Green Room

Re: Shifting on immigration

posted at 7:07 pm on November 13, 2012 by

Earlier today, Ed published a widely acclaimed, err.. positively debated, um… frequently commented upon post titled, Time to cut a deal on immigration As one might imagine, this elicited some rather passionate responses on both sides. (Okay… mostly on one side.) But he’s bringing up something important where a distinction needs to be drawn between what is immediately possible and what the future holds. It’s an important definition to establish in the discussion. First, let’s look at what Ed was actually talking about.

Frankly, I’m more concerned about the border issue than winning Hispanic voters at this point. We’ve been fortunate so far that we haven’t had more infiltration than we’ve seen across either border, but that good fortune won’t last forever. We need to address both that and the visa system that doesn’t produce any follow-up on violators. We have waited since 2007 to win back control of Washington to win a solution on our terms rather than a compromise that would both pass more quickly and spread the political risk.

Now that we’ve lost the presidential election, we won’t have that opportunity for another four years. We still have the House, though, and that gives us leverage to insist on prioritizing border security and visa reform ahead of normalization for those illegal aliens in the US. In two years, on the current trajectory, we may not even have that much, and there is no guarantee that a Republican will win the presidency in 2016, either.

This is the short term, “take what you can get” approach which may turn out to be the best damage control achievable. If the nation is in the mood for some hot and heavy bipartisan horse trading, the door may well be open to precisely what Ed proposes. An intelligent approach to border security could arrive along with a fresh look at the dreaded “path to citizenship” which so many find offensive. But if the second point I want to touch on tonight is valid, it may be well to remember the old adage about half a loaf being better than none.

In the long run, while Ed pretty much dismissed the question of whether or not the GOP should – or even can – win a significantly larger portion of the Latino vote, it’s a serious question for the future. And I’m not talking about the distant future. I’m referring to 2016 and who knows how long after that. Is changing the GOP platform on immigration likely to yield a bountiful harvest of votes?

My gut reaction is not only no, but heck no. Had the GOP pushed forward some candidates and party leaders in the Spring and Summer of this year with a modified, balanced message on this subject it might have made significant inroads. But when you come crawling away from an electoral beat down and suddenly say, “Oh, I guess we should start supporting immigration reform since we got our butts kicked” I don’t think you’re going to win over many Latino voters. In fact, I’d expect they would rightly see it as patronizing and phony. That’s not moving any votes, nor should it.

But then what to do? I think you have to ask yourself the following question. Do you accept that the GOP really is the “party of white people” and that racial divisions in the nation’s political DNA are not only real, but so permanent that minorities will forever vote for Democrats in titanic proportions? Because if you do believe that, then demographic trends should tell you that it’s time to pack up the Republican Party in its old kit bag and send it out into the sunset. President Obama didn’t even take 40% of the white vote last week and he still won. That party is over… pun intended.

But what to do about the fact that minority voters DO in fact currently vote for Democrats in massive proportions? The reality is that just putting up a few candidates or high profile, well paid pundits of color to represent the popularity of Republicans isn’t going to move the needle in any substantive way. You don’t need more minorities being elected or hired as “Conservative entertainment industry” stars. You need more real people who go out and vote and who speak for conservative principles in their community. Electing another Allen West or Ted Cruz isn’t going to change the flow of that tide one bit.

How does that get fixed? Come up with that answer and you’ll probably be famous overnight.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

You don’t fix it, you crash it. Libertarians should Galt… Christians should go Benedict

We live in “post-america” already… just acknowledge it. Quit identifying with the system. Fighting the inevitable will only make it worse and will give justification to the system. Hope is Hurtful.

America is no longer a people but a population. It won’t survive the transition.

ninjapirate on November 13, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Ed should get a Nobel Peace Prize for that article.

/ Ed may a squish, but he’s our squish

faraway on November 13, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Reagan won 37% of Hispanic vote in 1984
Reagan did Amnesty in 1986
Bush I won 30% of Hispanic vote in 1988

So AFTER a Republican Amnesty of 1986, Republicans lost 7% of Hispanic vote 2 years later in 1988.

portlandon on November 13, 2012 at 7:23 PM

I don’t think you’re going to win over many Latino voters. In fact, I’d expect they would rightly see it as patronizing and phony. That’s not moving any votes, nor should it.

More to the point, you can’t outflank a liberal on his left.

Allow amnesty and they’ll insist on welfare. Allow welfare and they’ll insist on voting rights. Allow voting rights and (in addition to having irrevocably lost the country forever) they’ll promote racial payouts.

It’s the same reason that there is no, nor has ever been, a serious “outreach” (whatever that means) to blacks. When your opponent has indicated that they’re willing to shift all the way to slavery reparation payouts, there is no room for headway.

The GOP ought to promote integration. A few million dollars of English lessons could save a few trillion dollars of Democratic rule.

