Fear of Immigration

EJ Dionne runs down the atmosphere of fear and dread in Democratic circles that being painted as soft on illegal immigration will wreck the party's fortunes. My sense is that a lot of folks in town are furrowing their brows trying to think of a way to thread the policy needle here. What I wonder is whether these concerned couldn't be effectively blunted with cheap political rhetoric and a minor dose of dishonesty. How hard is it, really, to just say something like "the Bush Republicans have had eight years to get the borders under control and things just get worse and worse; from Katrina to Iraq to no-bid contracts back to immigration these guys can't do anything right."

That doesn't really mean anything, sure, but insofar as the goal is just to muddy the waters and prevent public outrage from overwhelming everything else it seems viable to me. In general, it shouldn't be easy for the GOP to ride in on a wave of outrage at their own party's inability to enforce immigration law. Sure, Bush actually broke with his party over this, but professional ad men exist to confuse people about this kind of nuance.

Comments

That sounds like a winning strategy to me. And if they're pressed to get specific, Democratic candidates could talk about the corporations that lure illegal immigrants over the border and then exploit them rather than engaging in scare-mongering about the immigrants themselves.

Posted by Betty Cracker | November 3, 2007 8:36 AM

By all means, let's use dishonesty to keep the borders open, to replace the current electorate, who are not as socialist as you would like, with poor, socialism-friendly Latin Americans, and to ultimately reduce white people to minority status so that we lose any control over the U.S.

Are you Kevin MacDonald in disguise, trying to prove your theories correct?

Posted by Glaivester | November 3, 2007 8:39 AM

This issue is such a sick chicken.

On the one hand, there ought to be a way to sell favoring border security and legal forms of immigration without appealing to racism or exclusion.

On the other hand, there ought to be a way to sell a plural society and the vitality of high levels of immigration without attempting to ratify a clearly unappealing status quo.

And I guess I might as well ask for a pony too.

Posted by southpaw | November 3, 2007 8:51 AM

I don't think it's that hard - politically or policy-wise - to demand strict border enforcement but at the same time be generous to the immigrants, give them benefits to assimilate and move toward citizenship, even provide amnesty for those who are here now. If the generosity is coupled with genuine border enforcement and enforcement against employers, I think the Democratic electorate (both Latino and non) would understand and be comfortable. So it's not that hard. The only people discomfited would be open-border Latino activists, and there are not many of them.

Yes, it's the Mickey Kaus approach. I think he's right.

Posted by Richard Riley | November 3, 2007 8:56 AM

Poll the Dem governors who live in border (or near-border) states and let them set Party policy. Chances are they think we need to police the border somehow, but favor some amnesty program as well. Which strikes me as an entirely reasonable way to address the issue.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 3, 2007 9:01 AM

Or, perhaps, Democrats could do something to actually improve the lives of working Americans. Give their kids a free college education, perhaps. (over at Ezra's, he's declared this a terrible idoea that will somehow prevent poor people from going t college, but most of us live in sane-person land.) Perhaps you could start trying to repeal some of those 80's-90's 'free trade' agreements?

No? So.... Basically you want poor people in this country to just shut the fuck up and let people from another country depress their wages and take their jobs?

Posted by Soullite | November 3, 2007 9:04 AM

When some chicken plant is raided by Republicans they round up the illegal workers and leave. Democrats just need to explain that when they're in charge they round up the illegal workers AND the chicken plant operator. The former is a show of force and fearmongering, the latter is law enforcement that is fair to everyone.

Posted by joejoejoe | November 3, 2007 9:18 AM

JoeJoeJoe, no, they need to fine that chicken company 500k per illegal immigrant. The Plant manager is just some random blue-collar worker, in all liklihood. The corporate folks won't give a damn if he gets arrested. We need to make this hurt the people that hire illegal immigrants. We have to make this bankrupt a few companies or nobody will take it seriously.

We could try to, you know, actually solve the god damn problem. Of course, then Matt and his class won't get the cheap slaves they've been getting for the last couple of decades, and we can't have that can we. So we do nothing.

Posted by Soullite | November 3, 2007 9:21 AM

"That doesn't really mean anything, sure, but insofar as the goal is just to muddy the waters and prevent public outrage from overwhelming everything else it seems viable to me."

I love Edwards' strategy of being liberal on actual immigration policy, but throwing out the "Immigrants must learn English" political sop in his speeches.

-----

Overall, I think Matthew's thoughts are very smart in this post.

Immigration, trade, and terrorism are the three great xenophobic fears among the electorate that can't be ignored politically by Dems if they wish to become a long-term governing party.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 9:29 AM

Immigration, trade, and terrorism are the three great xenophobic fears . . .

Which one of these is not like the others?

When I get my pony, you'll be able to convince the electorate that trade and legal immigration are in their economic interests. Ducking these issues until a more favorable moment makes some sense.

Fairly or unfairly, terrorism and border security are increasingly linked in voters' minds. George Bush has provoked a lot of outrage on the issue, but his failures--as you pointed out on another thread, Petey--are not on the ticket. If the GOP is the only party making explicit promises to do something about the border, they'll get the benefit of the voters' anger--even if the Democrats do help to stoke it.

