no chance of winning after his bizarre antics in the summer of 1992. Millions were just fed up with both parties.
11 Chekote // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:35 am
You think???!!!!
12 Carney // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:36 am
Again, Dobbs should just go to the Fox Business Network, where he’d be a perfect fit. He made his name as a respected financial journalist on CNN’s “Moneyline” and on CNNfn. FBN desperately needs ratings and big name talent. Dobbs will only embarrass himself in politics.
13 Chekote // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:42 am
BarryS is spot on. The GOP is in total denial. They are blaming their losses on McCain being too moderate; ACORN fraud; MSM is biased. And anyone who dares suggest that the GOP needs to reform or adjust in any way is labeled as a RINO traitor. Right now, the GOP is looking at the polls and they look bad for Obama and Dems. So there is no incentive to change anything. It might take more losses before the GOP moves on to the next stage of mourning.
14 Chekote // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:50 am
Exactly right. Dobbs is very effective. Right or wrong, he comes across as knowledgeable and in command of the issues.
15 sheckylovejoy // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:53 am
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.
If you are going to do that, David, then please look at all the indirect costs and benefits from immigration, not just the direct costs. The immigrants in California are an indirect subsidy to the middle class. Without them, here’s a short list of all the services and products we would be paying (a lot) more for:
1) A meal at a restaurant. Just about every cook and dishwasher in CA is an immigrant.
2) A meal at home. Our low food prices are dependent on low labor costs in both agriculture and transportation.
3) Domestic help. Try hiring a maid or nanny after Lou sends all the immigrants home.
4) Landscaping. Every lawn in LA would go untended without our immigrants. Watch the lawns of LA go to seed!
5) A bottle of California wine — viniculture is very labor intensive, and all the labor are Mexican migrants.
6) Construction and home repair. Nobody could crew up without immigrants. Just look at the pack of day laborers at any Home Depot, all immigrants.
There is more, a lot more, and we haven’t even begun to discuss the long-term beneficial effects of a loose immigration policy. As the son and grandson of immigrants who came to this country with less than nothing and even fewer skills, I can tell you all from personal experience that immigrants and their children are the fuel for the constant renewal of America. They provide the entrepreneurial energy, the longing and desire that natives lack
Must go, I have to crew up at the Home Depot.
There is of course more, but I have to get down to the Home Depot to crew up.
16 joemarier // Nov 25, 2009 at 10:56 am
Hmmm….
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125910998942663259.html
17 Chekote // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:08 am
Thanks for the link Joe.
18 PracticalGirl // Nov 25, 2009 at 11:26 am
I agree with David on this one, but have little hope that the Republicans will back off their very successful slogan-based approach to illegal immigration. It feeds the base too well. The GOP politicians had 6 unfettered years to address this problem (’00-’06) and they chose not to, even as they screeched that this was one of the biggest threats to national security. They had an opportunity to present salient solutions that were their own, pass them and implement them. Who can forget President Bush crowing about his “political capital” after the 2004 elections? I know that I certainly thought this meant that he and Congress would at least begin to address our immigration problem.
But they curiously left this important legislation to a time when they had lost their Congressional control. Instead of blaming the illegals, we should all be asking ourselves WHY they did this? Could it be because the GOP is more interested in keeping a wedge issue that guarantees them a way to coalesce their base and raise money? Illegal fever- It’s one of the easiest and fastest ways for GOP politicians to stir up their base and raise money, especially in off-elections. Once they’ve done that, though? They get elected, the issue has served its purpose, and their problems are solved, and the issue lies in wait for the next time they need to rally the base.
19 Brittanicus // Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Now that Lou Dobbs has left CNN (cable) I see no reason, to even watch Mr Snow unless they start reviving the gigantic illegal immigration invasion issue. Otherwise one has to search for the truth from bloggers, as only mostly lies are breathed from the national media and all levels of fed and local government?
ALL WASHINGTON HAS TO DO IS ADD AMENDMENTS TO THE 1986 IMMIGRATION CONTROL & REFORM ACT? THE SIMPSON/ MAZZOLI BILL QUALIFIED IN THE EYES OF SEN TED KENNEDY (RIP). WHO ALSO SWORE THERE WOULD–NEVER BE ANOTHER AMNESTY. Having another path to citizenship indicates to me, that there is some underhand discussions going on behind the back of taxpaying Americans. That Sen.Harry Reid (D-NV) Speaker N. Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. John McCain R-AZ will be involved with pushing through this next AMNESTY and–THE PEOPLE–will be last to know? How many more billions is it going to cost in raised taxes to legitimize 20 to 30 million foreign nationals? Currently we have two wars on the agenda, a health care package with loopholes for illegal immigrants, Cap & trade and global warming? Not forgetting that Obama promised fair free trade agreements and a bunch of other planned money spending free-for–all’s?
