Further Evidence Limbaugh Should be Ignored on Immigration
Really, more evidence he should be ignored in general.
Via the Daily Beast:
[T]he way the Republicans are looking at it is that they think that Hispanic immigrants are made-to-order conservatives. For some reason, culturally, they think that they’re invested in hard work. And using the Cuban exile model, they’re exactly right. But the Hispanic demographic, if you will, or population, has shifted. And the Cuban exile model is no longer the dominant model. The Mexican immigrant model is. And that — they arrive with an entirely different view of America. And I’m sorry if this is offensive, but it’s true.
This statement is wrong, problematic, and, yes, offensive on a variety of levels.
First, there is a major error here: there was never a time in which the main source of Latin American immigrants into the US was Cuba over Mexico. As such, there is no factual basis for some sort of shift from a “Cuban exile model” to a “Mexican immigration model.”
First, if we consult the Pew Research Center, we find that the two populations are not comparable in terms of scope. In terms of persons in the US of Cuban origins: “An estimated 1.9 million Hispanics of Cuban origin resided in the United States in 2010,” while in terms of persons of Mexican origin: “An estimated 32.9 million Hispanics of Mexican origin resided in the United States in 2010.” This is not a recent phenomenon, by the way. Indeed, the growth of immigration from both Cuba and Mexico have grown substantially since the 1960s, but the number of Mexican immigrants has been by orders of magnitude higher. This might have something to do with the difference between a land and sea border and the pesky fact that Mexico’s population is many times larger than Cuba’s (by roughly a factor of 10, in fact).
Second, Limbaugh is clearly looking at this, as many of his listeners and co-partisans do, as a partisan calculation rather than a question of dealing with a real and serious issue. In other word, the calculus is about votes and partisan support, not about doing the right thing both morally and from a policy efficacy point of view. This is, of course, no surprise, but it is worth noting nonetheless. There is also the problem that this view assumes that partisan preferences are frozen, both in the individuals and their progeny, which leads us to the next point.
Third, and perhaps the most offensive part, is this assertions that Cubans are “invested in hard work” but those Mexicans? Not so much! The polite way of putting this is that Limbaugh either knows not of what he speaks or he is making it up as he goes for dramatic and partisan effect.* Of course, the amount of labor undertaken on a daily basis by Mexican immigrants to the US, both legal and undocumented, is a well known and well documented fact.**
Limbaugh apparently has a racial taxonomy of persons from Latin America, as he noted to a caller in November: “They’re [Cubans] just not quite dark — as dark, and they’re oriented toward work.”
There is also a rather insidious inferences about just exactly how alien the Mexicans really are because “they arrive with an entirely different view of America.”
Really, the second and third issues work together in a toxic racist mixture: the notion that one’s political point of view, and one’s predisposition to work, is linked to one’s ethnicity (and, perhaps even the depth of said ethnicity, after all, Limbaugh notes that those Mexicans are a tad than those Cubans).
*In truth, what I want to say is “Limbaugh is talking out his ass here” but that is not a useful rhetorical device if one is attempting an analytical point of view with at least a quasi-academic tone, so I will refrain from the deployment of the phrase.
**For those who came to the footnote looking for some data, here’s graph showing some basics:
First, note the comparative numbers of persons of Mexican origins versus those of Cuban: there has been no shift in numbers to support Limbaugh’s assertions. Second, there are a lot of persons of Mexican origin in the workforces. One suspects that they do their jobs like everyone else.
No matter how stupid Rush Limbaugh is, it does not offset the fact that amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform will be a disaster for the Republican Party. The Republicans passed amnesty the first time in 1986 and HW Bush in 1988 received a smaller portion of the Latino vote than Reagan received in 1984. If Republican Party survival depends on Latinos, then they party is already dead.
The Republicans in California thought amnesty would lead to cheaper labor but they forgot that adding millions of poor Latinos who are automatically eligible for government quotas and set asides would be a disaster. They forgot that poorly paid people vote for Democrats.