Posted by southpaw | November 3, 2007 9:42 AM

Yeah, Petey. God forbid the Democrats actually do anything to try and solve the problems of this country. So long as they are in power, you personally win. That's all politics is about for some, after all.

Fuck Democracy, and fuck the will of the American people, huh? What really makes you different from Bush and the Republicans?

Lets pretend that Trade issues and illegal immigration haven't hurt the American people. After all, it hasn't hurt you, right? So who the fuck cares? Those are people are stupid, so there's no chance they could actually be right about any of this... They are poor anyway, so why should you care what they think?

Posted by Soullite | November 3, 2007 9:43 AM

Yes, yes. Preach it Yglesias. Let's destroy the unions by importing cheap foreign labor. If we keep the people poor and divided, they'll have no choice but to vote Democrat.

And if Americans weren't so lazy, they'd be willing to work under the table for below minimum wage and no health care. Instead, the xenophobes want to close the borders. What racist scum.

And since the American people are such evil racists, let's fool them into electing to us by lying to them. Prevarication in the defense of virtue (or cheap labor) is no vice.

Think of all the benefits of mass immigration. Think of the ethnic flavor that white bread America gains from our imported peoples.

Actually, I mean that literally. Think of the Mexican restaurants! Can anyone look around at the Tex-Mex extravaganza that has landed on our shores, and not say that the increased tax burden due to paying for schooling, social welfare, healthcare, for all these immigrants who contribute only a sliver of GDP hasn't been worth it?

Posted by Thras | November 3, 2007 9:53 AM

"don't think it's that hard - politically or policy-wise - to demand strict border enforcement but at the same time be generous to the immigrants, give them benefits to assimilate and move toward citizenship, even provide amnesty for those who are here now."

Actually, it IS fairly hard, because there's a history here. And it's a history of grand deals where we're supposed to get strict border enforcement combined with generosity towards immigrants... And the strict border enforcement never happens. Ever.

You can't make grand bargains when nobody believes you'll keep your end of the bargain. The only way the public is going to accept one of these enforcement/benefits deals now, is if the enforcement comes first.

If you can't agree to that, the public will quite rationally conclude that it's because you don't have any plans on delivering the enforcement.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 3, 2007 9:53 AM

It's pretty clear that some of you are willfully blind to this issue. It doesn't impact you, so you want to pretend it doesn't impact anyone. You don't like that someday you might not get cheap workers, so you pretend the opposition to this is based on race and ethnicity rather than being based on the economic well being of our citizenry.

A lot of you simply have never felt the downward pressure on wages that illegal immigration causes because you are not in industries where you face any real competetion from illegal immigrants. You're white color workers who only BENEFIT from the cheaper wages and products brought by illegal immigrants, so you pretend not to see the problems they cause for Americans further down the economic scale. You ignore the entire collected knowledge of humanity when it comes to economic matters in favor of a single study published 2 years ago that attempts to measure something that can never actually be measured: where wages would be for low income Americans if illegal immigrants were severely restricted.

So you make idiotic statements like Matt's that only make sense if you want to pretend that the problem doesn't exist, but realize that you're not going to con the Americans it does affect into going along with you on that. And it sounds good to other self-deceptive idiots who don't actually believe in democracy (I bet you $10 these same idiots are saying to themselves 'We'RE A REPUBLIC!1!!! NOT A DEMOCRACY!!1!') and don't really care about lower income people.

Posted by Soullite | November 3, 2007 9:54 AM

"Yeah, Petey. God forbid the Democrats actually do anything to try and solve the problems of this country. So long as they are in power, you personally win."

I'm not professionally involved in politics. I don't live in Washington. I don't "personally win" if the Dems are in power any more than any other American.

"Lets pretend that Trade issues and illegal immigration haven't hurt the American people. After all, it hasn't hurt you, right? So who the fuck cares?"

I'm not saying there aren't policy concerns here.

Concern about median wages is among the top items on my policy agenda, and trade and immigration do play into that.

However, my point here concerns politics as opposed to policy. As crime was two decades ago, xenophobic concerns today are a potential stumbling block to moving the national agenda to the left.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 9:55 AM

I predict that failing to define actual policies while sounding vaguely tough on the issue will work out for the Democrats about as well as it did on Iraq. That is to say, not at all.

The discourse evident in this thread is not one that will favor the Democratic narrative, if the narrative Yglesias outlines is the one the candidates choose. The current media-approved narrative is one that says "border security, employer enforcement, then we'll talk about a path to citizenship." This narrative portrays widespread grass-roots outrage against "illegal immigration," itself a loaded term and a capitulation similar to uncritical acceptance of the term "war on terror." This narrative is not one that arose organically, but has been actively cultivated by well-funded conservative organizations like FAIR and CIS and a powerful House caucus that has been gradually tightening immigration laws in punitive ways for the past 15 years. These pressures are real but largely unseen, and Democrats ignore them at their peril.

