The Right’s Position On Immigration Is Inconsistent With Their Own Principles
If conservatives actually believed what they said they do, they would be much more open to immigrants, and immigration reform.
The head of the Chamber of Commerce is growing impatient with GOP inaction on immigration reform:
Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the GOP shouldn’t even field a presidential candidate in 2016 unless Congress passes immigration reform this year.
“If the Republicans don’t do it, they shouldn’t bother to run a candidate in 2016,” Donohue joked at an event on infrastructure investment in D.C. “Think about that. Think about who the voters are. I just did that to get everybody’s attention.”
Republicans have focused on immigration reform as a way to woo Hispanic voters, who have increasingly drifted to Democrats over the past two election cycles. Growing Hispanic populations in Nevada, Texas and elsewhere could make those states more amenable to Democrats in the future.
Donohue, whose group has spent months pushing House Republicans to support immigration reform, was speaking about what he thought a dysfunctional Congress could still get done in 2014.
“You think Congress can get immigration reform done this year, in an election year?” moderator Eamon Javers asked Donohue.
“Yes, yes,” Donohue replied.
National Association of Manufacturers President Jay Timmons said he also thought immigration reform could pass this year, perhaps in a lame-duck session.
“This is a unified position of the business community,” Timmons said.
This isn’t anything new, of course. The Chamber of Commerce and other business organizations have been supporters of immigration reform for some time now, and were huge backers of the Senate bill that passed last year with bipartisan support. They aren’t alone in that position, of course. Reform also has the backing of union groups and many others. The major impediment on Capitol Hill, and indeed in the nation as a whole, to immigration reform are conservative Republicans who routinely denounce any attempt at immigration reform as being “amnesty.” As Reason’s A. Barton Hinkle notes none of this seems consistent with their principles:
Republicans claim to favor free trade and limited government. Then they advocate massive federal spending increases to militarize the border. They start telling private businesses whom they can and cannot hire. They demand oppressive biometric national-ID systems so the authorities can keep a constant, watchful eye over everyone. And they demand the construction of giant walls to keep out people whose only offense is wanting to build a better life for themselves and their families.
Additionally, as Hinkle notes, it has been well-established for some time that immigration is a net plus for the economy:
Immigrants are a net gain: They are more likely to start a business. They are more likely to own a small business. And they are more likely to grow it into a large one: 40 percent of the founders of Fortune 500 companies are immigrants or their children.
Immigrant business owners employ nearly 5 million Americans.
Indeed, immigrant men are more likely to work in general: As a recent piece in National Affairs noted, “Among all men in the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 64, illegal immigrants are the most likely to be working. In 2009, for example, 93 percent of undocumented men participated in the labor force, compared to 86 percent of legal-immigrant men and 81 percent of native-born men.” Immigrant women, in the meantime, are more likely to stay home with the kids. Hence immigrant families are more likely to represent the traditional family values conservatives prefer than traditional American families themselves.
All of these things have been pointed out by conservative-leaning economists for generations, of course, and the civil liberties and limited government argument against many of the immigration control provisions that Republicans support seem to be self-evident. And yet, for reasons that don’t seem to make much sense from an ideological point of view, the hard right of the Republican Party has taken an adamant position against virtually any form of immigration reform, and certainly against anything that approaches offering the tens of millions of people in the country illegally some way to come out of the shadows, work in the regular economy, and becoming contributing members of society.
So what explains the seeming conservative inconsistency? Hinkle posits a few reasons:
Some of the objection is deontological: Rules are rules, after all, and we should not reward people for breaking them. You can see the sense in that: If an immigrant can ignore U.S. entry laws, then why not let him also ignore U.S. food-safety laws or environmental-protection laws? Do we enforce the laws that are on the books, or not?
(To that, there is an equally deontological reply: If someone wants to get a job, buy a house, purchase food and clothes and other consumer goods, and so on—and other people are happy to hire him and sell him things—what right does any third party have to interfere in those free and consensual exchanges?)
A second objection is more pragmatic and less virtuous: Letting illegal immigrants stay in the U.S. only encourages more illegal immigration. But this is a question-begging answer. Why is the arrival of more foreign nationals necessarily to be a bad thing? For decades the U.S. had no immigration restrictions whatsoever. For all intents and purposes, the country’s borders were open—and they stayed that way until the Chinese Exclusion Act. Even then, non-Asians enjoyed open U.S. borders until the 1920s.
Some conservatives make an even less elevated argument: Increasing immigration might increase the Democratic vote, leading the GOP to perpetual minority status. (Ann Coulter has been beating this particular drum lately.) But this is also a question-begging answer. It ignores the fact that, for instance, conservatives have won over immigrants in Canada. It also ignores a point columnist Shikha Dalmia has drawn out in Reason: Even well-off minority groups such as Indian-Americans and Jews lean Democratic in the U.S.—not because they harbor an inherent love for entitlements, but because of the GOP’s hostility to minorities.