As I stated, their is no need to spend millions of dollars the country doesn’t have–but prints it anyway and then tries to pass another Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. These jokers in Washington can save taxpayers millions instead of discussing a whole new bill, just by amending parts of the 1986 law? Including in this amendment process, would be up-front information for the public to decide on? Those politicians who have been poisoned monetary by heavyweight business lobbyists and the hundreds of anti-American, open border extremists. As with Sen.Gutierrez D-IL who should not be present, as he reneged on his oath of allegiance to the United States. E-Verify should be a mandatory law, for not just new employees but for everybody who draws a payroll check. The police engagement 287 (g) law should also be fully funded by the feds and not just half measures, so that many counties can refuse to execute the illegal immigrant arrest law.
Only with employers that have been instrumental in operating E-Verify should be allowed to display the E-Verify notice. Any person who illegally displays the placard, should be heavily fined if they violate this federal law. Senior Citizens could be hired by the feds nationwide, to inspect 1-9’s at businesses and audit documents in each region of the country. None of this will be any good if –AMNESTY–is passed as millions more illegal immigrants will be scaling the fences, or under the pretext of being a tourist gain entry to America? The last AMNESTY turned into a joke against the American taxpayer. CORPORATE WELFARE or ENTITLEMENTS are the best way to explain this, because of the illegal cheap labor market thats poured through gaping laws in enforcement. Everybody has their price including the politicians who have been cheating the American people for years, by drafting undisclosed legislation rewarding illegal immigrants with health care and education.
IF millions of us sit on our hands this time and stay silent, the House-Senate will push through another AMNESTY package and the biggest losers will be all of us. All those working illegally in America will do a disappearing act from agriculture and other industries, and once legal can steal every conceivable job that benefits low skilled American workers. The majority will still be paid under the table, and the same act will repeat itself as directly shown after the 1986 Amnesty. If you think the border fence is sturdy enough for those waiting to hear the Amnesty call, we really need some sense knocked in to us. TIME TO MAKE YOURSELF KNOWN TO THE LAWMAKERS WE VOTED FOR AT 202-224-3121, or go their in person. GOOGLE–these websites—NUMBERSUSA will show you the costs and enforcement gradings of those in Washington. JUDICIAL WATCH will uncover for you the rampant corruption money game. CAPSWEB will explain irreversible population growth in California and nationwide. Other sites of interest on Immigration enforcement is ALIPAC and AMERICAN PATROL and THE DARK SIDE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
Poll after poll shows that Americans want well-enforced, sensible, and sustainable immigration laws. READ THE FACTS, NOT PROPAGANDA FROM THE LIBERAL NATIONAL PRESS. READ THE REAL POLLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY AT: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_researchd74c
20 Reason60 // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:18 pm
We have to realize that we live in a global economy; capital and products flow freely across borders. It is only the flow of labor that seems to give us heartache.
The notion that we can erect a barrier to the flow of labor, and that somehow we can preserve these jobs for native-born Americans is a myth.
Example:
If I operate a cabinetry shop in Los Angeles, I will likely hire illegal workers, since the labor is cheap and semi-skilled.
If the supply of illegals is cut off, I wouldn’t hire Ameericans; I would likely ship the entire plant to Mexico, and hire those same workers, except now in their home country. The point is, your kitchen cabinets will be fabricated with mexican hands, one way or another.
Liberals call this the “race to the bottom” where businesses chase cheap labor around the world; immigration is just a importation of cheap labor. But, as conservatives like to point out, cheap labor provides benefits to consumers, just as cheap Chinese labor gives us $2 tee shirts at Wal-Mart.
But are these two scenarios equal? Not really. Exporting the plant to Mexico means that not only do the jobs go away, but also the tax base, and the externalities- the wages are spent in Mexico as well. Importing labor here provides the same benefit to the consumers, but also keeps the taxes and wages here.
But there is another benefit often overlooked; the cheap laborers don’t stay that way forever. As an architect, I have seen over the last 30 years that the immigrant workforce has steadily grown upward on the skill ladder; once Mexicans only were the lowest unskilled laborers, such as drywall hangers; then I saw them appearing as framers, then plumbers, electricians; then I saw Mexican foremen, superintendents; then subcontractors, and contractors. I have now seen some of these now migrate into being investors and developers.
What once were raw unskilled laborers have become enmeshed in the American economy; they are no longer net takers, but providers, helping to drive the engine of the economy. This shouldn’t surprise anyone; this is the exact path taken by the Irish a century ago. On balance our economy is stronger because of immigrants.
21 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:22 pm
DFL:
Buchanan was never in the debates with Bush and Gore.
22 sinz54 // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:30 pm
PracticalGirl:
Can we all agree that at minimum, conservatives ought to back off their opposition to LEGAL immigration?
National Review gives plenty of space to Mark Krikorian to argue that even LEGAL immigration is bad because the United States is, he claims, overpopulated already. And so he calls for reducing even the number of legal immigrants.
Krikorian’s suggestion that Washington Mutual went bankrupt because it had too many Hispanics is disturbing:
http://tinyurl.com/4buu8m
And when Michelle Malkin attacks illegal immigrants from Latin America on the basis that they’re illiterate drunks who cause too many automobile accidents here in America, she is implying that what is wrong with immigrants is not their legal status, but their culture.