Right now on immigration, as on foreign policy 5 years ago, progressives are outclassed by the right's much more sophisticated and powerful issue lobby that is pushing the discourse while the left reacts defensively and ineffectually, laboring under naive assumptions and failing to challenge the misinformation constantly coming from the other side. Often, rather than challenging the other side, Democrats have tried to join it (e.g., the recent Democracy Corps Carville-approved study). That is how Clinton's ID license "blunder" in the debate the other night has been played as a liability, rather than the asset it could have been if progressives were proactive rather than reactive. But this will not happen overnight and it first requires seeing the current situation for what it is.

Also, to muddy the water, you get nativists on the left like Soullite who, in my mind, are the Liebermans (Liebermen?) and Marshalls of immigration and do not further a progressive agenda on this issue.

Posted by yave begnet | November 3, 2007 10:05 AM

Accusations of xenophobia and racism in this context are little more than an effort to intimidate people who don't agree to open borders into shutting up. It's not working, and if you keep it up too long, accusations of racism are just going to lose their sting, even where justified.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 3, 2007 10:12 AM

Heres an idea, demand that everyone obey the law.

Instead of looking for a way to fool the voters, just stop the lying, race baiting, and support the citizens of our country. The Dem. leadership needs to stop shilling for Illegals and those that support them.

I have been a Dem for over 30 years and am frankly through with the current crop of leadership. This is a huge issue that crosses party lines...we are Americans First...and no candidate that does not 'get it' and supports the continued invasion of our country can win in Nov.

Posted by OldSchoolDemocrat | November 3, 2007 10:13 AM

"The discourse evident in this thread is not one that will favor the Democratic narrative"

Sorta.

The xenophobic fears of immigration, trade, and terrorism are areas where Dems have to play a bit of defense to defuse nativist fears.

Again, it's like crime fears two decades ago. If the median voter trusts Dems not to completely ignore their concerns on the xenophobic issues, a left-center electoral majority can really put down roots.

The issues where it makes sense to emphasize offense rather than defense are certainly more fun and attractive than issues like this. But you win the game by playing well on both sides of the court.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 10:17 AM

Why should they stop shilling? Look, while there might be a component of cheap labor involved, I think the biggest part of this is forced demographic and cultural change: The major parties are literally "electing a new public", one more to their liking. The Republicans are for it because they like corrupt rent seeking, and illegal immigration is pretty efficient at importing that component of Mexican political culture. Democrats are for it because it shifts the political demographics in a direction that favors the Democratic party.

And both parties rationally believe that they only have to resist public opposition for a little while longer, keep it up another decade, tops, and they'll have what they want, an irreversible change in our political culture. I can't even say they're wrong about that.

Under the circumstances, they've got no motive to stop. We're pretty much doomed to become a colder version of Mexico, after which EU style unification of North America will be the logical next step.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 3, 2007 10:23 AM

I don't think the DSCC/DCCC have to address the immigration issue until they have a General Election nominee, and voter support is, briefly, a more important aspect of the permanent campaign than fund-raising and all-inclusive pandering.

My party's Washington (and Austin) establishment can pause the pimp-consultants' beauty pageant and meat-market for a few news cycles.

They can certainly forget the "comprehensive immigration reform package" when the Congress is heads-down in battery anyway (incumbent protection!) That flimsy reform of a previously flimsy reform was assembled by high-dollar (bi-partisan!) immigration attorneys for the plant-owners with a few concessions to the no less self-serving low-dollar advocates (protest organizers) for the indentured servants and day-laborers.

Just stop that whole business-as-usual cave-in/set-aside/excuse/apology mode of Congressional "leadership" momentarily.

Then, ...

(i) Ramp-up the dishonest "attacks" on the failed border security policy (now with Blackwater!) of Senate Majority Leader Joe LIEBERMAN, ...

(ii) Expect the GOP to send out the Waffen SS (ICE + FOX) to show how tough they are on "those people", but, then, (the element of surprise!) ...

(iii) Don't start whining about "the children" in the usual Simpsons response, but, rather, ...

(iv) Compound the initial attack by arresting corporate executives and siezing corporate assets in "drug war" fashion using state police and legal resources available to a Democratic Governor/AG.

Symbolic policy -- does not have to be quantitatively effective -- but it has to entail enough risk to be dramatic.

So, forget the two-bit "Latino open-border advocates" and go after the Wall Street Journal open-border establishment, the "pay-day sharks", the used-car and remittance tax back-haulers, and so on, visibly and, to quote Dick Cheney, "big-time".

Those are just stunts, to be sure. There are some sound policies out there, but they take time and even more balls than the DSCC/DCCC obviously already lack.

In any case, if Democrats want to win elections and gain office, (we have to, the GOP, what with DynCorp and SCOTUS does not) then the old Hold Harmless/Incumbent Protection/Large Donor establishment party has to be put at risk or dispensed with altogether.

It is not the left wing fringe that is dragging my party down. It is our rotten, cowardly, brain-dead, corrupt center.

No pain/no gain.

Posted by John Robert BEHRMAN | November 3, 2007 10:25 AM

"Accusations of xenophobia and racism in this context are little more than an effort to intimidate people who don't agree to open borders into shutting up."

Well, no.

There are two main sets of concerns about immigration.

- The economic concern of lower wages at the median and below.

