Tuesday, November 20, 2012

Republican Amnesty Fantasy

The two major camps of the Republican Establishment are roughly represented by the editorial boards of the WSJ and NRO, the former representing crony capitalist Big Business, the latter the Neocon wing. Most times they are aligned with one another, but every once in a while they find themselves at odds with each other. Even so, I was somewhat surprised to see this piece by NRO's Richard Lowry criticising the WSJ-inspired hispandering on the part of the GOP. The subject: the GOP's ongoing, two-decade long Sysiphean effort to out-dem Dems in the battle for the hearts and minds of culturally big-government Hispanics:
According to Census Bureau data, among native-born Hispanics, 50 percent of all households with children are headed by unmarried mothers. About 40 percent of all households receive benefits from a major welfare program. This doesn't mean that the GOP shouldn't try to
appeal to persons in these households. It does mean that they aren't natural Republican voters.

Latinos tend to have liberal attitudes toward government. Take health care. An ImpreMedia/Latino Decisions poll of Latinos conducted on the eve of the election found that 61 percent of Latinos supported leaving Obamacare in place. Sixty-six percent believed government should ensure access to health insurance. This might have something to do with the fact that 32 percent of non-elderly Latinos lack health insurance, about twice the national average.

These are facts that never intrude upon Wall Street Journal editorials scolding Republicans for supposedly turning their backs on budding new recruits. In the Journal's telling, if it weren't for Republican intransigence on immigration, Latino voters would be eagerly joining the fight for lower marginal tax rates and the block-granting of Medicaid.  
Republican donors with a disproportionate influence in the party would be perfectly happy to jettison the cause of immigration enforcement. They are fine with a flood of low-skilled immigrants competing with low-skilled American workers. And why shouldn't they be? These immigrants don't suppress their wages; they care for their children and clean their pools. Whenever it is pointed out that illegal immigration tends to harm low-skill workers already here, the comeback is the scurrilous canard that there are "some jobs that no Americans will do." But most hotel maids, construction workers, coal miners, and workers in meatpacking - all tough, thankless jobs - are U.S.-born. If it is hard to entice legal workers into such positions, here
is a radical concept: Pay them more.
Whole lotta sense being spoken here, yet I do wish Mr. Lowry had not paired "low skill" with "immigrants" as he did, given how promoting high-skill immigration is just as much pandering to a certain population subgroup (i.e., south and east Asians) as permissive low-skilled immigration is.  But I particularly appreciate the connection Mr. Lowry draws between wage-depressing illegal immigration and the "jobs Americans won't can't afford to do for so little pay". Seems to me that, if Republicans want to have a prayer in the future, in the electorate the welfare party has imported, they must co-opt the Paulite message of economic and political freedom and vividly juxtapose that message against the suffocating embrace of totalitarian, centrally planned, redistributive big government. Giving into--and in the process, validating--identity politics by engaging in hispandering or fem-pandering for votes will do nothing but grow government while alienating the working class base. And ensuring GOP electoral losses continue.

Amnesty has thus fair failed to appease Hispanic voters...but just like other elements of the welfare state, like, well, welfare, as well as say, public schools, the solution is always that previous amnesties or budgets or programs weren't enough, and more....always the requested solution. Republicans are kidding themselves if they think that the fantasy of more amnesty--reinforcing this cycle--will somehow break the cycle.


Christina said...

How much "advertising" does America do for the skilled, legal, immigrant?

From what I see on that front, its difficult for them to take the proper route. Know a woman who came over here from Nigeria to study education so she could go back and teach. She came on a student visa and shortly after arriving discovered she was pregnant. Its been 3 years and her husband is still in Nigeria because she can't get him a legal visa.

It doesn't sound like its all that easy.

Sounds more to me that we do a lot of selling of our homeland to illegal immigrants, not legal ones. Our visa demands are not loose and haphazard. Our path to citizenship is not short, but rather a lengthy process in which those pursuing it need to know more about our country and its foundings than our own school children do.

Though I get your point about them taking our jobs, I don't think legal, skilled immigration is anywhere near the levels as illegal. And when I say illegal, I include those who came on a visa and stayed past their legal time and still have not completed citizenship.

Carnivore said...

The flood gates are open for engineers from India via H1-B visas. Even with all the layoffs, a new quota batch of these visas is granted each year. The IEEE (electrical and computer engineering organization) has been complaining about it for years but can't change anything because the IEEE doesn't have any teeth in Congress, unlike big business.

Regarding jobs no "Americans" want, it's a bunch of BS. Thirty some years ago, when I first started working in the industrial sector while in college and after getting my degree, all the low skilled jobs WERE done by Americans. That's not that long ago. And it wasn't all Black people, like some think. The first factory I worked in, the guys who collected the refuse (large boxes, wrapping and scrap) were all White men as was the office cleaning staff. Younger adults have no idea how the landscape has changed in a mere 30 years.

El Bastardo said...

To be honest, the whole immigration thing is going to blow up in our faces. I will spare the details though because in my mind, demographically speaking of course; none of it matters.

Women are 55% of the vote. Right now, most of them favor big government. Yet the government has not let on about the growing mens movement. I think that is already having an effect in the UK and elsewhere like Australia. Women fear it now; but I suspect when they see that marriage is out of their reach they will use their significant political clout, and bodies; to try and "encourage" men in their respective countries to "buy local."