That’s got to stop too.
23 WillyP // Nov 25, 2009 at 1:33 pm
Reason,
That may all be true, and it’s very easy to justify unlimited/illegal immigration when you do it from an economic standpoint. But the problems related to unrestricted immigration (into the country… whereas very few people actually pick up and leave America) are more cultural.
A society cannot absorb huge numbers of uneducated, illiterate (especially in English) people without significantly altering the culture. The concept of a “nation,” in fact, is a linguistic construct. (Hence “la nation Quebec.”) American culture has remained relatively homogeneous because, up until fairly recently (1960s, say), we insisted that immigrants learn the English language and American traditions before becoming citizens. Like anyone else in America, they were free to practice their own cultural heritage in any peaceful way, but they first learned to show deference to American culture. As a nation, we have the right to legally control our immigration flows, and derive our right to set a minimum bar for attaining citizenship.
Additionally, no less a source than Milton Friedman recognized that open borders were irreconcilable with the welfare state. Make them pay taxes, you say? I would ask, how do you prevent them from voting? And the problem is especially complicated when one party in particular is pandering for their votes, whether they are legal citizens or not. 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.
The immigration issue is such a no-brainer, I don’t understand how it’s controversial. Close the southern border! Attract world class talent by loosening up visa requirements! And attract capital and business by reducing the tax burden on individuals and corporations! Of course, to do that, we’d need to cut spending… which is nearly impossible without political will.
24 PracticalGirl // Nov 25, 2009 at 2:01 pm
SinZ- Absolutely agreed, and make no mistake- I think the GOP approach is wrongheaded and stupid. I seek only to point out that this is yet another issue that the politicians don’t want solved-too much of a money maker. And both parties are at fault here. The GOP simply wants to rile the base, the Democrats bend over backwards not to offend…And none of it deals with the real issue which is the fact that the US’s immigration policy is one of non-enforcement of non-policies that allow everybody to either take shots at or put a big, sympathizing unbrella around the people that the governement invites in. That’s how we get to silly stuff like border fences. It’s defensive, immediate and demonstrative enough for the right to cheer “Victory!”, yet ineffective enough to literally punch a hole in so the left just ignores it.
25 aDude // Nov 25, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Remember the nationwide 55 mph speed limit? It was an attempt by liberals to control how people drive (by limiting the speed of cars they hoped to make other forms of transport more attractive). It didn’t work because highways were designed for safe transport at higher speed, and there was public demand for a higher speed limit.
The current limit on the number of legal immigrants coming into this country is similar to the 55 mph speed limit: it is too low based on employer demand for low wage, low skill jobs, and the desire of those outside the country to fill those jobs.
There are somewhere between 12 and 20 million illegal aliens in this country. The reality is that we are not going to have jackbooted agents rounding them up in the middle of the night and putting them in boxcars. (If nothing else, where does a train full of Salvadorans go once it reaches the Mexican border if the Mexican government won’t let it enter?) And their children are already American citizens. Therefore, some sort of regularization is going to have to take place. Yes, it’s AMNESTY. (Just like when you fudge on your taxes, and seven years later if you didn’t get caught you’re off the hook because of the AMNESTY of the statute of limitations. There’s lots of upper class AMNESTY in the law already. You haven’t lived until you’re studied how the law of adverse possession can cause you to lose your property).
Going forward, there will need to be a program of immigration and guest workers that has a reasonable number to match the size of the US economy. The one thing that needs to change is heavy emphasis on English. You’ll find that most Americans don’t dislike Hispanics – they dislike Spanish (and other languages). If we make a rule that every immigrant and every guest worker must be fluent in English, and also that those already in this country must be fluent in English, then much of the antipathy towards immigrants will dissipate.
Obviously, we also need to greatly increase the number of skilled workers we allow into this country at the same time. The idea that students from other countries who earn advanced degrees have to leave because of immigration limits is ludicrous – some 25% of Silicon Valley startups are created by immigrants. We need more people like that, not less.
Even if tomorrow we build the Berlin Wall on the entire southern border, with minefields, attack dogs, and shoot-to-kill orders for anyone seen in The Death Zone, we will still have an electorate that will be 20% Hispanic by 2020 based on existing demographic trends. So playing on fears of being overrun by non-WASP hordes will only serve to make a demographic that was 40% Republican in 2004 into one that is 90% Democratic.
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.
26 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!
27 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.
28 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.
29 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.
30 sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 12:42 pm
WillyP:
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?
31 sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Reason60:
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.
32 sinz54 // Nov 26, 2009 at 1:02 pm
aDude:
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.
33 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.
34 rbottoms // Nov 27, 2009 at 8:45 am
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.
35 sinz54 // Nov 27, 2009 at 9:12 am
shecky:
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.
36 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.
37 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.
38 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 [...]
39 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 [...]
40 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 [...]
You must log in to post a comment.