- The tribal concern of language, culture, and race.

The second of those concerns very much does have to do with xenophobia and race.

Since I'm a lefty, the first of those concerns bothers me and the second one doesn't - on a policy basis.

But I do think the Dems have a need to address the second of those concerns - on a political basis.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 10:41 AM

There's also the concern about an immigration process that does not respect the rule of law.

Posted by southpaw | November 3, 2007 10:45 AM

"There's also the concern about an immigration process that does not respect the rule of law."

Yup.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 10:48 AM

Xenophobia is an excessively pejorative term for a legitimate concern. In the multi-cult, it's taken as unchallengeable dogma that all cultures are essentially equal, but outside the cult, it's widely understood that the relative poverty, violence, and corruption of Mexican society is a matter of culture, and that when we import massive numbers of Mexicans, we import their culture, too. Not just the food, but also the bad parts.

We're not afraid of Mexicans, we're rationally opposed to our society becoming more like their's. If we're going to import people, and perforce adopt aspects of their cultures, we should be selective about it, aiming at improving our culture, not degrading it.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 3, 2007 10:58 AM

Well immigration is a difficult area. I understand the problems with unrestricted illegal immigration. However, as a second generation immigrant myself I cannot but have empathy with those willing to go through such hardship to make a better future for themselves and their children. Isn't that what America is/was supposed to be all about? I know the legal-illegal distinction but something tells me the people most upset about immigration (and there are a lot) don’t really distinguish between the two. It is just a convenient stick to beat all immigrants with especially the visible brown skinned ones.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 3, 2007 11:11 AM

Brett: Xenophobia seems like the perfect term for what you describe.

Posted by Leo | November 3, 2007 11:19 AM

it's widely understood that the relative poverty, violence, and corruption of Mexican society is a matter of culture, and that when we import massive numbers of Mexicans, we import their culture, too.

that is bs. That is true in a sense that we also imported the corruption of Irish and Italian immigrants. Corruption is not culture - it is unfortunate human failing that exists in every society. Naturally its effects are more pronounced in poorer ones. I can understand you arguing that immigrants who come illegally start out by breaking the law and in that limited sense it sets a bad precedent. If that is what you mean, then say that. But to imply that somehow if we had a lot more legal Mexican immigrants, then the US would become more corrupt (since Mexico is more corrupt) is obnoxious.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 3, 2007 11:23 AM

Petey, bercome a Republican which you already actually are.

Posted by Jennifer | November 3, 2007 11:27 AM

"Brett: Xenophobia seems like the perfect term for what you describe."

Ain't it the truth.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 11:27 AM

"Petey, bercome a Republican which you already actually are."

Huh. I've been criticized for many things, but questioning my Democratic bona fides is a new one.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 11:37 AM

"We're not afraid of Mexicans, we're rationally opposed to our society becoming more like their's"

Well, unless we fear their culture is inferior to ours (which I don’t), there is no rational reason to oppose the influence "their" culture may have. Ascribing "behavior" and deficient culture to an entire group is the very definition of bigotry.

I'm not aware of any wave of immigration to the US (legal or otherwise) that succeeded in transforming "our" society. Quite the contrary, I believe our success as a society is due to our adaptive capabilities and is highly reliant on the influx of new and "different" people and ideas.

Posted by Rihilism | November 3, 2007 11:42 AM

The continued invasion of our country?

Are you a Native American?

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | November 3, 2007 11:45 AM

it's widely understood that the relative poverty, violence, and corruption of Mexican society is a matter of culture,

As opposed to the societies built by Southern Conservatives, which are models of wealth, peace, and clean government.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 3, 2007 11:47 AM

The only way the public is going to accept one of these enforcement/benefits deals now, is if the enforcement comes first.
If you can't agree to that, the public will quite rationally conclude that it's because you don't have any plans on delivering the enforcement.

The problem with the bullshit LouDobbs enforcement-first approach is that it kicks reform down the road, and when the time comes to deal with reform, the enforcement-firsters either say that more enforcement is necessary or that there's no constituency for reform (playing on the fact that immigrants can't vote but bigots do).

Enforcement-first is enforcement-only, and ever-more-enforcement. Why? Because it's easy to say 'build more walls! and a moat! sharks with fricking laser-beams on their heads!'

It's the lazy answer. No wonder a mental Jabba like Duncan Hunter gobshites about it all the time.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 3, 2007 11:52 AM

We're not afraid of Mexicans, we're rationally opposed to our society becoming more like their's.

No. No. No. This "opposition" is anything but "rational."

Something like 8% of the country's population (I'm disclosing back of the envelope math here) is of Mexican ancestry. That number -- if people like Brett Bellmore and Soullite are unsuccessful in their attempts to stop demographic change -- looks set to rise to perhaps 14% by mid century. How is a six point rise over nearly a half century going to make US society "more like theirs" in any substantive fashion? Remember, this six point rise will be accompanied by an increase in the mean "length of US ancestry" of an average Mexican-American. In other words, sure we'll have more Mexican-Americans. But a greater percentage of those Mexican-Americans than today will be able to say their family arrived in the states, 40, 50, 80 or 100 years ago. What exactly is it in the genes of, say, a fourth generation Mexican-American than makes his impact on US society stronger or more negative than the impact of a fourth generation Italian-American or Canadian-American or Lithuanian-American?