There is no way that supporting amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform will help the Republican Party survive or will help any conservative policy ever be adopted. Even the National Review to admit that there is no advantage for Republicans to support amensty and comprehensive immigration reform. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/332916/why-hispanics-dont-vote-republicans-heather-mac-donald
This taxonomy (The Lighter/Whiter, the more work oriented, The Darker/Blacker, the most welfare oriented) is one that Limbaugh tends to extend well beyond people from Latin America.
Whether or not he himself is racist, he’s used this sort of coding for years.
Here are the Pew Estimate’s of Latino Vote for the
What one has to wonder — and your analysis seems to skip over SD — is how much Reagan and GW Bush’s direct outreach to latino communities had to do with their successful capturing of higher %s of the vote, and how much McCain, Dole, GHW Bush, and Romney’s lack of success had to do with a combination on (some of their anti-immigration focus and) their minimal attempts to court those votes.
Oops sorry about that @SteVen…
No, the really offensive part is this equating of hard work with political conservative. Conservatives have completely bought into this “47%”, conservative makers, liberal takers myth that says far more about conservative psychology than it does about the real world.
And, Steven, really? You’re getting into fact checking Limbaugh? I thought you already had a full time job.
@matt bernius: For someone who keeps saying he’s not racist, Limbaugh seems to spend an awful lot of time talking about race and ethnicity.
No worries: I answer to both 😉
There’s that, too.
Paying any attention to Limbaugh these days* is naught but a passing and occasionally hobby, so fret not 😉
*I will confess to having been a regular to Limbaugh for quite a long time (indeed, from before most people had heard of him), but I came to the point of not being able to take it for a variety of reasons.
Studies have shown that these people are productive, self sufficient, hardworking, law abiding, religious, have strong traditional family structures, and ambitious. Sounds like the kind of people that this country needs more of!!
Could you please give a cite to those studies. How does it explain that over 50% of Hispanic children are born to single mothers and that the percentage is increasing. Not exactly a sign of self-sufficient or having a strong traditional family.
I would love to see those studies.
Rush Limbaugh, is a kind of modern day version of William Randolph Hearst, only without the power that Hearst had. He is an updated modern media version of a purveyor of yellow journalism/editorial opinion.
WTF? Among many things wrong with this, there are quite a lot of of Afro-Cubans, i.e. Cubans who are descended from African slaves brought over to work the sugar plantations.
Here is government study on the murder rate by ethnicity. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/stats_at-a_glance/hr_age-race.html
10-24 male Hispanics are murdered at a rate about five times the rate of non-Hispanic whites. Not exactly a sign of being a law abiding. Maybe you can find something that is more correct that CDC studies.
Oh, well, if studies show, you can’t argue with that.
Also, too, can you name any large racial/ethnic/cultural/national group that ISN’T productive, self-sufficient, hardworking, law-abiding, religious, ambitious and with strong traditional family structures?
@superdestroyer: A usual, you attempt to reduce all discussions to a single variable, and that variable is always skin color.
This is, by definition, racism.
Does the title imply that there is a topic on which Limbaugh should not be ignored on? If so, the author is sorely mistaken.
The biggest cheat there is that all “paths to citizenship” are equally “amnesty.”
I don’t think anyone is proposing a fast nor blanket amnesty. “Paths” taking 10 or more years of work (and study) are quite different.
@Moosebreath: This should not be implied from the title.
The author would further note that the subtitle of the piece is “Really, more evidence he should be ignored in general.”
@Steven L. Taylor:
Are you really going to argue that if the crime rate, out of wedlock birthrate, high school drop out rate, unemployment rate would be the same for blacks, Hispanics, whites would be same if you corrected for income and level of education? My guess is even if one could find the studies that made that analysis, that progressives would still refuse to believe them and would still blame everything on racism.
Even though progressives constantly claim to be motivated by facts, I have always found that they refuse to face facts that disagree with their world view.
Allowing everyone who is currently in the U.S. illegally to stay and eventaully become a citizen is, by definition, amnesty just like what it was called in 1986. But at least in 1986, there was a promise for better border security. President Obama wants amnesty with no promises on border security. So the deal is even worse than in 1986 and thus, will benefit the Democrats even more.
