The Immigration Question: Were obituaries of the GOP premature?

National Review Online ^ | November 20, 2002 | Daniel T. Griswold

[xsysmgr]

A common argument against immigration, and certainly the one that gives me the most pause, is that immigrants end up voting for liberal politicians and big government. The implication is that, if immigration continues unabated, the Republican party will be relegated to permanent minority status.

The argument sounds plausible. The largest single immigrant group is from Mexico, and Hispanics already vote about 2-1 for the Democratic party. If Mexican immigration is not restricted, today's Mexican workers could become tomorrow's Mexican-American voters, providing the margin of victory for liberal Democrats in future elections.

But the GOP's surprising gains in the November 5 election should give pause to immigration opponents. Following decades of "mass immigration" — to use their favorite buzz phrase — the Republican party has seldom had it so good. Republicans today have gained political parity at every level. The party now controls the White House, both houses of Congress, and a majority of state legislative chambers and governors' mansions. If immigration is poison for the GOP, let's have another round on the house!

In his latest apocalyptic tome, The Death of the West, former Republican Pat Buchanan claimed that rising levels of immigration have killed the Reagan coalition. According to Buchanan, the Immigration Act of 1965, which allowed greater non-European immigration, "broke the GOP lock on the presidency." I wonder what country Buchanan has been living in. Of the nine presidential elections leading up to 1965, Republicans won only two; of the nine elections since, Republicans have won six. Buchanan himself spent $12 million in taxpayer funds as a presidential candidate in 2000 to spread his anti-immigration message and won less than 0.5 percent of the vote — hardly a blueprint for political success.

In fact, 1965 was the nadir of Republican fortunes, not the heyday. Back then, Democrats not only owned the White House but commanded huge majorities in the House, Senate, and most state capitals. Not a single member of the Texas House delegation in 1965 was a Republican. And that was at a time when immigrant influence in American life was at low tide, when both the rate of immigration and the percentage of Americans who were foreign-born were far lower than today.

And speaking of Texas, for much of this year, otherwise politically conservative restrictionists seemed to almost relish the prospect that Republicans might actually lose a Senate seat that had been held by the party since John Tower first won in the 1960s. Even Republican Texas could be turning Democratic again, they warned, and all because of immigration. But when the dust settled on election night, Republican John Cornyn had won the Senate seat by a comfortable 55-43 margin, and Republican Rick Perry won the governor's race by an even wider 58-40 margin, defeating a Hispanic businessman who had outspent him almost 3 to 1. Texas Republicans scored a clean sweep of all statewide offices and won a majority in the state House for the first time since Reconstruction. As former Democratic Congressman Charlie Wilson summed up after the election: "Texas is simply a Republican state." Texas is also a Hispanic immigrant state, with a higher percentage of Hispanic voters than even California.

So why have the restrictionists' warnings of political doom for the GOP proven so wrong?

First, the road from immigrant worker to citizen voter is long and uncertain, especially for Mexican migrants. Mexican immigrants have the lowest naturalization rate of any major immigrant group. With home so close, many of them plan to return eventually, and traditionally many of them have done just that. They see America as a land of opportunity that allows them and their families back home to solve temporary economic problems. They come here for a paycheck, not a voting card. While Hispanics made up 12.6 percent of the U.S. population in the 2000 Census, they were only about 7 percent of voters nationwide in the 2000 election. So the nominally large number of Mexican immigrants entering the U.S. workforce has not translated into a large number of new voters, and probably won't for the foreseeable future.

Second, Hispanics are "up for grabs" politically. Despite their Democratic leanings, they are not monolithic the way black voters unfortunately are. At the presidential level, for example, the share of Hispanics voting Republican swelled from 21 percent for Bob Dole in 1996 to 35 percent for George Bush in 2000. And a recent poll showed that Hispanics would vote 50-35 for Bush over Democrat Al Gore if an election were held today. Many Hispanics are socially conservative with a strong work ethic — Hispanic men have a high labor-force participation rate — and propensity for home ownership. A sympathetic Republican candidate who respects immigrants can woo a sizeable chunk of Hispanics along with other swing voters.