There really is no there there when it comes to the fevered murmurings of the Tom Tancredo crowd. I like Yglesias's suggestion. Democrats should blast away at the GOP incompetence issue, because it's an utterly justified line of attack. But they should not apologize for being the party that refuses to give into cheap xenophobia, and it would be politically stupid to do so, given the increase in the potency of the Hispanic electorate. Exactly how well did 2006's immigrant bashing work out for the GOP?

Anyway, once they get the White House and deeper congressional majorities, Democrats should proceed to rebuild and strengthen the safety net. An American with social protections is a less xenophobic American. It is the construction of a European-style social democracy, and not the construction of economic and demographic walls, that will ultimately give ordinary Americans economic security and a decent standard of living.

Posted by Jasper | November 3, 2007 11:54 AM

I don't think it's that hard - politically or policy-wise - to demand strict border enforcement but at the same time be generous to the immigrants, give them benefits to assimilate and move toward citizenship, even provide amnesty for those who are here now.

Posted by Richard Riley

This is the only approach that will work both in the short term (2008 election) and in the long term (developing a lasting democratic majority.)

Demanding stricter border security -- while showing that the conservative right has consistently opposed all key aspects of progressive social, economic, and educational equity -- is definitely the answer.

Making border security a necessary condition for moving forward is common sense, not racism, and yields no advantage to the right. Failing to do so may not only lose the White House in 2008, but also delay indefinitely any progress against the problems afflicting immigrants.

It should be relatively easy for a good candidate to do this, rather than triangulate on yet another fundamental issue.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 3, 2007 11:56 AM

I mean, sure. It is easy to ask that the laws be enforced. But that doesn't make it wrong.

The rule of law is just so essential to the society we've built that the concept is relatively easy for everyone to understand.

Posted by southpaw | November 3, 2007 11:59 AM

Re: Sure, Bush actually broke with his party over this,

How did Bush break with the the party? The GOP base, yes. But the party establishment was and is soldily on Bush's side on this issue.

Re: ...to replace the current electorate, who are not as socialist as you would like, with poor, socialism-friendly Latin American

Huh? Illegal aliens can't vote. And even many legal aliens, to the extent they are poor, do not vote. As for Latin American socialism, last time I checked the place was not a "Workers Paradise" (not counting Cuba, which pretends to be).

Re: A lot of you simply have never felt the downward pressure on wages that illegal immigration causes because you are not in industries where you face any real competetion from illegal immigrants.

I live in one of the most immigrant-populated regions of the country (S Florida). I'm more than willing to admit that illegal immigration is a major problem. But I don't see immigration on the whole as a negative thing, though it could use some tweraks (get rid of H1B visas for one thing-- let those people come here as normal immigrants if there's a need for their labor) And while I'm a white collar worker, at my office we have employees whose roots are in Cuba, the DR, Ecuador, Chile, Haiti and Brazil, all legal. I have not noticed any downward pressure on our wages as a result.

Re: We're pretty much doomed to become a colder version of Mexico, after which EU style unification of North America will be the logical next step.

Oh good grief, what silliness! Did the EU become a version of Romania and Poland when it opened its doors to those countries? For that matter did the US turn into some sort of mixed up version of Germany, Italy, China, Greece, Russia and Sweden when our immigrants were coming from those nations?

Posted by Jonf | November 3, 2007 12:00 PM

"It is the construction of a European-style social democracy, and not the construction of economic and demographic walls, that will ultimately give ordinary Americans economic security and a decent standard of living."

Yup.

High levels of unskilled immigration and high levels of international trade both have the potential to enrich the GNP while simultaneously impoverishing low and middle income Americans.

A robust social democracy can spread the benefits of immigration and trade to all Americans.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 12:01 PM

"Liberals" have talked themselves into the insane idea that turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is a litmus test of one's "tolerance". This is how they have become the useful idiots of the BushCo/Wall Street cheap labor lobby.

No self respecting New Deal liberal would ever have allowed this to happen. They knew that massive immigration hurt the working class. But today's "liberalism" isn't about helping anyone. It's about "feel good" policies that allow their proponents to strut around and brag about how "tolerant" they are.

Posted by kafka | November 3, 2007 12:08 PM

What I wonder is whether these concerned couldn't be effectively blunted with cheap political rhetoric and a minor dose of dishonesty. How hard is it, really, to just say something like "the Bush Republicans have had eight years to get the borders under control and things just get worse and worse; from Katrina to Iraq to no-bid contracts back to immigration these guys can't do anything right."

One can do that without a minor dose of dishonesty. The current system is not "working" for Americans and immigrants. The war on drugs is not working.

Without making it easier for immigrants to enter the country legally - stronger border control will not help but will only invite more of those elements we do not want (real criminals and not only infidels like catholics and hindus or dark colored people).