In the meantime, solace for the future can be found in the fact that racial polarization perforce goes two ways. Republicans are the party of whites, but the harder the Democrats pander, the more likely it is that whites will become the race of Republicans. This won’t be to the same extent that minorities are Democrats, but the size of the white vote for the near future means that it doesn’t need to be.

HitNRun on November 13, 2012 at 7:26 PM

Counter-argument to this half of the deal by the numbers, specifically the Republican Presidential candidate share of the Hispanic vote:

1984 – 34%
1988 (after Amnesty 1.0 passed) – 30%
2000 (the return of social conservatism to the GOP fore; Bush had not yet made his amnesty pledge) – 35%
2004 (amnesty + social conservatism push) – 44%
2008 (amnesty push only) – 31%
2012 (no amnesty or social conservatism) – 27%

Tell me again how the Pundit-Consultant Class plan of social liberalism and amnesty is going to work for the GOP.

Steve Eggleston on November 13, 2012 at 7:46 PM

portlandon on November 13, 2012 at 7:23 PM

My source (UConn’s Roper Center, site currently down) had the 1984 share at 34%.

Steve Eggleston on November 13, 2012 at 7:48 PM

portlandon on November 13, 2012 at 7:23 PM

The Roper Center’s site is back up, and the 37% Hispanic vote was from 1980.

Steve Eggleston on November 13, 2012 at 7:50 PM

I don’t think you’re going to win over many Latino voters. In fact, I’d expect they would rightly see it as patronizing and phony.

But saying “vote for us and we’ll allow your countrymen to flaunt our laws and we’ll not only look the other way, we’ll give them amnesty” isn’t patronizing? Assuming there is no way they can navigate the immigration system legally isn’t patronizing?

Basically what the pro-amnesty crowd is saying is if you can get enough people to break the law long enough by looking the other way when the law is broken you can create a situation that can no longer be properly policed so you have to give in and reward the illegal behavior thus encouraging more of it in the future. And as a bonus, you can make the pro enforcement crowd look bad. So what other laws should we just look the other way for? Maybe when Republicans get back in power, we can all just stop paying taxes and the politicians will ignore it. We can talk about all the people who can’t buy new cars or new clothes or pay their bills because they have to pay their taxes and how can the pro-tax people be so mean.

hopeful on November 13, 2012 at 7:53 PM

The salvation for the GOP is to become the party of the middle class voter (small business owners and generally the middle class). It needs to spend a lot less time listening to Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

bw222 on November 13, 2012 at 7:59 PM

The salvation for the GOP is to become the party of the middle class voter (small business owners and generally the middle class). It needs to spend a lot less time listening to Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

bw222 on November 13, 2012 at 7:59 PM

I presume you have a plan for that. No, I’m not being sarcastic; I just don’t know how the GOP is going to reach a demographic that will be equal parts squeezed into a permanent minority and extinct by mid-2016, while the already-rich and their useful-idiot underclass make up the majority.

Steve Eggleston on November 13, 2012 at 8:04 PM

You’re never going to get “border security”. There is too much $$$ involved with hiring cheap labor and even more $$$ involved signing them up to vote themselves government assistance.

It’s government-sanctioned corruption with many rich players benefiting and the middle class dealing with the social chaos and footing the bill.

The salvation for the GOP is to become the party of the middle class voter (small business owners and generally the middle class). It needs to spend a lot less time listening to Karl Rove, Ed Gillespie and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

bw222 on November 13, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Indeed.

Punchenko on November 13, 2012 at 8:11 PM

It can be fixed. The GOP needs to put some organizational strength and resources into supporting efforts by minorities to fight the Democrat/liberal/union machine that rules their lives to their eternal detriment. Education is an obvious example, where to be sure, there have been some good Republican efforts, just not nearly enough. Breaking up the monopoly that teacher’s unions have on the education of our youth should be job number one in securing a long-term future for the GOP and conservatism. Allowing them to consign generation after generation to a future mired in ignorance and illiteracy is unconscionable. Minority parents have been fighting with teacher’s unions for better school choices for years now. The GOP should be all over that, pushing them over the top whenever possible.

Bush tried to make some inroads into minority communities through the faith-based initiative, and it’s a good idea. Whenever the GOP gets power, they should attempt to redirect social welfare funds away from government and Democrat-aligned nonprofits towards for profit and/or faith-based organizations that can do the same things, often much more effectively and efficiently. The GOP should attempt to help those kinds of groups to organize themselves to be able to advocate for a greater share of funds being sent by government to supposedly help their communities. They should help connect Chamber of Commerce-types and minority advocates for economic development.

