To wit, do Republicans want to continue in the Reagan tradition of American optimism and faith in assimilation that sends a message of inclusiveness to all races? Or will they take another one of their historical detours into a cramped, exclusionary policy that tells millions of new immigrants, and especially Hispanics, that they belong somewhere else?Reagan shows what the Republican Party should not do. He won a second term after one of the most lopsided elections in history. Then came the 1986 amnesty, and the Republican Party has subsequently struggled mightily to garner 50% of the vote in Presidential elections. Republicans enjoyed a boost from the flourishing of talk radio and the internet that culminated in control of the House and Senate by Newt and company in 1994. For the first time the right had a national outlet. But that hiccup is running its course. Demographic trends bode terribly for the future of the Republican Party. The quixotic ideology the WSJ touts is what led to the mess in 1965 and again in 1986. We do not need three strikes.
Ted Kennedy, who is a leading proponent of the impending Senate disaster, said 41 years ago that such an historically unprecedented demographic shift would not occur with the INS Act of 1965. He promised that "Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually." Today, there are 500,000 illegals that pour into the country each year, and that's a low-end estimate. Total annual immigration surpasses Kennedy's mark by several hundred thousand. He also errantly assured skeptics that "the ethnic mix of the country will not be upset." Now the two most populous states in the union--California and Texas--have white minorities.
The putative benefits do not require unskilled Hispanic immigration:
This has been mostly for the better -- in revitalized inner cities, a younger workforce to fuel a dynamic economy, and in general helping America avoid the senescent future of other industrial nations.As far as these positives exist, they can easily be attained through a merit immigration system that selects for the brightest and most industrious immigrants the world over. The current immigrant workforce will of course have a detrimental effect on our ability to cover benefits promised to the baby boom generation because the foreign-born make less money and consume more in government benefits than natives do. They are, on the whole, net costs. The solution is to bring in net assets. Contemporary immigration patterns only accentuate the coming tsunami of obligations for the baby boomers, as they compete with Hispanic advocacy groups for handouts.
To combat senescence, what we need are incentives for the native wealthy to have more children, which will boost the nation's average IQ, keep the US birthrate at least at replenishment, and narrow the wealth gap (all of which will benefit the Republican Party). Importing third-worlders that cost more than they are worth does not improve our economic prospects.
The WSJ, which openly called for an end to American sovereignty prior to 9/11, throws around the typical "nativist" charge, as if to insinuate that it is immoral to want what is best for the citizenry of one's own country instead of what is best for foreigners at the expense of the natives. Yet, in the same paragraph, the WSJ admits that different areas of the country have suffered more from immigration than others:
But there have also been costs, and parts of America have borne more than have others. The border states in particular have experienced more crime and social disruption, as well as the cost to local taxpayers of "free" health care and education for illegal immigrants.The states with the most immigrants have suffered the most from immigration! Who would have thunk it? Sounds like an airtight argument to import unskilled masses into the rest of the country to me!
As is typical, the WSJ calls those in opposition to its unpopular position as a "small but vocal" group. Maybe the editors missed that 60% of Americans want a barrier along the US/Mexico border. Maybe they overlooked the plurality of Americans who think the US is not doing enough to secure its borders (82%). Or the 62% of Americans that want the US to "do whatever it takes" to cut the flow of illegals (including militarization).
The WSJ fears that Hispanics will get fed up with the GOP:
But because the policy is aimed largely at Hispanic immigrants, it will also rightly be seen as a specific ethnic rebuke. Millions of Hispanics -- both illegals and those who have been here for decades -- will get the message that the Republican Party doesn't want them. Those Republicans who shout "no amnesty" and want to make illegally crossing the Rio Grande a felony are well on their way to creating a generation or more of new Democratic voters.Hispanics make up about 8% of the voting electorate, and go 3-to-2 in favor of Democrats. The 800 pound gorilla of our electoral system--whites--vote Republican 3-to-2 and make up 77% of the electorate. So for every ten percent increase in Hispanic support, the GOP still comes out behind if it costs them a single percent of the white vote. Isn't it clear that the Republican Party should be interested in turning away not Hispanic voters, but white voters?
Obviously the last sentence quoted is inanity. Bringing in an ethnic minority underclass that congregates in urban areas (can you get any more a quintessential definition of a Democratic stalwart?) is not going to help the Republican Party. It is going to create a generation of new Democratic voters. How the WSJ can expect its readers to buy its illogical nonsense that more Democratic voters are good for the Republican Party is beyond me.
I should start at the bottom of WSJ op/eds, because they become progressively more unhinged:
In 1994 in California, [immigration restrictionists] rode Pete Wilson's Proposition 187 to a short-term re-election victory but at the cost of polarizing Hispanic voters and making themselves the minority party in our largest state.So it was the wildly popular Prop 187, which was shot down by the Judiciary and therefore never had a chance to take effect, that caused the Republican downfall in California! It wasn't the increasing poverty, wealth disparity, and white flight brought on by the growth in size of the Hispanic underclass that did it. That the growth in the Hispanic population of California is directly related to the decline in the Republican Party's popularity there doesn't matter! If we expand the California experiment across the entire country, it will be good for Republicans, you'll see!
Responding to solutions like militarization of the border and the construction of a wall, the WSJ blathers:
Any bill that merely harasses immigrants and employers, and stacks more cops onAt least they've admitted their position. Americans should sacrifice their own well-being to provide a plane for economic equilibrium with the third-world. In other words, the US should continue to allow in foreign net-liabilities until the standard-of-living decreases to the point of making the US an undesirable destination for migrants. Good plan, even without taking birthrates (that poorer nations have more explosive birthrates and therefore perpetually drive down the global standard of living) into consideration! I guess social problems being imported for $17 billion a year is the best way to "address the economic incentives" of Vicente Fox's open borders position!
the border, may win cheers in the right-wing blogosphere. However, it will do nothing to address the economic incentives that will continue to exist for poor migrants to come to America to feed their families.
The evil Tancredos of the world will be awful ambassadors of the people:
Without doing anything to draw illegals out of the shadows and help them assimilate into the mainstream of American culture and citizenship.That would be the assimilation we've seen over the last couple of weeks in the streets of Los Angeles and other third world cities across the country, right?