Third, Republicans have far more to gain from winning a bigger share of the current Hispanic vote than they do from slowing its growth in the future. Let's say the normal Hispanic split in presidential and congressional voting is 30 percent for GOP candidates, 70 percent for Democratic candidates. Assume that the GOP, through a "pro-Hispanic" message that includes a more friendly approach to immigration, could increase its share to 40 percent. That would be a swing of 20 percentage points among the seven million Hispanic voters (a ten-point GOP gain and a ten-point Democratic loss), or an improvement of 1.4 million votes.

The potential downside for the GOP would be more Mexican immigration. Let's say the more friendly approach to immigration resulted in an additional 100,000 Mexicans immigrating permanently each year, and that those extra immigrants eventually voted like other Hispanics. The Democrats would carry the new voters by a 60-40 margin, or an extra 20,000 votes every year for their candidates (60,000 new votes for the Democrats vs. 40,000 more for the GOP).

Under those assumptions, the tradeoff for the GOP in adopting a more-friendly stance on Mexican immigration would be an immediate windfall of 1.4 million votes for their candidates, at the expense of an extra 20,000 votes for the Democrats each year because of higher immigration. In other words, it would take 70 years for the faster growth of the Hispanic electorate to cancel out the immediate gains for the GOP — an eternity in politics.

Conservatives who advocate drastic cuts in immigration for the sake of the Republican party are courting a California-style disaster. A Republican platform of scapegoating Mexican immigrants will alienate droves of potential Hispanic voters from the party, just as Pete Wilson's gambit did in California in 1994. Moreover, it will probably not succeed in actually stemming the flow of Mexican immigrants into the United States. The U.S. government has tried since the mid 1980s to restrict Mexican migration, but has failed because of our long land border and because of the continuing American demand for Mexican workers.

If Republican party leaders were to launch an all-out political campaign against Mexican immigration — as advocated by Pat Buchanan, Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and the authors at the Center for Immigration Studies — Hispanic support for the GOP would shrivel, and the immigrants would probably come anyway. Meanwhile, because of higher birthrates, Hispanics already living legally in the United States would continue to grow as a proportion of the population. Thus the political question facing conservatives may be no more complicated than this: Will promoting free markets and limited government be easier if Republicans are winning 40 percent of the growing Hispanic vote, or 20 percent?

Conservative Republicans face a clear choice when it comes to immigration politics. They can follow the lead of President Bush, who has sung the praises of immigrants and sought to create a more welcoming legal path to the United States for those seeking a better life through peaceful work. Or they can follow the likes of Pat Buchanan, Pete Wilson, and Tom Tancredo back into the political wilderness.

— Daniel T. Griswold is associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute. He is author of the new Cato study, "Willing Workers: Fixing the Problem of Illegal Mexican Migration to the United States."

[Righty1]

The problem is the age old question, what is in a name? The GW/KR repuds are for open borders, more muslim influx, very intrusive monitoring of citizens, massive farm subsidies, free prescription drugs etc. The demonRats are having identity problems for a reason. The Cato institute is also part of the "one world" conspiracy. Tancredo is the only patriot in the entire congress so he is really starting to catch hell!

[Fish out of Water]

fyi

[Celtjew Libertarian]

I don't know what the general trend is, but most of the immigrants from Asia (such as India, Hong Kong, S. Korea, Taiwan, etc.) who I've known tend to be anything but leftist and their children even less so.

[The Old Hoosier]

We need to control the borders for Homeland Security reasons, and we need to defund the multiculturalists who will indocrinate Hispanic kids as Aztlan followers. But once that's happened, I say let them in, legally, and let the GOP win their votes by loudly fighting abortion and gay marriage.

What the author fails to note is that the more recent immigrants from Mexico are more Republican than the ones who have been here longer.

[gubamyster]

So as long as they eventually vote for your candidate then it is acceptable to allow millions of illegals to sponge off the taxpayers?

What is the difference between a Democrat pandering for the illegal votes and a Republican pandering for their votes?