There’s a huge natural rift between the global warming fanatics and minorities who actually want jobs and business opportunities, instead of government benefits. The GOP needs to find ways to stake minorities in the outcomes of these debates. If there are jobs to be had in energy, make sure that they are advertised in minority communities, even if they are thousands of miles away. No, I’m not saying establish quotas, but just try to be proactive in getting the word out. A number of red states are hiring; those minorities who really do want to work should at least be made aware of it.

I really don’t understand what the GOP gets out of joining with Democrats to support the drug war. It’s a huge impetus to ever bigger government. Rights are curtailed. Police activity concentrates on secret, voluntary commercial transactions. There’s no evidence that it’s any more successful than any other failed big government attempt to control and regulate people’s lives. Why doesn’t the GOP get on the other side of the debate, and call for an end to it? Why don’t we go back to focusing on traditional common law crimes that are inherently wrong, instead of having a zillions statutory crimes that nobody even knows what they are until they find themselves facing charges? The Democrats go against their own core supporters on the drug war, because they don’t know anything about trusting people to be responsible for their own lives. It’s against their very nature.

I could go on, but you get the picture. Find rifts in the Democrat coalition and exploit them, especially where one side of the rift lines up ideologically with conservatism. Find ways to enlarge the number of people from minority backgrounds who have a financial stake in the success of the GOP. Engage. Fight.

Progressive Heretic on November 13, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Solution:

1. Control the borders.

2. Give the illegal immigrants who are already here work permits only that must be renewed every 5 years but most importantly they will NEVER BE ALLOWED BY LAW TO BECOME US CITIZENS.

mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM

I say a discussion should start about why the mexicans continue to accept the underclass role in Democrat Party rule.
Why is there not a ‘Si se Puede Party’?
Why should their leaders not assume their rightful role as power brokers – like the swing vote on Survivor?

If they are ver going to “take back” Aztlan, they need to move off the Marxist plantation.

HammerNH on November 13, 2012 at 11:36 PM

ver = ever

HammerNH on November 13, 2012 at 11:37 PM

We live in “post-america” already… just acknowledge it. Quit identifying with the system. Fighting the inevitable will only make it worse and will give justification to the system. Hope is Hurtful.

America is no longer a people but a population. It won’t survive the transition.

ninjapirate on November 13, 2012 at 7:16 PM

I learned here that there can be no true despair without hope. So, as I terrorize Gotham, I will feed its people hope to poison their souls. I will let them believe they can survive so that you can watch them clamoring over each other to “stay in the sun. – Bane, The Dark Knight Rises

thebrokenrattle on November 14, 2012 at 1:06 AM

“But then what to do? I think you have to ask yourself the following question. Do you accept that the GOP really is the “party of white people” and that racial divisions in the nation’s political DNA are not only real, but so permanent that minorities will forever vote for Democrats in titanic proportions?”

It is what it is. I would not have wanted to create a racial fight like that, but mass immigration has created it, and it’s prudent to deal with it and honest to face it.

“Because if you do believe that, then demographic trends should tell you that it’s time to pack up the Republican Party in its old kit bag and send it out into the sunset.”

Wrong.

And it’s odd how the pundits switched instantly from treating the issue as nonexistent (therefore do nothing for the White people threatened by mass immigration, because there’s no need) to saying suddenly it’s so bad it’s hopeless (therefore do nothing for White people threatened by mass immigration, because it’s too late).

“President Obama didn’t even take 40% of the white vote last week and he still won. That party is over… pun intended.”

The present situation is the worst of both worlds: the demographic situation has become threatening, so there are extra votes for anti-White policies, but the establishment runs purely on money issues of most interests to rich people; it refuses to engage the Whites who have an interest in stopping mass immigration and ending affirmative action, so it doesn’t get the rallying effect which is the potential good side of the situation.

A narrow, dispiriting, irrelevant campaign kept a lot of White folks at home, resulting in a needlessly lost election.

Man is more than a wallet, even if the Republican establishment doesn’t know it. The pure “economic man” approach failed, not White people.

If the party runs on remedying anti-White policies like affirmative action and mass immigration it will give more people than plutocrats a chance to vote their self-interest by voting Republican, and it’s game on again.

David Blue on November 14, 2012 at 2:41 AM

Solution:
1. Control the borders.
2. Give the illegal immigrants who are already here work permits only that must be renewed every 5 years but most importantly they will NEVER BE ALLOWED BY LAW TO BECOME US CITIZENS.
mnjg on November 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM

THIS!!!

And they can not renew their visa if they have collected any welfare type of subsistence. Exception would be unemployment since that is employer based funding.

We have to eliminate anchor baby and all that entails with any immigration reform.

karenhasfreedom on November 14, 2012 at 3:08 AM

This is what happens when you believe the federal government exists to do things for people. You sit around and think of things for federal government to do to win votes. Federal government exists to provide a framework for the states to govern themselves and present a unified voice in international affairs. That is all.

tdarrington on November 14, 2012 at 7:47 AM

I predict the day will come when the black and brown people will replace the “white devil” with each other. When Latinos can elect their own ethnic Pols on a regular basis with no help from blacks then what?