You know what I’ve found? That you steadfastly refuse to say what you think should be done about any of this.
You’re a hardcore white supremacist who preaches the destruction of the white race, and yet we never get a plan from you. Is that because you have no plan for the future? Or is it rather that your plan involves atrocities?
@al-Ameda: I think he’s channeling Father Coughlin not Hearst.@matt bernius: Yeah, he’s a racist. Like Chris Rock says, no matter what’s in your heart it’s what you produce.
@superdestroyer: I am pointing out that you constantly make arguments predicated on the notion that the main explanatory variable is race. I note this primarily to note that I do not endorse your posts.
no, not everyone:
only those who make the effort and keep their noses clean.
This is what I mean by a cheat. You wave away those hurtles and say it’s just “everybody”
As I have written many times there is nothing that can be done. The demographic trends already exist and cannot be changed. In reality, as the quality of life in the U.S. declines, the white birthrate will continue to decline and decline faster in the future.
The question is not what can be done about it but what are the impacts. I fail to understand how thinking about the impacts is racist but to progressives, it is. Noticing that whites will be the most negatively impacted in the future is not racist but is just realistic.
President Obama is not willing to set metrics for border security. thus, any promises on border enforcement are moot and not worth discussing. Whatever is said today will be ignored tomorrow. Since President Obama is not willing to deport anyone who is not a felon, then everyone gets to stay. The argument is just how quickly they will become a citizen. My guess is that the progress will be so altered after it is passed by Congress that it is pointless to discuss specifics other than it is amnesty for all illegal aliens.
1-) Birthrates are falling all over the world, from Europe to the Saharan Africa. In fact, in many developing world have fertility rates that are bellow the level of replacement. It´s not something that´s only happening to “White” America.were very poor people living in poor states of Mexico and from poor Central American countries. A doctor from Mexico City is not willing to live illegally in the United States.
2-) The problem is that people in the Middle Class are not willing to live illegally in another country(Unless you are a inconsequential youth seeking adventure). It´s irrelevant to discuss whether Mexicans or Cubans are emigrating to the United States. The ones that were doing that
Besides that, many “illegals” just want to get some capital to build a grocery store or a house to their mom in Guerrero or Guatemala, but they have to stay because they know that if they go home it´s very difficult to return to the United States. If people is unsatisfied with the immigrants that goes to the United States than they should ease restrictions on immigration. I also can say that Middle Classes from Latin America are more willing to agree with the Republicans.
It´s very difficult and it´s very time consuming to legally emigrate to the US, specially if you come from Latin America, so, the only people that are willing to do it are people that are willing to do it illegally. It´s simple as that.
You are the same guy who claimed we were all being forced to learn Spanish.
Now you are the guy ignoring English on the list of requirements for path-to-citizenship.
Crazy is as crazy does.
Latino men are a bit more likely to work, latino women a bit less likely to be in the labor force. MIgrant farm work is extremely arduous and it is now dominated by Hispanics.
The Obama admin has set records for the number of deportations for three straight years. Conservatives seem miffed that he would preferentially deport those with a criminal record. If we have limits on how much we can spend, emphasizing deportation of criminals seems fiscally prudent. Perhaps conservatives could explain why deporting criminals is bad. Why importing more than in the past indicates an unwillingness to enforce laws.
I believe you just asked why people think it racist when you view the world through a racial lens.
If that’s your only lens, you’ll never understand the answer.
It’s racist because the impacts you pose are always negative, and because the only differentiator you pose is race.
It’s racist because you always assert an increase in the number of dark-skinned people will automatically and inexorably lead to a decline of America’s quality of life.
And it’s racist because you only care about how it will affect white people.
I think you’re a liar as well as a racist. I do not believe this level of obsession on your part is not connected to some crazy future plan of action.
If you want to know about water, don’t ask a fish.
Superdope…a racist fool…commenting on Limbaugh…a racist fool.
How absolutley perfect.