Unstated in Hinkle’s list, of course, is the issue of race and ethnicity, which has been at the root of much opposition to immigration throughout American history. Many have hypothesized that if the illegal immigrants residing in the United States were from Europe instead of predominantly Mexico and Central America, that many on the right wouldn’t be quite so opposed to immigration reform. Unfortunately, I do think that there is some element of truth in that. In the end, though, I think that their opposition to changing our immigration laws and ending the absurd manner in which 11 million people are left to live in the shadows is rooted in the same “I’ve got mine, you get yours” attitude that has typified opposition to immigration in general throughout American history. However, if they really believed in free markets, smaller government, and individual liberties, conservatives would realize very quickly just how wrong their position on immigration reform actually is.
What principles are those? Once you get beyond “We hate Obama with the fury of 10,000 white hot suns”, it seems like these folks are driven purely by the expedience of the moment.
No kidding? Well, I’m glad you are willing to admit that, Doug.
You’re surprised conservatives have an “I’ve got mine, you’ve got yours” attitude? Isn’t that crucial to the conservative/libertarian worldview? Aren’t conservatives simply practicing “The Virtue of Selfishness?.”
Anyhow, the fact that the CHamber Of Commerce is pushing for immigration reform is indeed major. Looks like the conservative coalition is cracking up.
There are some EASY moves that can help with immigrations starting with:
#1. PERP WALK employers that HIRE ILLEGALS. Their jail time will help reduce the number of illegals being hired.
#2. Threaten immense immigration sweeps from all border states, make it sound like a big deal, threatening, impounding ALL property, cars money. Many illegals will self deport quickly.
#3. INCREASE the costs to send money to Mexico. It costs $4.95 to send money from Wal-Mart to Mexico… all other countries in the world? $9.95. Increase postage too.
#4. Make our freaking government workers WORK faster, be more productive in getting backgrounds checked and paperwork processed…it should NOT take 10 years. Couple this with
#5. CREATE A VIP LINE, for those who want to PAY US to come across, $5,000 and instant green card status. Why should coyotes benefit from taking these people across the desert in dangerous conditions. A million people paying US $5,0000 each is a LOT of money.
@stonetools:
No libertarian would support the right wing position on immigration, and Ayn Rand certainly didn’t.
Nice try though.
The Chamber of Commerce has been endorsing and shoveling money at GOP candidates who oppose immigration reform. Like the rest of Republicans, they are full of shit. If they wanted reform, they could support reform. This is bullshit lip service.
@Original Pechanga: As you quite obviously are not very well informed on the immigration process, some pointers. $5,000 gets you nothing in terms of immigration, that’s less than just the attorney fees for a simple regular green card. You can already buy “golden tickets” for some $500,000. Also, you might sweep the border states but won’t catch the majority of undocumented. Look at Georgia who tried that “get tough” approach, and had their fruit rot in the fields.
Lastly, all this “amnesty” crying does is make sure that the growing generation of US citizens (aka the children of the illegals, born in the US) will never touch the GOP with a 10 foot pole.
Every time I see the word “Comprehensive” on a government proposal I get nauseous. It is usually a catchword for larding the bill with enough extraneous crap to sink a battleship.
Immigration reform is a large problem made up of small problems. Unbundled, it should look like this:
1. Control the borders– first item of business .
2.Make illegal entry a felony not a misdemeanor.
3 Create a workable Migrant Farm Workers bill
4.Mandate strict employee ID requirements with heavy fines and/or jail for employers who flout the law.
5.Streamline the process for LEGAL applicants. Legal entry can sometimes take years.
6.Pass a DREAM Act of children innocently brought here but never grant full citizenship to the parents of such children.
7.Hold the largest countries of such migrants responsible for their own people. That Mexico and Central America cannot build a productive society is no reason to export their poor people to the U.S.
@Original Pechanga:
Why should employers be responsible for crimes commited by their employees? If I get drunk or rob one of my neighbors or beat my wife, no one would suggest my boss ought to be arrested as well.
‘
So basically you’re willing to live in a police state rather than risk living near a minority.
It doesn’t take ten years because of processing time. It take 10 years because of limits on the total number of people allowed to enter each year.
@Doug Mataconis: How much money had the Koch brothers, the same people that bankroll Reason, had funneled towards candidates that oppose immigration reform?
Just like with civil liberties, libertarian (the ones who have actual power), may the right ideals, but their priorities lay elsewhere.
@Doug Mataconis:
The problem is that adding millions of automatic Democratic voting poor, third world immigrants to the voter rosters will make having any form of libertarian policies harder. How can libertarians reconcile their position of supporting open borders and the free movement of people across borders with the left’s support of ethnicity-based set asides and affirmative action.
Any conservative or libertarian who support open borders and the free movement of people across borders is just supporting their own political extiction and for some stupid reason wants a future of higher taxes, bigger government, more social engineering, and a poorer quality of life.
@John425:
This is such a perfect comment someone should frame it.
