GOP Nativists Tarnish Reagan's 'Shining City'

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Monday, March 15, 2004 | JASON L. RILEY

[presidio9]

Just what is it about immigration that makes so many conservatives lose their bearings?

Broach the subject, as President Bush did in January with his guest-worker initiative for illegal aliens, and free-market advocates start forgetting principles. (Flexible labor markets? What use are those?) Self-styled realists start fantasizing. (Let's just deport all 10 million of 'em, Elian-style!) And colorblind sensibilities are suspended. (White hegemony, where have you gone?) Suggest that immigration, legal or otherwise, not only is in the American tradition but a net benefit to our economy besides, and watch the editors at National Review and the pseudo-populists at Fox News come unhinged.

[azhenfud]

"If you had the slightest understanding of business, you'd know just how wrong those numbers are."

Luis, either dispute my position with evidence or you prove yours is grounded purely upon emotion and is invalid. Facts are ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION costs EVERY taxpayer. Businesses "benefit" because taxpayers have to pick up the tabs felon employers leave because their wages are too low for the Illegalien to afford basic services without taxpayer funded assistance.

Disprove it with reports, studies, or numbers. Disprove it with evidence to the contrary. You can't because it DOES NOT EXIST. What does exist are the numerous negative effects unchecked illegal immigration has on every segment of our society. Report after report, study after study. All confirm the same thing.

Intelligent people can SEE what illegal immigration is doing to America. Intelligent people.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I have.

I took the time to get past the spin and find more information out. I didn't spend my time looking for information from people who would simply support my misconceptions, I challenged their date, and in turn challenged mine.

It's YOUR responsibility as a citizen to do the same for yourself, not mine to do it for you.

Illegal aliens have no right to be here, which is why their presence here is deemed to be illegal, but there is a positive economic impact to their presence, and the figures you spout are top loaded and simply wrong at times. They are very similar to the left's "tax break for the very rich" line.

By the way, I have posted the pertinent data in this forum ad nauseum, but it's never changed the mind of one single mule-headed nativist...I doubt that it would change yours.

[Luis Gonzalez]

You didn't say that anywhere Mud, but these guys are not concerned about what you say. If what you say is not vile against immigrants they label you a pro-illegal cheerleader.

[reg45]

The entire population of Mexico is 2/5 of our own. Exactly who would they manage to "submerge" our culture?

Bienvenudos a El Republico Popular de Aztlan (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California).

[Mudboy Slim]

"If what you say is not vile against immigrants they label you a pro-illegal cheerleader."

What an absurd notion...immigration has ALWAYS been a benefit to the growth of America, and it'll benefit us in the decades to come unless we allow the Federal Leviathan to spend us into oblivion. But no, I am in favor of no moratorium, I simply believe we cannot sit back and allow ILLEGAL Immigration to exist.

FReegards...MUD

[Sci Fi Guy]

Personally I don't enjoy seeing our culture submerged by Mexico.

The entire population of Mexico is 2/5 of our own. Exactly who would they manage to "submerge" our culture?

Exactly, in fact with a flat birthrate and millions of its citizens wanting to live in another country, it's mexico that needs to be worried about being submerged. If this keeps up, it possible that in a generation or two mexico won't exist as an independent nation. But as part of, or a protectorate of the US>

[Sci Fi Guy]

Personally I don't enjoy seeing our culture submerged by Mexico.

The entire population of Mexico is 2/5 of our own. Exactly who would they manage to "submerge" our culture?

Exactly, in fact with a flat birthrate and millions of its citizens wanting to live in another country, it's mexico that needs to be worried about being submerged. If this keeps up, it possible that in a generation or two mexico won't exist as an independent nation. But as part of, or a protectorate of the US>

[Sci Fi Guy]

Personally I don't enjoy seeing our culture submerged by Mexico.

The entire population of Mexico is 2/5 of our own. Exactly who would they manage to "submerge" our culture?

Exactly, in fact with a flat birthrate and millions of its citizens wanting to live in another country, it's mexico that needs to be worried about being submerged. If this keeps up, it possible that in a generation or two mexico won't exist as an independent nation. But as part of, or a protectorate of the US>

[dennisw]

You said it all!

[Mudboy Slim]

Thrice is nice...MUD

[azhenfud]

So Luis - you don't see any problem with the 8-12 million Illegaliens and you don't see a cost over benefit net effect? But you say it's up to me to dispute the evidence of report after report confirming Illegaliens' costs to taxpayers? LOL!

Really ingenuous counter, Luis. Apparently you refuse to consider what other "great benefits" those states mostly affected by Illegaliens are contending with. Overdrawn budgets, overwhelming crime, overcrowded schools, bankrupt hospitals, revolving door prisons necessary to make room for Illegaliens, and law enforcement agents overwhelmed almost to the point of surrender. The Illegaliens even cost legal aliens (migrant workers) by depressing normal wage rates to artificially low levels. That's fact, Luis. But should you understand that? Apparently not.