Limbaugh is the de facto leader of todays Republican party…look at how fast Rubio had to run and kiss his arse last week re: immigration. Which begs the question…why would anyone support todays Republican party?
Doh…3:00….cocktail hour. Enjoy Superdopes racist filth all.
Who do progressives reconcile the idea that illegal aliens are law abiding people who just want to work at the same time that the Obama Administraiton is deporting 400K a year and most of them are criminals with the rest being people are being moved from California to Texas before being returned to Mexico http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/09/02/obama-is-accused-of-inflating-his-deportation-numbers-whats-really-happening/.
What is most effective for limiting the number of illegal aliens is to have a high unemployment rate, a stagnant housing market, and a slow growing economy. The real question is whether the Democrats will be willing to enforce immigration regulations once the Repubicans complete their collapse.
What I fail to understand is the people that look at this issue only how it will affect their political party on either side. It happens much more on the right but there are people on the left that do care more about their voter rolls than the impact it will have on undocumented workers. Like every issue that is difficult to address in this country it is multifaceted and requires a lot of work to try and get right. But as usual only those on the right with a personal stake view it other than black and white, and that sadly is only Rubio. And since his stake in the Tea Party soil, any plans for reform will likely tarnish his brand on a national scale.
It is odd that the same people who decry the poverty of the immigrant class would so vehemently oppose a comprehensive path to citizenship, and thus a way for an entire group of people to better their lives. The goal of most first generation immigrants has always been to provide a better life to their children than the ones they had, case in point Rubio himself. These same people that try to defund or water down education, then complain we don’t have enough qualified workers in this country. If SD wants to talk about the decline of quality of life for the white man, perhaps the money from deporting and detaining all of these people would better be spent on education reform. The borders have never and will never be “secure” and the assertion otherwise is foolish. But if the influx of brown people will reduce the quality of life so much then perhaps border security will be unnecessary in the future since more brown people means America becomes such a swamp they won’t want to come here.
Progressives would be believable when they say that about racism if they did not tolerate people like Melissa Harris-Perry who sees every issue from the POV of a black person. The same could be said for Ta-Nehisi Coates, Al Sharpton, or for Hispanic people like Luis Guiterrez and Hilda Solis. Yet, progressives never apply their own definition of racist to any non-white person. And since you do not apply your definitions to the left, then one can easily assume that you do not really mean it.
Comprehensive immigration reform will be a huge win for the Democrats and the Democrats support it because it will be a big win. Millions of more automatic Democratic party voters, many more congressional and state legislature districts becoming locks for the Democrats, turning states like Texas back to being a blue state. In addition it is a huge win for the public sector unions who will benefit from the increased demand for teachers, social workers, law enforcement, and infrastructure construction. About the only group inside the Republican party that gets any benefit from it are the cheap labor big business types who benefit from depressed wages.
Even Rubio cannot give a coherent reason why the middle class, private sector employed whites should support comprehensive immigration reform. Also, Rubio will not ever purpose any offsets such as eliminating affirmative action for Hispanics to off set the impact of adding millions of additional Hispanics to the rolls.
I guess when progressives have nothing else to say, they scream racist and call everyone a liar. The real quesiton is why do progressives refuse to think about the impacts of comprehensive immigration reform. Do you really want to eventaully limit immigraiton by lowering the standard of living in the U.S. to the same level as Mexico so that there will be no other pool.
There are 100’s of millions of third world residents who want to come to the U.S. Progressives refuse to talk about limiting the number of immigrants that should come to the U.S. So the only question is what is the impact of millions more third world immigrants coming to the U.S. And how does comprehensive immigration reform fit with the other policy proposals of progressives. How does the U.S. improve the social safety net while maintaining open borders? How does the U.S. deal with global warming while allowing a massive number of third world immigrants to come to the U.S. and increase the impact on the environment? I notice that progressives never answer those questions.
I’m only a moderate and independent, but I don’t believe any of those voices have impacted me or my life. Can I be tolerant of the harmless?