First, there is the profound igorance: what, pray tell , is a government proposal? Last time I checked, comrehensive reform was a bill passed by one house of Congress, waiting for the other to act on it, just like the constitution says, not some proclamation issued by Obama onboard a UN helicopter.
Second, there is the fear of complexity.
Then, comes your own proposal for reform, which, whatever its other virtues, is actually extremely comprehensive.
To sum up things John likes are reasonable, complex proposals. Things he dislikes are bloated, possibly tyrannical monstrositie.
@John425:
1. Control the borders– first item of business .
Okay, we’re going to hike your taxes to pay for it and to compensate for the damage to the economy. Sound good?
2.Make illegal entry a felony not a misdemeanor.
Do we imprison them? More tax hikes to pay for it. Deport them? Tax hikes, plus why would they care what the charge is? The punishment is the same.
3 Create a workable Migrant Farm Workers bill
Define “workable.”
4.Mandate strict employee ID requirements with heavy fines and/or jail for employers who flout the law.
Enforcement! More taxes. Plus, jailing employers for trying to stay competitive will probably not play well with the money men.
5.Streamline the process for LEGAL applicants. Legal entry can sometimes take years.
It takes a long time because spots are limited. Streamlining means letting a lot more people in. Sound good? (It does to me).
6.Pass a DREAM Act of children innocently brought here but never grant full citizenship to the parents of such children.
You can stay, kiddo, but we’re deporting/imprisoning your parents. Good luck!
7.Hold the largest countries of such migrants responsible for their own people.
How, exactly?
That Mexico and Central America cannot build a productive society is no reason to export their poor people to the U.S.
Ah, just a dash of bigotry to top things off. Good work.
@superdestroyer: And that’s why the damn Irish and Italians and other not quite swarthy South Europeans keep on voting for that damn FDR and his party over and over and over again.
@superdestroyer: And that’s why the damn Irish and Italians and other swarthy South Europeans keep on voting for that damn FDR and his party over and over and over again and the native born Teutons and Anglo-Saxons who built this country can’t have their day in the sun.
@humanoid.panda:
Currently about 1/3 of Hispanics vote for Repulbicans. If comprehensive immigration reform is passed and President Obama has a Rose Garden signing ceremony surrounded by Latino activist and liberal Latino Democrats like Luis Guiterrez, the percentage will go down.
The Repubicans should ask themselves why they want to turn the U.S. into a one party state just to pander to a group that is never going to vote for them? Also, whatever the Chamber of Commerence thinks it is going to save with cheaper labor due to more poor immigrants will be lost on higher taxes, higher insurance premiums, and fewer middle class customers.
@mantis: Mantis- if I knew where you lived I would kick your ass for calling me a bigot. I have served my country along with men and women of every color and ethnicity and proud of it. It is closeted jerks like you who, having no plan of their own, resort to name calling. Enforcement? Higher taxes? No one is against them if they are necessary and honest. It is the blatant disregard by the left for laws they don’t want to enforce that creates lawlessness.
@mantis:
Whatever would be spent on enforcement is bound to be cheaper than the increased taxes due to open borders, more social welfare spending, more spending on public schools, higher insurance premiums, and the higher costs of living in a good neighborhood with good schools (to use Senator Warren’s phrase).
@superdestroyer: Currently, 70% of ethnics keep on voting Democratic. Why should the Republicans tamp down on prohibitionism and anti-Catholicism to cater to groups that will just keep on voting Democratic forever?
@superdestroyer: I presume you also believe that Social Security is a ponzy scheme because there are not enough young people to pay or the old right?
@John425:
What does this mean. Seriously, in a definable sense, what does a “controlled,” “secure,” or “whatever” border look like? How is it quantified? And who quantifies its success?
This is seriously the most BS point in the entire debate. Anyone who is “serious” about immigration know this. Securing the border (more than it presently is) is the code words for “we will never let immigration reform happen.”
Because if a “controlled” border means zero crossings, then you’ve set up an impossible standard. Further, I suspect that folks like you will never be satisfied with whatever agency decides that the border is controlled. I mean seriously, if the current executive branch (or any commanded by someone with a “D” after his or her name) was to certify that border “secure” would you believe it?
Again, define workable. Or better yet, tell us what’s unworkable about current proposals.
@John425:
Bullshit.
Considering that this country passed tax cuts during a period of war — I can’t think of a more necessary time to keep taxes flat at a minimum. And at least one party’s major candidates took a “no new tax pledge” during the last presidential election cycle.
In other words, saying that you’d be “ok” with a tax raise is absolute bullshit. Here’s proof define a “necessary and honest” tax increase. And while you are at it, define a government that you would trust enough to enact an honest tax increase.
Because from everything I’ve seen of your posts, I’m pretty sure you don’t have a particularly large amount of faith in the present government.
” If an immigrant can ignore U.S. entry laws, then why not let him also ignore U.S. food-safety laws or environmental-protection laws? ”
Well, we let connected Republican business owners do this, so why shouldn’t immigrants be able to as well?