The taxpayer is still paying:

Tired and Poor: The Bankrupt Arguments for Mass, Unskilled Immigration

by Steven A. Camarota

National Review, September 3, 2001

We at the Center for Immigration Studies estimate that the average Mexican immigrant will use $55,200 more in public services during his lifetime than he pays in taxes.

[Coop]

Flag

[HumanaeVitae]

Demographics may be destiny, but America is alchemy. We turn the lead into gold.

[glc1173@aol.com]

"While Hispanics made up 12.6 percent of the U.S. population in the 2000 Census, they were only about 7 percent of voters nationwide in the 2000 election. So the nominally large number of Mexican immigrants entering the U.S. workforce has not translated into a large number of new voters, and probably won't for the foreseeable future." (National Review)

They will in under 18 years!

As of now, every U.S.-born child of an illegal alien is a native-born American citizen - though courts have never squarely decided this issue. And as such, those U.S.-born children of illegals get to vote here. That indisputably means that the U.S.-born children of illegals will be able to vote - in numbers probably proportional to the Hispanic population including illegals - in well under 18 years, as all of them weren't born just this year.

While they will heavily be ghettoized to just six states, they will also be the deciding vote in many others - unless Mom and Dad are deported and soon.

IMMIGRATION resource library: public-health facts, court decisions, local INS numbers!

[hchutch]

FYI ping.

This guy is making some good points.

[Poohbah]

Hispanics are socially conservative with a strong work ethic — Hispanic men have a high labor-force participation rate — and propensity for home ownership.

Property taxes and crabgrass have made more Republicans than Abe Lincoln ever did with the Emancipation Proclamation.

[Howlin]

BTTT

[Mudboy Slim]

My bitch ain't with Legal Immigration...it's the Illegal KRAP that must be stopped!!

FReegards...MUD

[rdb3]

I see the illegal immigrant problem more as a symptom of a disease, not the actual disease.

The author is correct in pointing out the demand for the Mexican workers. But this begs the question: WHY is there a demand for cheaper labor? Taxes, maybe?

There are incentives for breaking our immigration laws. So this goes back to law enforcement on both illegals AND those who employ them.

All I hear around here is "Deport! Deport! Deport!" Some deportation definitely needs to take place. But that's really putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. Also, an effective deportation campaign would require a police state. So it's six in one hand and half a dozen in the other.

Deportation is not the only answer, just one of them. We need serious tax reform/cuts on both the fed and state levels so that employers have a much easier time in turning profits which would lead to more employment for Americans. The INS is a joke. Effective (read: armed) border control is needed, but not the full-time military, although I could live with border states' governors using their National Guard units. And finally we need to seriously punish employers who use illegal immigrants. We need to make the penalties so fierce for employing illegals that employers would shudder just thinking about hiring them. This includes prison time.

Shine on you crazy diamond.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Poohbah]

And finally we need to seriously punish employers who use illegal immigrants. We need to make the penalties so fierce for employing illegals that employers would shudder just thinking about hiring them. This includes prison time.

Won't fly here in California--some of the loudest loudmouths demanding that "something" be done hire day labor out of the shopping mall parking lot, KNOWING that they're hiring illegals.

[rdb3]

Hypocrisy, right? Why am I not surprised?

But that actually confirms my points. There are incentives for it now (for both employer and illegal). Now it's time for a disincentive.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. Yeah. Don't do it.

Shine on you crazy diamond.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.

[Poohbah]

But you can be relied to gain the nonsupport of the criminal in your efforts to enforce laws against him--and the criminal is, in this case, someone who votes.

I've tried reporting one particularly egregious offender to the INS. They tell me that he's "hands off" because he donates to various political campaigns and thus has a lot of friends in Congress.

[snickeroon]

Boy! What a relief to know that despite the fact that there is a law AGAINST something, it's going to be useless anyway because so many people are going to break it ...so we might as well smile an get used to it. That IS what this article said, isn't it?

If it is okay to trespass through your neighbor's yard in say...New Mexico...then you won't mind in Minnesota?

[rdb3]

Then it appears this problem will take avenues that it needn't take because there are simpler paths. Such is the human condition.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.
101 things that the Mozilla browser can do that Internet Explorer cannot.