@superdestroyer: This is such a dodge. Not only is it attempt to change the subject away from your own problems, but it asks the person with whom you are speaking to start an endless diversionary conversation about whatever list of people you wish to proffer.
@Steven L. Taylor:
No, statement was that people who see everything through the lens of race are racist, when what was really meant is that whites who see major issues in terms of race and ethnicity are racist but that non-whites can review the world in terms of race and those non-whties are not racist.
It actually goes back to the post-modern concept that only whites can be racist because only whites have power. However, since the President of the U.S. describes himself as black, it is hard to believe that only whites have power.
Also, how does one discuss immigration reform without discussing race and ethnicity. It is not like there are 11 million Eastern Europeans living in the U.S. illegally and creating a need for people to learn Polish or Romanian.
You are conflating (that means “mixing”) the idea of permitting immigrants that are here illegally to stay in the country with the idea of dramatically increasing the number of new immigrants we let in. The proposals from both parties only address the first idea.
Unless you think there’s a plausible and acceptable way to deport 11 million people, then you have to either keep them in an underground economy or you have to assimilate them. Keeping them underground does no one any good. Assimilating them will absolutely have some significant short-term costs, but will benefit everyone in the long run. Which path are you proposing?
Also, I’m still waiting for you to give an example of forced busing that HASN’T stopped.
When I worked in factories back in the seventies in the Chicago area, Hispanic workers were probably 25% Cuban, 25% Puerto Rican and 50% Mexican, with the Puerto Rican and Cuban population gravitating towards the skilled, supervisory and management jobs to a much greater degree than the Mexicans. If you think any appreciable portion of these people are giving the BLS valid data when it conducts its household survey you are naive.
My observation was that if you only have a racial lens, you’ll have trouble understanding people who operate with a wider or different set of perspectives.
If your goal in those last comments was to identify other racists, and I’m not really sure you have, that wouldn’t prove anything.
You certainly have not proven “everyone is a racist, and that makes it ok.”
Why should anyone care how immigration reform will affect the GOP? It’s not relevant to the issue and really should not be a concern anyone takes seriously.
It’s quite simple, actually. You just don’t discuss them, because they are irrelevant.
Unless, of course, those are the only things about which you actually care.
According to you nothing can be done, and you have no plan to do anything. So why do you insist we have to discuss it? And in particular, discuss it only in your racist terms?
It makes no sense. But of course that’s because, as I said, you’re a liar as well as a racist.
@superdestroyer: Yes – Ohio State University Fact Sheet: “Understanding Hispanic Culture” : this describes basic Hispanic characteristics.
Barma Research Group: Hispanics and religion
@superdestroyer: Why do conservatives object to Obama deporting illegals while at the same time claim that Obama is doing nothing about illegal immigration ?
“Who do progressives reconcile the idea that illegal aliens are law abiding people who just want to work at the same time that the Obama Administraiton is deporting 400K a year”
Out of 12 million? If all 400,000 were criminals, that would be a tad over 3%, but they arent all criminals. Since the majority of illegals are young men, you would expect more criminals. As has been well documented (see the Unz piece at the American Conservative), violent crime is lower in border states that have largely Hispanic populations.
I notice you move the goalposts here. First you claim Obama wont enforce the border. When confronted with data showing that he is willing to enforce immigration law, you change the claim to one that illegals are all criminals. You could at least do the math before making such a claim.
El Paso, Texas has a population of about 660,000, 80% of which is Hispanic. As I used to live there, and watched people wade across the Rio Grande (it’s only about knee-deep at that point) on a regular basis, I am certain a sizable number of the residents are in the U. S. illegally.
Last year, there were 16 murders in El Paso. 16. It’s the second-safest city with a population over 500K in the country (San Jose, another city with a high percentage of Hispanics, is #1). By contrast, Baltimore has about the same population and had 223 murders in 2010.
The only complaint I had while living in El Paso is they roll up the sidewalks at 7:00. Seriously, no night life at all. But otherwise, it was great–low cost of living, fantastic food, great weather (I like it hot), lots of stuff to do outdoors.