Slowly…ever so sloooowly, after six years of race-baiting Obama it begins to dawn on people that hmmm, the GOP positions don’t make any sense unless you realize we’re dealing with racists and xenophobes and assorted bigots. Then, aha! And the nickel drops.
It could not have been more obvious. You understand so much more about politics if you look less at policy and public statements and more at human beings and their motives. My God, it’s painful to watch. This must be what it’s like for STEM folk watching me try to do math.
@John425:
if I knew where you lived I would kick your ass for calling me a bigot.
I live in Chicago. Are you on your way, despite the fact that I didn’t actually call you a bigot?
Anyway, what makes you think Mexicans and Central Americans are incapable of building “a productive society” then. Voodoo hexes?
It is closeted jerks like you
Closeted? I’m a mantis and proud!
having no plan of their own
There are several approaches I would like to see happen, but they, unlike yours, ackowledge the reality of our current situation and the real consequences of the measures enacted. Yours ignore monetary cost, human cost, and logistical realities. Yours imagines an inevitable police state whose enormous borders are constantly controlled at outrageous, neverending expense, thousands and thousands of employers are imprisoned, an army of enforcement officers patrols the land hunting for immigrant “felons” to deport/imprison, millions of families torn apart, and large scale damage to the economy. And for what, exactly? What is worth all that misery and expense, and who is going to pay for it?
resort to name calling.
Do you realize you called me a “closeted jerk” in that very same sentence? And that I called you no names?
Enforcement? Higher taxes? No one is against them if they are necessary and honest.
Oh you’re a comedian, now.
It is the blatant disregard by the left for laws they don’t want to enforce that creates lawlessness.
Liberals cause crime. Got it.
Whatever would be spent on enforcement is bound to be cheaper than the increased taxes due to open borders, more social welfare spending, more spending on public schools, higher insurance premiums, and the higher costs of living in a good neighborhood with good schools (to use Senator Warren’s phrase).
As was noted in the post on which you are commenting, “immigration is a net plus for the economy.” The cost of enforcing what you propose would economically destroy this country for no gain whatsoever.
@Doug Mataconis:
I think it was Milton Friedman who said that you can’t have open borders and a welfare state.
@Doug Mataconis: Irrespective of what libertarians and Beloved Saint Ayn would or would not support in principle, the results of her philosophy lead to the sort of zero sum thinking that results in opposition to immigration because those (fill-in your favorite slur, I like “WOPS”) are taking away “my opportunities.”
Good head fake, Doug, but no sale!
@John425: Yesterday, we had a commenter (who shall remain nameless) advocating that we should kill as many of the Nevada protesters as necessary to show them we mean business. Today John (who apparently names himself after a Bible verse–how’s that for ironic?) wants to kick some’s ass.
Doug, you’re going to have to stop blogging about some of these topics if they are inflaming the passions of the readership this way.
And commenters–keep it civil, okay!
That’s nice of you to acknowledge that the President isn’t part of the left, as deportations have increased under his administration…
@John425: One more thing. John, thank you for your service to this country, but who you served with has no bearing on bigotry. Bigotry has to do with identifying some faceless nameless group as “the others.” At the turn of the century, the others were the Micks and Wops and Polacks. Now they are “those people from Central America and Mexico.” When you identify people as other and say that they should be treated differently than you would want to be treated, you’ve become a bigot, no matter what your service record or beliefs about your neighbors (who these people certainly are not) says about what you have been.
Years ago, my father apparently walked into the office of the manager of the company that he worked for and said “I’m not working with any fisheyes!” On that day, he became a bigot. And the company let the new employee go, too.
@Stormy Dragon:
It is a crime to hire some one not in this country legally. I repeat, it is a crime.
@Pinky:
The last 30 years have shown what an idiot Friedman was.
The right is inconsistent on everything.
Obamacare is a Republican program for which zero Republicans voted.
Conservatism is ideology-free. Republicans are guided purely by ideology.
Strict Constitutionists make up stuff about the Constitution.
Paul Ryan is for small government but has spent his entire life at the government teet.
Republican fiscal hawks want to get rid of takers but excuse this clown Bundy who is the ultimate taker.
Intelligent people cannot vote Republican…it’s just not possible.
@humanoid.panda:
How does addings millions of people who will pay little if any income taxes, will consume more in school services than they will ever pay in property taxes, and who be eligible for a long list of government services help the long term budget situation. You may want to look at the fiscal situation in California to find out what happens when you replace middle class tax payers will cheap, third world immigrants: High taxes and endless budget problems.
@michael reynolds:
So the situation is either the conservatives support comprehensive immigration reform and destroy any chance of there being a conservative party in the U.S. or they come out against immigration reform, get labeled as racist, and slowly die from demographic changes.
If you have not noticed, the conservatives will lose on immigration no matter what they do and whatever policies they support: smaller government, lower taxes, more freedom will die with it. What is odd is that progressives are supporting a position on immigration that makes their own policy positions: higher real pay, smaller envrionmental foot print, better healthcare system, better schools harder to achieve.