Culturally speaking, biodiversity is usually a sign of wealth. And for those inbreeding types - look at NY - the orthodox religious always find ways to stay among their kind. Let go, folks, the times of incest are fading. Or at least, the times where one is not allowed to talk about incest because of prohibition are fading. we live in a world which is round and not flat, really! This means that we are all together in this. Divided we stand - united we fall. Be it the environment, trade or even homeland security.

This is not about some white guy wanting to live among white guys (as many here sound. And although they deny it - they sound very scared!). There are 12 million illegals in the country today.

Either they come in legally and help the economy and the tax budget grow - or they stay illegal. Prohibiting immigrants is as affective as with drugs. They question is - do you want extra transparency and tax money or do you want it all underground. At least with tax money one can take social initiative for better integration etc.

Again - tighter border patrol can only make sense when we make it easier for immigrants to enter legally. Otherwise - we make it too difficult on ourselves to optimize homeland security. It becomes too difficult, expensive and underground.

Question: What arguments have politicians used during the prohibition to defend its goals and motivation. Why was the prohibition on alcohol lifted again? What have we learned from it?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 3, 2007 12:35 PM

[quote]That doesn't really mean anything, sure, but insofar as the goal is just to muddy the waters and prevent public outrage [/quote]

Hillary was swimming like a fish in the muddy waters
in the last debate when asked about DL for illegals.

Posted by ICE MAN | November 3, 2007 12:45 PM

"professional ad men exist to confuse people about this kind of nuance."

Yes, and professional *Democrats* exist to tell Democrats to be afraid.

Remember the first line of this post: "Dionne runs down the atmosphere of fear and dread in Democratic circles that being painted as soft on illegal immigration will wreck the party's fortunes"

Sound familiar?

"Democratic circles" are *always* full of people who live in a state of "fear and dread that being painted as soft on [well, fuck, *anything* -- crime, illegal immigration, teh gay, national security, terror, terra, TERRA!] will wreck the party's fortunes."

On some level, that's a prerequisite for political analysis: be aware of threats. Duh. But at another level, it's quite hilarious to see one party's policy marked by constant bedwetting (that's the GOP these days, with fear of IslamofascistocratiHitleryHillaryism) and the other party's politics marked by constant capitulation *to* the first party, out of fear that even a wet bed has monsters under it twice a day, as Yogi Berra might say...)

Posted by Chris | November 3, 2007 1:18 PM

"On some level, that's a prerequisite for political analysis: be aware of threats. Duh. But at another level, it's quite hilarious to see one party's policy marked by constant bedwetting"

Wisdom is knowing when to play offense and when to play defense.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 1:27 PM

I urge MattY to push his plan.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to push my plan:

1. Go to campaign appearances and ask difficult questions.
2. Upload the response to Youtube and promote it.
3. Repeat until that causes amnesty supporters to lose credibility and support.

There's no good argument for the current situation; the only reason its supporters have managed to prevail so far is by dishonestly shutting down debate.

Once enough people start revealing their lies, this issue - and other issues - are going to be much closer to being resolved.

Posted by TLB | November 3, 2007 1:27 PM

I'll continue to push my plan:

1. Whore my blog (and now my POS YouTube)
2. Hide under the bed and wait for the insurgencia.

(Ron Paul, eh? Well, his sneaky approach to xenophobia matches yours.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 3, 2007 1:56 PM

The reasons our laws are not getting enforced is... votes, pandering to special interest groups, and corporations.

It is time to stop thinking on party lines, know your canidates and vote for the people who put America and Americans first!

This is an invasion,and it is costing Americans billion in your tax dollars. Our schools are over crowded with illegal aliens at the detriment of our childrens education.

Our Hospitals are going broke and health care cost is on the rise, why? because we are being expected to pay for the medical care of 20 million illegal aliens.

Crime is on the rise all over the country and we the taxpayer are expected to catch, convict, and pay for legal fees and incareration of Mexico and central America's criminals.

Mexico and Central America are pushing their poor off on the Middle class of American and we are coming apart at the seams.

Race has nothing to do with this at all, we are the most diverse country on the planet, we take in more legal immigrants in one year than any other country.

People who play the race card never use facts. Groups like La Raza are the racist! We the people are fighting for our country, racist like La Raza are fighting for a Race, their Race ( Everything for the Race, nothing for anyone else) This is as racist as you can get.

The Race card is also played by people who have an agenda, such as staying in the U.S. illegaly, or hopeing for the insane idea of another amnesty. So ignore it, don't fall for it.

There is only one reasonable way and that is attrition through enforcement. Take away the magnets and they will self deport!It is already working in states where they are enforcing laws, we must stand strong and together, it will work!

But we better stand together on this as Americans or we are going to lose our country, America better wake up!!"United we Stand, Divided we Fall"

What they would like to do is "Divide and Conquer" We are loseing America with out a shot ever being fired, we are simple giving it up!!Learn the real facts about impact of illegal immigration and get involved at (alipac dot us.) It is time to take a stand Americans!

Posted by sosadforus | November 3, 2007 2:00 PM

There are two seperate issues here that are getting muddled together.

There needs to be a distinction made between people who want to immigrate here and people who have no desire at all to be here and are essentially forced here out of economic desperation. You can slap all the enforcement band-aid's you want on the latter group and it's not going to do much. You'll just play whack-a-mole till hell freezes over.