A small facet of this conversation that might be of interest and might not: The Cubans who immigrated to the US after Fidel took over were predominantly middle-class in Cuba. They had significant Spanish/European heritage. That left a the island with a larger percentage of its population from poorer classes with backgrounds from poor rural people which means they have a larger African heritage. This is fairly obvious if one looks at pictures of large Cuban-American crowds in Miami and compares this to pictures of crowds in Havana.
The important variable here is, of course, class not “race”.
A large part of the antipathy the Cuban-American community feels toward the Castro regime is a class conflict that would have been contained on the island except for the diaspora into Florida. Much like the Irish in New York and Boston found a way to leverage the American foreign policy against England in the late 19th century, the Florida Cubans leveraged their political muscle into 50yrs of harsh “embargo”.
I was hoping to get through this thread without seeing a “both sides do it” comment. Alas.
@bk: My apologies I tend to vote progressive or democrat, however, that doesn’t mean their aren’t idiots on my side as well. You can’t make everyone care about all issues in a humanistic way its part of life.
As long as conservatives continue to not ignore the grifters like Limabaugh, Hannity, Beck, Coulter, etc., the Republican brand will continue to suffer…
Well, I guess you’d better pack your happy a** up and move somewhere where it’s mighty White and you’ll feel comfortable! Russia,for example . . .
Getting back to the whole “ignoring Limbaugh” thing, it was liberals ignoring Limbaugh initially that helped pave the way to where we are today. For year, liberals refused to engage with Limbaugh, hold him accountable for what he said or hold conservatives or the GOP accountable for aligning themselves with him. That not only allowed his influence to grow but become more pernicious.
@MBunge: A fair point, and clearly I subscribe to it, or I would not have written the post.
Of course, the people whom I hope to extol to ignore Limbaugh are the ones currently paying him far too much attention.
Another comment thread taken over with the racist bile that superdestroyer produces. Another comment thread I stopped reading about halfway thru.
If immigration reform destroys the more conservative party in the U.S., then it matters to all conservatives. Bigger government, higher taxes, and a poorer quality of life will be the outcomes for almost all current Republican voters is comprehensive immigration reform passes. That is why the impact of comprehensive immigration reform matters to everyone. The reason the Democrats support comprehensive reform is that it benefits them politically.
It also makes no sense to make a major policy change and not discuss the impacts of that policy change. Of course, progressives do not want to discuss the impacts because of the negative impacts to so many Americans while they benefit from it.
A link would be nice if you are going to make a cite. Are you afraid that someone will nitpick your cite?
Since you did not do it, I will link to the cite http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/5000/5237.html The first paragraph discusses how fathers head the family but does not mention that more than 50% of Hispanic children were born to single mothers in 2010. Not exactly a fact-based, data driven cite. Please produce the cites that shows that I am wrong on high school graduation rates, out of wedlock rates, crime rates, unemployment rates.
About 13% of the felons in California jails are illegal aliens.
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/01/corrections-sta.html#storylink=cpy
Unless you want to argue that 13% of young men in California are illegal aliens, then illegal aliens commit more crimes on average. Not exactly a picture of a law abiding, family oriented, hard working minority.
The murder rate in El Paso is about four times the rate that it is Plano Texas, a majority white suburb of Dallas. El Paso just shows that Hispanics are not as violent as blacks. However, the property crime rate in El Paso in above the state average.
ONce again, if progressives did not have snark and insults, they would have nothing to say. I was born in the U.S. and do not believe that I should have to adapt to accomonate illegal aliens. However, progressives are ready to use force to make whites adapt to the illegal aliens. Why is that?
@superdestroyer: Are you seriously comparing El Paso with Plano? Have you actually ever been to either place? Because I’ve been to both, many times, and the comparison is ludicrous.
I must have missed the guy standing outside my door with a gun and a Spanish language textbook.
Seriously, some of the stuff you post reads like it should be up on Stormfront.
@Mikey: I bet he posts on Stormfront when he isn’t over here vomiting his racist bile over the comment threads.