Instead of thinking about immigration from the POV of conservatives maybe progressives should explain why they want to make achieving their own goals harder just so the U.S. can have more automatic Democratic Party voters. Is progressive’s hatred of conservative so much that they will intentionally derail their own policy goals just to spite Republicans?
@superdestroyer:
Now that Cali has gotten over failed Republucan economic theories…their economy is better than it’s been in a long time.
If you weren’t such a flaming bigot you might have a clue.
@superdestroyer:
1) Most Americans support a path to citizenship for people already here. That has no effect on the net number of aliens in the US. I support this because the alternatives are unworkable, cruel or both.
2) Like most Americans (and, I believe most Democrats) I support border enforcement, sanctions on employers, ID standardization with a national database to check status on workers. This of course would reduce the flow of undocumented workers.
See the problem with your “logic?” If I were in favor of flooding your neighborhood with the brown folk you dread, I would not support #2. Now, would I? You’re conflating libertarians and alleged conservatives with liberals. They’re the ones who philosophically favor open borders, not us.
I think immigration should be seen first and foremost as a business proposition. In other words: Dear Prospective Immigrant, what are you gonna do for us? We should also take genuine refugees, limited family members and those foreigners like some Afghans who have risked life and limb for us.
No open borders, no flood of terrifying brown folk, and it all has dick-all to do with voters because we at least understand that skin tone or native language do not define voting – unless of course racist morons like you insist on showing your contempt for everyone who is not exactly, precisely, like you. You make them into our voters. It’s idiots like you who are killing the GOP.
@John425:
big fvckng man behind a keyboard.
so scary.
so impressive.
so Christian.
@Just ‘nutha’ ig’rant cracker: So I gotta ask: What’s a fisheye?
@Just ‘nutha’ ig’rant cracker: What a moron! Breaking the law is not bigotry or slur on people. It is a question of law-abiding vs lawbreakers. So, yes, I treat lawbreakers differently. If you don’t then you truly live up to your screen name. I didn’t slur anybody. If you think that not holding a nation’s government responsible for the general welfare of it’s people then you surely are an ig’rant cracker.
@C. Clavin: Cliff Clavin…you surely live up to the expectations of your screen name. How’s life being an unemployed mail carrier these days?
You can’t make this shit up…
@michael reynolds:
Amnesty does affect the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. When Amnesty was passed in the 1980’s the number of illegal aliens increased. Letting the rest of the world know that they can come to the U.S. and eventually they will be made illegal will increase illegal immigration. Amnesty has been tried before and it was a failure. Yet, no one was ever apologized for that failure or explain what will ensure that the next amnesty will be any different.
Also, comprehensive immigration reform contains a provision to double the number of legal immigration to do the work that Americans are either too lazy, too stupid, or too indifferent to do. At a time of poor job growth and massive long term unemployment, the Chamber of Commence wants to increase the competition for the jobs that do exist. This would be the last thing that progressives want to support. And as Democrats gain more control, they will most definitely increase the number of legal immigrants.
The Democrats will never support any form of effective border security or employer enforcment. Look at how Democrats support sanctuary cities, the refusal of local police to work ICE, the hatred of asking for government ID. Look at how Democrats have pushed for driver’s licenses for illegal aliens based on no real documentation. The idea that the Democrats will ever support effective border and immigration enforcement in the long run when the short term benefits to public sector unions, big city mayors, and Democrats running for office are so huge.
The long term consequences of comprehensive immigration reform will be a shrinking middle class, more adverse environmental impact, higher taxes, and a dropping birthrates for American citizens. But I guess that is what progressives really want.
You’re right, Doug. The right’s position is inconsistent. Here they are, cheerfully opposing whatever liberals are for, updated daily, and what happens? The US Chamber of Commerce comes out for immigration reform. Now what’s a self respecting conservative to do? Concede that relaxed immigration is more a big business goal than liberal? But, but… that would mean doing something for minorities in the name of business. Heads will explode.
@superdestroyer:
Another Republican prediction…like the Bush/Clinton tax hikes that were going to destroy the economy…but led to the longest recession-free period in recent history.
Or marriage equality…which would lead to the downfall of civilization.
And then there are all the Republican Obamacare predictions…all of which have been proven wrong by time.
Based on their track record…if Republicans think immigration reform is bad…it’s probably the best thing we could do.
@John425:
A screen name is a screen name…at least I’m not threatening people from the safety of my mommies basement.
@mantis:
Disagree. The Chamber of Commerce wants as much immigration as possible – it keeps wages down. The Canadian equivalent has been pushing for various programs to bring in foreign workers for the same reason – they’ll work for much less and don’t demand (or often even know about) benefits.
Even talk of shortages of skilled workers is based on this; there are more than enough skilled workers (everything from electricians to electrical engineers) to fill all the posted jobs; what the business leaders want is much lower wages for skilled workers, and the path there is through immigration, as much as you can get.