I challenge you to provide evidence in ONE AREA where volumes of Illegaliens "contribute" to the economy and do NOT resultantly cost taxpayers in some form. I challenge you to show where "taxes paid" by Illegaliens remotely offset the monetary cost to state and federal social programs they are bent on draining. It doesn't exist, but the evidence of their costs to taxpayers does. Luis, their "contributions" are glaringly apparent. Take your shades off, man.

As asked for in #81, show your numbers....

[Aetius]

First of all I'm not saying that immigration must be reduced simply because the majority wants it to be reduced. Majority sentiment does not automatically mean its right, though in this case I think it is. There are many reasons I think it should be reduced, and while the fact that most Americans want it is one reason, there are many more.

I bring up the the majority sentiment for several reasons. One is to show that it could be a political winner if handled correctly. Another is to simply point out the disconnect between what Americans consistently say is their preference versus what their elected leaders give them.

Now as to the polling data you cite: First of all, isn't it nearly 7 yrs old? But even if so, that's fine. Let's assume a poll released today showed the exact same thing. You would still have to square it with all the other polls on the matter. Secondly, the question of Americans' preference as it relates to numbers was apparently never asked. So, perhaps 61% did favor letting anyone with the means to support their family immigrate, but if in doing so it meant increasing imm levels was apparently never asked.

I agree that the wording of the poll makes a big difference. Perhaps its true that Americans support the specific examples presented in the poll. But the fact remains when Americans are asked the general question of whether they want immigration levels to stay the same, be increased, or be decreased; the percentage wanting an increase is always small. 'Stay the same' and 'decreased' almost always fight it out for majority or plurality status. Many other polls show a clear majority in favor of reduction. Go to numbersusa.com, and look on their polls section. This site may not cite polls unfavorable to their agenda, but that doesn't impugn the validity of those they do cite. ( Also: For all I know this site's creator may be a wacky environmentalist. I honestly don't know. It is useful to me for the stats and the collection of polls. Period.)

It would be very interesting if a extensive poll was done on this matter. Ask people if they want immigration reduced. If they say yes, then ask if they still think so if it means sponsored family members must wait longer to immigrate. On the other hand, ask people if they think anyone with the financial means to support themselves and their families should be able to immigrate. If they say yes, then ask them if they still think so if it means massive increases in already mass levels of immigration resulting in a population of India/China proportions. Ask them if they think family reunification should be fit into their desire for reduced numbers.

You could go on and on asking detailed questions trying to determine the purest public opinion on this complex issue. I hope someone does it, but in the meantime I'm not going to ignore the numerous polls I've seen backing up what I've said because of one seven yr old poll that might suggest otherwise.

As to other areas of this Cato article:

Cost/Benefits: As with polls, different studies show different things. Many examining the costs, for example, don't consider the cost of educating immigrants and their children based on the assumption it will pay for itself. Some consider the National Academy of Sciences study in the mid-late 90s to be most exaustive, and it showed imm was a net positive; to the whopping tune of less than one tenth of one percent of GDP, or in other words--nothing in an economy our size.

Also, they conclude this part with the oft stated desire to cut welfare, not the immigrants who use it. Again, the more people likely to use a program means it is that much harder to get rid of it.

Wages: Perhaps Borjas said that then, but since he has attributed at least some wage depression to mass immigration.

They conclude by saying; "Legal immigration has been one of the few constants throughout American history that has consistently served the nation well, both culturally and economically. "

Again, the US does not have a legacy of constant mass immigration. The last wave was drastically reduced by Congress. For the next 40+ yrs immigration averaged around a modest annual level of 200,000.



They also say; "In the immigration debate, the burden of proof should be on those who suggest shutting the golden gates tighter. So far, they have not made that case."

I disagree. The burden should be on those wanting to keep in place an unwanted policy that has probably brought no significant net benefit to native born Americans, and that will transform this nation into something its never been if levels are not reduced.

[american spirit]

Two bits, four bits, six bits a dolla...all for illegals, stand up and holla.....sorry, couldn't resist.

[jaime1959]

To Jason Riley:

How many is enough? Would you like a population of 500 millions? 750 million? 1 billion? Throw in the fact that assimilation is considered racist and you have some real problems.

Of course, if you're a member of "The Annointed" and live in gated communities with armed guards, no problem.

[Aetius]

If I misinterpreted what you said I'm sorry, but didn't you say that once illegal immigration was brought under control then we could increase (already mass) levels of legal immigration?

Whatever the case, the question remains; what do you think is an appropriate level of legal immigration? Is the current one million annually not enough?