It's not a good situation for working U.S. citizens and it's not a good situation for the illegal serfs and if you really wanted a solution a decent start would be figuring out why a Guatamalen family spends a majority of it's income to buy water.

Of course, if you don't really give a damn one way or another, the status quo shouldn't scare democrats at all. The demographic trends do not support a crazy, white-people's party, and no one who even looks like they might be an illegal would be able to afford to vote Republican. Within twenty years the GOP would cease to exist.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 3, 2007 2:06 PM

ED,

We the American taxpayer give aid to almost every 3rd world country between our So. border, the panama canal and across the ocean to Cuba.

We have given mexico billions and are on the verge at this minute of giving them $500 million. The top 1% of Mexico has all the money and the American people are making them wealthier.

When does it become the responsibilty of Hispanic people to fix their own country?

These undocumented people who received 12 years or more of free education, why are they not going down to help fix their countries, just why do people feel all the responsibilty lie at the feet of Americans, where is the responsibility of the government of Mexico?

I think we have more than looked at the problems of these 3rd world country's, the problem is their citizens are not willing to fight their crooked governments to better their lives.

Actually much like Americans right now who are not standing up to our government and demanding they enforce our laws and bring back the rule of law to our country. Enough of the chaos and anarchy, it is gone to far.

Posted by sosadforus | November 3, 2007 2:29 PM

""It is the construction of a European-style social democracy, and not the construction of economic and demographic walls, that will ultimately give ordinary Americans economic security and a decent standard of living."

Yup.

High levels of unskilled immigration and high levels of international trade both have the potential to enrich the GNP while simultaneously impoverishing low and middle income Americans.

Nope.

Sorry Petey,

But the math and the facts don't work on this. A European-style welfare state is incompatible with unlimited, unskilled immigration. Even our welfare state is incompatible with it. You can have one or the other, but not both.

The facts on this are overwhelming:

Unskilled immigrants consume more in government resources than the pay in taxes. Importing more poor people from Mexico means that there will be less government largess available per each poor American.

The unskilled immigrants' negligible increase in GDP is largely consumed by them; they lower per-capita GDP.

The vast majority of unskilled third world immigrants fail to assimilate and increase social problems. Nearly half of Mexican Americans don't graduate high school after four generations. Unskilled North African immigrants in France haven't done much better.

That Matt's initial post was about ways to obfuscate the issue demonstrates that the left is on the wrong side of the issue here.

So much for the Reality-Based Community.

Posted by Fred | November 3, 2007 2:33 PM

Demacrates are selling out Americans, They refuse to face the problem of illegal immigration.

The Republicans had their problems but the Demacrates are just as bad if not worse, we need to replace everyone of them that refuse to stand up for we the people.

It is time for TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY. We can not settle for anything less.

Posted by sosadforus | November 3, 2007 3:05 PM

Demacrates are selling out Americans, They refuse to face the problem of illegal immigration.

The Republicans had their problems but the Demacrates are just as bad if not worse, we need to replace everyone of them that refuse to stand up for we the people.

It is time for TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY. We can not settle for anything less
Posted by sosadforus
-------------------------------------------------
Great, another alicrap nutjob. How are they selling out americans?? Just because they want a common sense solution to this complicated problem??

Posted by american hero | November 3, 2007 3:43 PM

The rule of law is just so essential to the society we've built that the concept is relatively easy for everyone to understand.

The real law is power; legislation is just commentary.

Posted by Senescent | November 3, 2007 3:50 PM

american hero: John Edwards' stated plan of giving **everyone** living in the U.S. a PathToCitizenship is not "common sense". It's insane. If the MSM was doing its job he wouldn't have a political career after that statement.

That said, the GOP leadership is nearly as bad; about the only difference between the leaders of the two parties on this issue is that the Dems are more willing to collaborate with potential agents of foreign governments, including an official of a foreign political party and a former MexicanConsulGeneral.

Posted by TLB | November 3, 2007 4:18 PM

"reduce white people to minority status"

Think about how horrible it would be if the rest of America ended up resembling Hawaii or California demographically. My God those Mexicans will have us eating tortas, watching futbol and praying to the Virgin of Guadalupe if we don't do something.

Posted by panes et circenses | November 3, 2007 4:24 PM

Fred

Unskilled immigrants consume more in government resources than the pay in taxes. Importing more poor people from Mexico means that there will be less government largess available per each poor American.

12 million immigrants currently pay NO taxes? What are you smoking - I want the same!!! Also - over the lifetime of a human - the government generally pays the most during childhood and schooling years where no tax is being generated but only expenses. Immigrants - both low skilled and high-skilled are a net gain when factoring this in.

The unskilled immigrants' negligible increase in GDP is largely consumed by them; they lower per-capita GDP.

You mean: they increase the productivity of non-immigrant businesses and citizens and even spend their money in the US? More productivity and and a bigger consumer base. Yes. And?

The vast majority of unskilled third world immigrants fail to assimilate and increase social problems. Nearly half of Mexican Americans don't graduate high school after four generations. Unskilled North African immigrants in France haven't done much better.