@george:
The Chamber of Commerce wants as much immigration as possible
I’m not saying they don’t want it. I’m saying they don’t want it more than the corporate welfare, tax breaks, and elimination of regulation that Republicans promise. There is no seriousness in their position on immigration, or they would support pro-reform candidates and reject anti-reform ones. In short, they would like immigration reform, but not at the expense of all the other goodies they want.
“Some of the objection is deontological: Rules are rules, after all, and we should not reward people for breaking them. You can see the sense in that: If an immigrant can ignore U.S. entry laws, then why not let him also ignore U.S. food-safety laws or environmental-protection laws? Do we enforce the laws that are on the books, or not?”
None of the objections are deontological. The right has no problems with breaking any and all laws and moral principles, for right-wing goals. For example, Bundy is a hero, despite (1) getting lavish subsidies for his business, (2) refusing to pay even the small, subsidized fees, (3) illegally threatening police and government officials for attempting to enforce the laws, (4) being a traitor to the United States[1] , (5) getting benefits from the United States government, (6) breaking state law, and (7) harboring people who are attempting to do the same.
[1] If he was a liberal saying that he didn’t recognize the government of the USA, right-wingers would call him a traitor, so it’s fair.
@superdestroyer:
The same way it helped when those people were Irish, Italian, Polish, Ashkenazic Jews of all nationalities, and so forth. Duh.
DIdn’t you read the article? These people are more productive, on average, than native-born Americans — if you give them a couple of generations to get going. They would be even more productive than that if you let them do it openly, rather than having to hide from the Opportunity Police for fear of deportation.
If you have a reason to believe that the mechanism that has always worked in the past cannot continue to work, let’s hear it.
@Doug Mataconis:
So Ayn Rand got it right on immigration? Glad to see she is right on something;-).
Anyhow, the Chamber of Commerce’s position is interesting because it shows how supporting the politics of racial resentment can come back to bite you in the @rse.
Back in 2009, big business interests were happy to pour money into a new venture called the Tea Party. Now the Tea Party was animated by racial resentment. Oh, they dressed it up in tricornered hats and rhetoric about low taxes and limited government, but at bottom it was about “Keep that black man in the White House from taking my money-including my benefits-and giving it to those folks.”
Now big business was fine with the Tea Party so long as it could channel its animus toward fighting higher taxes and more business regulation. Unfortunately, that racial resentment boiled over the channel and rose up against immigration reform.
The C of C favors immigration reform, not because of “limited government, etc, etc,” but because it loves a reliable source of cheap labor. Those tomatoes and avocados aren’t going to pick themselves, after all and Big Ag needs its farm workers. Similarly Walmart needs its warehouse workers and at the other end, Silicon Valley likes to import that cheap coding talent from eastern Europe and South Asia. The Tea Party folks, however, fiercely opposes letting the browns and this position is now a major plank of Tea Party ideology
The C of C has in effect financed the monster that’s blocking the legislation that would assure regular access to cheap labor. I would say “Serves them right” but unfortunately, the present situation blights the lives of millions of people. There isn’t any easy solution, unfortunately, because the big Tea Party contingent have been gerrymandered into the safest districts and are thus impervious to persuasion or even threat of primary challenge-except from people even more extreme. Well done, folks.
@michael reynolds:
Of course, many conservatives hate the idea of national ID standardization because that might bring in the World Government predicted in Revelation and might also be applied against their unrestricted FREEDUMB to have GUNZ. Its a conundrum-being a consistent conservative.
Is that supposed to be an argument in favor of immigration reform? It sounds like the last thing we should do is move people from undocumented to documented status, at least based on that passage.
@superdestroyer:
The previous amnesty – under Saint Ronnie O’Reagan – never followed up with border enforcement or serious employer sanctions or a national ID system.
Why didn’t it do those things? Because the GOP is schizo. They want cheap, easily-exploited labor, but they also want to despise people of color. Which brings us back to the original post.
Border enforcement under Mr. Obama has been far more rigorous than under previous presidents because he knows that to get to any rational immigration policy we have to have that piece in place.
But you need to cut the bullsh!t You don’t want a solution. You’re a Strom Fronter looking to promote white panic. That’s your issue. So why waste time pretending to care about anything more complex?
@C. Clavin: No, you’re hiding behind her skirt.
@John425:
Why don’t you just admit that you are a huge pu$$y…seriously…threatening anyone from the safety of your keyboard? What a big man.
But, I mean…if turning your insecurities on me helps you assuage them…then fine.
But I think you would be better off admitting to yourself that you are a coward…and dealing with that in as self-aware a manner as you can muster.
I had to google it, but John 4:25 basically says “I have no clue until Jesus comes and explains it to me”. And as Jesus hasn’t come by lately, John is left clueless. Rarely seen such an apt choice of screen name.
@John425: You lay out a series of policies, and someone responds by calling you names. And you’re surprised by that? Dude, welcome to the internet. This isn’t even the worst corner of it (although it has some of its worst representatives).