Is an entity that sees itself as La Raza going to be cowed by the CBC and Al Sharpton? I don’t think so. And when the conversation is about spending their money instead of whites…Well I’m thinking there really isn’t a Spanish version of Kumbaya.

bluesdoc70 on November 14, 2012 at 8:22 AM

Securing the border shouldn’t be contingent on anything. I don’t want to hear a damn thing about granting amnesty to anyone until that border is secured.

Look, it is very sad to see once beautiful areas in the southwest, for example, now resemble Third World slums. Some people might want to make this into a racial thing, but it is more about Mexico dumping its poor, unskilled population on us. Consider communities of Taiwanese or Korean immigrants in Southern California; these areas are often known for excellent schools, high home values and other desirable attributes. You see, there is a reason why we have immigration laws and encourage immigration from other countries under a certain set of rules. We want to make sure the people coming here have the skills we need, are not going to be a burden on the states, etc.

We should not believe any promises from politicians that the border will be secured if we go along with another wave of amnesty now. We should believe it only when we see it.
As for granting citizenship to illegal aliens: NEVER. Most of us can support some kind of legal recognition or guestworker program or whatever, but people who enter this country illegally should never be granted citizenship, not now, not 25 years from now, and not ever. What about all of the people waiting in line for their green cards and paying all kinds of legal fees in order to remain in this country through proper means? It is simply not right to let one group of people leapfrog ahead of everyone else.

What makes this all so sick is that people are trying to force us to go along with amnesty, not because it is the right thing to do necessarily, but because they are trying to win the votes of people who will never support the Republican Party in large numbers anyway, for a variety of other reasons.

bluegill on November 14, 2012 at 9:01 AM

Had the GOP pushed forward some candidates and party leaders in the Spring and Summer of this year with a modified, balanced message on this subject it might have made significant inroads.

This is total BS. Exit polls showed that it wasn’t immigration that made hispanics decide to vote overwhelmingly for Obama, it was his left-wing economic policies. Only like 7% who voted for him said their main concern was immigration. And even if it was, you really think that pandering is the answer to Republican political problems? To allow millions of people who broke the law to skip in line ahead of the millions who have been diligently waiting for decades to get here?

updog on November 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM

What is the goal with Hispanics/Latinos? Their votes or their hearts and minds? It can be both, but bowing down and signing a bill granting amnesty for those who flouted our laws and our human right of self-determination as a nation of people, will accomplish one thing and one thing only: The first step on the path to open borders – an avowed goal of the left.

I for one will not vote with a party who so easily betrays its own supposedly closely held values.

Besides, if we believe what we say about why we are conservatives, then the problem is that the other side is simply wrong, and immorally so, about many things – including illegal immigration being acceptable.

Rationalize all you want, if we adopt piecemeal the values of those we believe are wrong, we have lost. And so has America.

DrDeano on November 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM

As usual, good analysis, HitnRun.

Not that I expect lightning bolts of novel wisdom from Ed or other bloggers on a daily basis – they are smart people, but the world isn’t as complicated as most smart people try to make it – but yesterday’s immigration thing was embarrassingly bad.

Nothing the GOP can do on illegal immigration will move the needle with their vote share. Period. And obvious.

Physically securing the southern border is the sine qua non of restoring order and rule of law in immigration. Period. And obvious.

ANY sort of deal regarding illegal aliens already here that takes place before or without the border being secured results in additional, or continued, illegal entry. Period. Only factor that matters will be macroeconomic conditions (job availability).

ALL temporizing moves (“tough” employer enforcement, Rube Goldberg-like quasi-amnesty paths to whatever, etc.) are essentially meaningless, as they can be switched off in a week with one memo or EO – or as previously never really undertaken to start with – while a secure border would be harder to change. Remember – today’s “America” lacks a few things in its public life: good faith, a press, an attentive and intelligent and responsible and honorable populace, and a serious and courageous political class. Lacking all that, there really is no way ahead. Just more of the chaos, idiocy, and ruination that we’ve had for decades.

IceCold on November 14, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Consider communities of Taiwanese or Korean immigrants in Southern California; these areas are often known for excellent schools, high home values and other desirable attributes.

I take it you have never been to Garden Grove, CA or areas outside downtown LA with huge Korean populations? Yes, there ARE areas that high populations of Asians and hold higher home values, etc. (such as Irvine, CA) but there are slums of all ethnicities. To pit races against each other as one being superior over the other is what the dems do. Let’s not do it here. Besides it being anti-Republican, it is anti-Christian. Rights are endowed by our creator, and are not given by ethnicity.

tammyloc on November 14, 2012 at 12:19 PM