Also, I strongly suspect that the interbreeding of Americans is going to create, has created, a new voter block that for all intensive purposes is unpredictable and yet to reach voter age. Both of my kids are mixed race. Being a white male, and understanding the tribulations we are currently in; I suspect if we had even a modicum of self awareness of our REAL HISTORY we would use the real version of our history to show just how valuable we really are. You know besides being the most preductive, the most successful financially and in war, the most ingenuitive, the most scientific and prolific for the past several hundred, if not past two thousand years. Amongst other things.

This is the reason we are under so much gynocentric and racial assault in these different environments. The hype against is is just that; hype. If we get more white males together, whether they marry white, black, asian, south asian, european, whatever-their offspring are going to have an impact. The whit children have already had a dynamic impact in the current generations. Look around on the internet for a while and see which race has been more responsible for the innovation.

Demographically, African Americans tend to vote, work for, and live off big government. When, not if, big government fails they are in a terrible fiscal position. Considering the changes that have already happened; not many other races really care. Hispanics don't. Asians don't. You think either one use affirmative action because they care about the plight of black people real or imagined? Yeah, trust me when I say that even Black men I worked with told me they see it the writing on the wall. Another bad recession and the ghettos in the US are going to erupt. They have been sold a terrible bill of goods; and are goiing to go "mushroom cloud" when they see they have been duped. After the racial assaults and the handling of the Zimmerman case these past few years; while they smile with glee upon their victims, or the nicer ones say nothing; I don't care either.

Asians love to say how China, and Japan are the new USA and Great Britain. Yet their demographic issues are significantly worse than ours on both levels; China because they have too much offspring, Japan too few.

They want to think that white males are dead men walking. I don't care one way or the other because as a white man, I descend from three european ethnicities. I am also part Native American. There is no "pure race" and their never was anywhere! Period.

Black Americans are not a pure race, nor any Africans, Asians, Arabians; none.

So, how does this relate to the hispanic vote and republicans in my mind?

Simple really, the Republican party is a solid ship stupidly left direlect on the high seas and ready to be claimed by someone else, anyone else, by right of "salvage."

The Democrats ship is sinking right in front of us, and no body says anything. Democrats for jubilation they won a race that should not have even been close like it is something to brag about; Republicans because they are clueless; and Independents like me because I want both to go to the dustbin of history.

Time will tell.

Elusive Wapiti said...


"Sounds more to me that we do a lot of selling of our homeland to illegal immigrants, not legal ones"

I think this is the case. Crazily, we make immigrating to the US far harder for legals than illegals. You may have seen this post.

Also, my sense is that the number of straight-up illegal aliens is much larger than those who overstayed their visas.

I see your point though about the sizes of the H1B population vs the border-jumper population. The latter is far larger in size.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Carnivore wrote:

"Even with all the layoffs, a new quota batch of these visas is granted each year. "

See, this is what I don't get. With extremely high U6 unemployment, I simply cannot understand what is so "nativist" about turning off the employment spigot.

Perhaps the issue is that I'm looking at the problem from a patriotic citizen's perspective, one that cares about the well being of my fellow man, not that of a business owner with weak loyalties to America and focused on the bottom line.

What I find interesting in all this is the "enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend" alliance with racial grievance groups and Big Business. The race/ethnic hustlers do the name calling, suppress the native-born American voices, and the Big Business types benefit.

Then those same ppl turn around and protest wage cuts and the closing of plants. Does not one directly follow the other?

Elusive Wapiti said...


"I suspect when they see that marriage is out of their reach they will use their significant political clout, and bodies; to try and "encourage" men in their respective countries to "buy local."

I think you paint too rosy a picture. There will always be some men who marry. And for those fellows who won't or aren't attractive enough, there is always Big Sister government.

I think we're getting an introduction to what a grass-hut matriarchy looks like, up close and personal. Only with the residue of a prosperous society dressing it up a little. A few alpha men on top, with the bulk of men disenfranchised from the family unit to some degree or another.

Interesting that you bring up the white male vote. The elephant in the room this election--and I even saw it mentioned a couple of times in venues such as Fox, only to have it quietly die down--was the importance of the white male vote.

Had working-class, i.e., those that give value for value and are net taxpayers, white males coalesced around that identity and voted that way, this last election would have looked much different.

I dislike identity policics as a general principle. Believe me I'd like to take the higher road and have ppl just relate to each other as ppl and not through race/ethnic goggles. But I can't see how identity politics can be avoided, not when white males are the largest bloc of productive workers in this country, and when democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Of course, the taking classes and their enablers know this, which is why they will fight so hard to keep the producers from themselves uniting around a meaningful identity.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Oh, and you're right Bastardo, that the urban areas are a volatile mixture right now. Maybe always have been. Combine high unemployment and misery with a powerful victim narrative, stoked at every opportunity by race hucketers and legitimized by the pols spouting 70s-vintage politics we have in office at the moment, and one has a powderkeg on their hands.

ukfred said...

I am now old enough to remember a British Prime Minister called Margaret Thatcher being elected for the first time in 1979. She was a friend, both personally and politically to Ronald Reagan. She was elected with a campaign slogan "Setting Britain Free".

The best place to start setting people free is in their wage packets, by reducing taxes on income and employment so that it is less attractive to employers to hire illegals and pay them "off the books" as we would say in Britain. But that means cutting expenditure, the largest single chunk of which is in benefits and social security these days.

Until the conservative parties in both the UK and the US get out of the pocket of big business, which has an affinity with big government, they will not be making the arguments they need to make to attract the Hispanic voters in the US and the Indians in the UK.

Elusive Wapiti said...

Thanks Ukfred