@Pinky:
No one called him anything…merely pointed out the bigoted nature of his comment…until he then threatened that person with violence from the safety of his computer keyboard.
@mantis:
@John425:
But the fact that you defend such craven threats…speaks volumes about you and what you represent.
@Pinky:
You lay out a series of policies, and someone responds by calling you names.
Again, I did not call him any names. I responded to his policy prescriptions individually. In response he called me names, ignored most of my comment, declined to answer any questions posed, and basically posted a laughably unserious rebuttal, complete with super-manly proposals of physical violence.
@mantis: OK, fine. You’re right. There’s a difference between calling someone’s comments bigoted and calling him a bigot. The latter is more personal.
@Pinky:
But the difference between making pusillanimous threats and defending them? Not so great.
@Pinky:
Actually he didn’t lay out policies in any meaningful sense. Which was what a number of us (who John has largely ignored) pointed out.
“Securing the border” is not a policy, it’s a cliche. To make it a policy, you need to actually get into the real work like:
1. How do you define a secured border.
2. What steps are needed to secure the border.
3. How do you quantitatively measure/certify that the border is secure.
4. Who certifies the border status.
Using “securing the border” (or whatever language John used) as your starting point is a great way to ensure that immigration reform never happens (for all the reasons I and others documented above).
@Pinky:
And I’m willing to accept that he did not mean it in a bigoted way, if he would explain why he thinks Mexico and Central America “cannot build a productive society,” but he declined to answer that or any other question I posed. He chose instead to engage in substance-free, childish insult trading, which is amusing considering his whining about name-calling that didn’t happen.
@John425: We’re just demonstrating the hypocrisy and illogic in your statements.
@mantis: Well, Mexico’s GDP per capita is around 40% of ours. Never assume bias when the stated position conforms to reality.
@Pinky:
So because a country’s economy is not as strong as the US, they are incapable of building “a productive society?” Do explain.
@mantis: Was I wrong to assume that he meant “productive” in an economic sense?
@mantis:
No no, you miss the beautiful consistency of the Republican vision here. It’s a perfect syllogism:
1. Government is bad, and the US government never does anything right
2. The US is much more affluent, productive, and pleasant to live in than Mexico
Therefore
3. Mexicans must be inherently incapable, because otherwise we would have to attribute the difference to our government, which would interfere with our agenda of trying to neuter it.
@ Pinky
If you cherry pick GDP stats, you can make Mexico’s economy look less productive than it is. I guess that makes sense if you are looking for conformation bias. The primary driver for their low GDP per capita (as opposed to their high GDP – purchasing power parity) is terrible income inequity, which is, after all, a rapidly growing problem right here in the USA.
The CIA notes:
###
Mexico’s GDP (ppp) is greater than that of South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, and Israel. No, their economy is neither as large or as powerful as ours. But that by no means makes them an economic failure. Their GDP (ppp) ranks above a number of advanced European and Asian states.
If you are arguing that Mexico is somehow “non-productive” you are going to have to present a much more compelling argument than you have so far.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html
@Pinky:
Was I wrong to assume that he meant “productive” in an economic sense?
Why don’t you ask him? In any case, Mexico has the 14th largest economy in the world (10th in purchasing power parity) and had 3.9% GDP growth in 2012 (well above US growth). To claim they are not economically productive, as john425 did, is just stupid and plainly wrong. To claim they are not productive because their economy is not as strong as the #1 economy in the world, as you did, is only marginally less dumb. By your metric no country is productive because they are not as productive as the US. It’s kind of like saying that because Dallas lost in the first round of playoffs, nobody on their team knows how to play basketball.
So please, again, tell us how john425’s assertion that such countries are incapable of being productive (yes, economically) is reflected in “reality.” Try thinking about your answer before posting this time. That can be a useful trick, I’ve found.
@ mantis
I see you went down the same path I did. I’m surprised Mexico does not get more respect from the right. After all, they have already achieved what many conservatives aspire to – a country where a tiny fraction of the population owns almost everything, and everyone else fights for crumbs.
Clearly, Mexico’s problem is not building a productive society, it is building an equitable one – something that should give every thoughtful American pause for sober reflection.
@michael reynolds:
Everyone would like a solution. However adopting a solution that turns the U.S into a one party state with high taxes, more sprawl, and poorer quality of life should not be the only choice.
Just as the idiot Republicans skipped on enforcement and border control, everyone, including progressives, know that the Democrats will skip on enforcement and border control once comprehensive immigration reform is passed. Since the Democrats are so open about how demographic changes will make the U.S. a one party state, anyone who believes that the Democrats will maintain border enforcement or ever truly adopt employer enforcement is an idiot.
Progressives who want open borders should be thankful that given current demographic trends they will eventually get what they want. Then the only question will be what will the U.S. be like after it experiences such massive demographic changes. The best guest currently seems to be that the U.S. will become very similar to Brazil.
@superdestroyer:
You persist in being blithely oblivious to the fact that THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. We call the result “these United States”. The massive demographic changes reduced English colonials to a minority of the population long ago. We are more German than English these days. If we become more Latino than German someday, why is that bad?