As to immigration always having been a boon, and always remaining a great benefit; maybe, maybe not. I'm still amazed that some people will base their confidence so much on past successes in assimilating mass waves of immigrants, yet seemingly ignore the great differences between now and then. Some of these differences include, but are not limited to, the modern existence of welfare, racial preferences, multiculturalism, and of course the lack of any reduction in sight like the one in the early 1920s that ended the European wave and allowed the US over 40 yrs of moderate immigration, which no doubt fascillitated the process of assimilation.

[Mudboy Slim]

"...didn't you say that once illegal immigration was brought under control then we could increase (already mass) levels of legal immigration?"

After ILLEGAL Immigration is eradicated, we can look at the appropriate levels of Legal Immigration. Do the existing levels add up to "Mass Levels"? I'm not sure about the answer to that one.

"...what do you think is an appropriate level of legal immigration? Is the current one million annually not enough?"

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't...I believe the present situation--in which ILLEGAL Immigration is so rampant--taints our ability to determine what is the "right" number of immigrants to allow in every year. The number cannot be so large that we cannot hope to assimilate the newcomers into our culture.

"I'm still amazed that some people will base their confidence so much on past successes in assimilating mass waves of immigrants, yet seemingly ignore the great differences between now and then. Some of these differences include, but are not limited to, the modern existence of welfare, racial preferences, multiculturalism, and of course the lack of any reduction in sight like the one in the early 1920s that ended the European wave and allowed the US over 40 yrs of moderate immigration, which no doubt fascillitated the process of assimilation."

Good points, and I'd like to add that there should be a 3-year moratorium on newcomers receiving welfare and no retirees should be allowed to access a Social Security system they did not pay into.

FReegards...MUD

[jordan8]

Here are some interesting comments from "Democratic Underground" on the news that whites will be a minority in this country in a few decades:

"Majority rule by white people is sending this country to hell. I think it would be a better thing for world peace if racial diversity is more equally distributed in this country."

"This white is happily looking forward to a US where no Republican will ever be in the White House again."

"it also means the GOP will be a permanent minority party."

[It's good] "and here's why:

White guys have been voting by very large majorities for what are basically fascist candidates (and I say this as a white guy).

Our only hope of getting out of the situation we're in now is to make sure those white guys become a smaller and smaller part of the population.

They'll kick and scream and become more and more openly racist about this kind of thing, but tough shit. They're (we're) a minority in this country and a tiny minority in the world.

And if the only way to get rid of the neo-fascists and religious right who control the GOP is to reduce the percentage of whites in the population it is definitely the right thing to do."

"This is terrible news for the Goopers [GOP] Since blacks vote Dem 9 to 1, and party identification with Hispanics is 65% Dem to 26% Rep. "

[PRND21]

I'd like to add that there should be a 3-year moratorium on newcomers receiving welfare and no retirees should be allowed to access a Social Security system they did not pay into.

Sounds good to me.

[duffman]

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Illegal immigration is driven by the laws of supply and demand? Have those in favor of mass unskilled and illegal immigration ever heard of a SUBSIDY, which artificially increases demand for a product or service, in this case unskilled immigrant labor?

How is unskilled immigrant labor subsidized? Well, let's first look at education. It is typical for an unskilled immigrant family to have 3 to 4 kids, and education generally costs around $7,000 to $9,000 per kid, per year. That works out to around $20,000 to $30,000 or more a year, more than many unskilled immigrant families may make, much less pay in taxes (and many illegal immigrants pay zero in taxes). That doesn't include other heavy costs, including health care, housing assistance, food stamps, and law enforcement costs (I believe illegal aliens make up around 25% of California's prison population in spite of "only" being around 10 to 15 percent of the state population). Unskilled legal immigrants are also disproportionately involved in crime (at least Hispanics, a crude proxy for unskilled immigrants, are disproportionately involved in crime).

High levels of population growth in general (population growth is heavily driven by immigration and almost solely driven by immigration in California) can also strain resources such as power and water, increasing prices and worsening environmental problems...if environmental problems get worse, it is likely that stricter (and thus more expensive) environmental controls will be enacted.

I really think we should crack down on illegal immigration, which can be done relatively easily by enforcing employer sanctions (which would become much more possible if Republicans stopped selling out to big business and/or capitulating to the multicultural left). Of course the feds should also come down on illegal alien sanctuary laws and driver's licenses for illegal aliens, which give local/state sanction to violation of federal law.

When it comes to legal immigration, I think we should enact a merit/skills-based immigration policy and restrict the numbers to a few hundred thousand a year. People may consider such a policy "elitist," but is it any less fair than a system based on nepotism ("family reunification") and geography? (Mexico, due to its geographic proximity to the U.S., is able to send a vastly disproportionate number of immigrants compared to other countries).

[duffman]

I should also add that even thrid- and fourth-generation Mexican-Americans have relatively low levels of education:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=2495&page=9