I repeat — if you have a substantive argument for why the result will be undesirable this time, despite the fact that historically it is the very reason for our international dominance, I invite you to make it explicit.
“1. How do you define a secured border.”
Any border without a fence is by nature secure. Clearly, no one cares if you cross there, to say nothing of any incessant loitering. No barbed wire, no electrified fences with handy “tinkle here” signs, no ULTRA-SWAT teams making ULTRA-profits amid a senseless drug war, no packs of vicious search dogs, and no Sheriff Joe.
Sounds like a slice of heaven, if you can stand the summer heat. Anyone presently rich would not be so much as a dime less so as a result. Always the opposite with the rich, pretty much no matter what.
@anjin-san: You are confusing conservatives with your desire for commissars. Only the left want the few to own–and rule.
@Mu: Automatically assuming my screen name is a biblical reference shows how foolishly you assume things not in evidence.. For the record–John is my first name and my area code is 425.
@ John425
Yes, when I am not busy working for entrepreneurs, I am daydreaming about the coming rise of the commissars.
Whatever you are smoking, you should probably stop…
@MarkedMan: A “knee guard.” Other epithets include “goggle eye,” “google eye” and the ever popular “sambo” (who in a bygone era had a restaurant named after him–good pancakes!).
@John425: Thank you for showing us the high road here. Your contributions are greatly appreciated.
@John425: Thank you for clearing that up. I (not Mu) really did think it was a Biblical reference. It slipped my mind that the area code of one of the plastic suburbs of Seattle was 425. My mistake…
@Just ‘nutha’ ig’rant cracker: By the way, John, you name called the wrong person in your comment to Mu. He or she deserves an apology–man up and do it!
Come On,
Who actually believes this crap (aka as this article). “Hmmm my name is Doug and I’m going to use some of the weakest arguments when it comes to opposing immigration reform so I can use even weaker counterarguments to prove absolutely nothing. And I get paid to do this!”
I now understand why we have the idiotic politicians, we do. It because, not only do we have people writing articles like this substantive lacking propaganda B.S, but we also have people defending it. I am tempted to refute this article into the dirt but I’m sure it would be lost on the majority of this crowd.
ComeOn
@John425: That’s funny. John 4:25 would be an odd verse to use as a calling card.
With the lone exception of this right winger:
@ComeOn: Okay, I’m on the edge of my seat waiting to hear the better arguments.
In my opinion, the ideal immigration policy is inscribed in our Statue of Liberty: Give us your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. There’s only one good reason for having a policy any stricter than “keep out fugitives and people with rare contagious diseases”: the additional cost to the welfare state.
I respect the libertarian position here even more than the one espoused by elected Democrats, with whom I otherwise agree on almost everything. Libertarians, like Republicans, believe in dismantling the welfare state simultaneously to opening borders, so they’re both internally consistent and refreshingly supportive of civil rights in this area. I just happen to disagree with their economics. (I think we can have the cake and eat it too, here.)
The Republicans, on the other hand, have nothing. They’re in a weird position of saying no to welfare, but at the same time convincing us all that bringing in more of Them means less stuff for Us, as if it were the same zero-sum game they accuse liberals of believing when Them is the rich and Us is the poor and middle class. Republicans actually endorse outrageous arguments like “They take jobs from Americans”, even while otherwise making the capitalist argument that no one is really owed a job, and if someone underbids you for it they didn’t “steal” it.
Interestingly, in a lot of social-democratic countries, the welfare argument that I respect while not myself holding is in fact employed by some of the more liberal factions: “We’d love to take in more people, but we can’t afford to give them free healthcare if they haven’t paid us taxes their whole lives.” Yet the outright anti-immigrant sentiment is still usually associated with the more right-wing parties, as with white European suspicions of immigrant Muslims.
I’m not aware of any country in the world where the right wing actually follows the logic of this article, embracing totally-open immigration as a obvious element of a truly free market. And I’m not entirely sure why that should be the case, since it’s not like American racial politics should apply worldwide.
Yeah, by all means, let’s reward people who have broken our laws. That’s surely a Republican/Conservative position.
Good grief.
@William Teach:
It certainly seems to be, at least when those scofflaws are CEOs.
That’s the disconnect here. Republicans can’t plausibly take this “breaking even bad laws is unacceptable” stance while at the same time averting their eyes from the silk collar shenanigans that have ravaged our economy three (or was it four?) times in the last decade. When you get serious about not rewarding the really dangerous crooks, I’ll believe it’s about law and order, and not about xenophobia.
@William Teach:
*Cough* Current conserva-gasm over Mr. Cliven Bundy and his *illegal grazing* which continues despite numerous court rulings against him *Cough*
BTW, it seems, based on this article you wrote that you have some sympathy for Mr. Bundy. So some law breaking is allowed (provided it’s the right people doing it).
But I get it, that’s *bad enforcement* of a *bad law* in that case.