Sure. If they remain illegal - there is no way for them to pay taxes and no way to increase their skills.

But tell me more about the reality-based community you mention. What would you do? What is your solution?

We all know the problems. We all know that despite border patrol we have 12 million illegals. Many of them uneducated (that is not bad per se as there is sometimes demand and need for such low-skill workers).

The problem is that there is an underground of people and drug smuggling despite, or better because of, prohibitions. We hence do not know who enters the country and why and have no way to block those elements that are dangerous (not the uneducated who may be needed in the US but real criminals like terrorists).

You, Fred, sound as if you think that prohibiting cancer will get rid of it? This sounds spooky. If you wanted to prohibit subsidies on tobacco, meat and sugar - I could understand that. We know the ingredients of our foods and know which are rich in vitamins and which are rich in toxins. And the government still makes mistakes by subsidizing the unhealthy and punishing the healthy (just like with immigration today).

Similarly - if you wanted to stop subsidizing illegals - I could understand that. How do you do that? How do you take away incentives for non-dangerous people to enter legally rather than illegally?

You sound as if you believed that the 12 million illegals have entered because there is no good enough border control. That the prohibition is not working and Al Capone thriving because there is not enough policing going on?

Sounds a lot as if you wanted to make illegals illegal. And if this is not working - you want to make not making illegals illegal illegal, etc... spooky circling, spooky!

But maybe I am wrong and you have some sustainable strategy in mind that does not make it more difficult for the economy to grow. That does not make it more difficult for law enforcement to protect us from real dangers like real terrorists. We have not found Bin Laden and we want to spend billions on more law enforcement protecting us from nannys and gardeners?

The current status quo of the right "all foreigners = danger and mistrust" is a bankrupt one. The current status quo of the left which they want to enforce by force is bankrupt too "low-skill, low-wage labor = bad". Terrorists are dangerous, real poverty is bad. Being a gardener and not being able to afford the latest ipod (yet) is not bad per se.

The greatest danger for America is America itself. The greatest hope too! When you read the celebration of the American Idea as presented by The Atlantic, Fred, what do you feel?

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 3, 2007 4:34 PM

"Wisdom is knowing when to play offense and when to play defense." -Petey

That's always good to understand ;-)

Which is why I'm fairly sure something's screwed up in our political system, because Republicans are *always* playing offense, and Democrats are *always* playing defense, which suggests that either neither party wants to or can break out of its self-defined/assigned/assumed role, or someone's rigged the game (especially if another rule of the game is, like volleyball, "You can only score on offense").

Posted by Chris | November 3, 2007 4:58 PM

"Which is why I'm fairly sure something's screwed up in our political system, because Republicans are *always* playing offense, and Democrats are *always* playing defense"

While being a bit of an overstatement, there is some truth here.

And one of the core reasons I'm passionate about electing John Edwards President is because I think that will be the surest way of changing that dynamic.

Posted by Petey | November 3, 2007 5:24 PM

As I've pointed out before, I think Hugo Pottisch is either a satire or very, very high.

The reason there are millions of IllegalAliens here isn't because of "prohibition" failing. It's because our elected officials are completely corrupt. If they weren't, there would be many fewer IllegalAliens here.

Anyone who supports IllegalImmigration - including MattY - is automatically supporting not just things like IdentityTheft and even BorderDeaths, but also massive GovernmentCorruption.

Posted by TLB | November 3, 2007 5:28 PM

Fred:

A European-style welfare state is incompatible with unlimited, unskilled immigration.

I don't know anybody who is suggesting that unlimited immigration is compatible with a European-style welfare state. But that's pretty irrelevant, anyway, because precious few people advocate unlimited (ie., 19th-century style) immigration in the first place.

Heck, even the nice libercrazian folks at Cato mostly want employment-based immigration, meaning anybody can come here if they have a bonafide job waiting for them. While that's going a tad further than I would go, even if we were to switch to such a system, there would still be an implied limit to immigration directly tied to the growth rate of the American economy. Which, come to think of it, is pretty much what we have now anyway (you can count on total -- including illegal -- immigration dropping during US recessions). It's just that under the status quo, much of this labor demand is met by the black market.

But in any event, "unlimited" immigration is not in the cards. What is in the cards is a less restricted, saner immigration policy that works with, rather than fights against, labor markets. The fast growing Hispanic cohort and the coming Democratic party supremacy will see to that.

Unskilled immigrants consume more in government resources than the pay in taxes. Importing more poor people from Mexico means that there will be less government largess available per each poor American.

This is in dispute. But even if your numbers are correct, it's hardly a crisis. What are we talking about, a fifth of a point of GDP?

The vast majority of unskilled third world immigrants fail to assimilate and increase social problems.

Most social indexes in America have shown marked improvement over the last few decades -- a time period coinciding with what restrictionists call "mass immigration." The America of today is richer, healthier, more long-lived, less violent, less drug addicted, and less crime-ridden than the America of 1977. Oh, and it has a much higher percentage of foreign-born residents.

Posted by Jasper | November 3, 2007 5:54 PM

Petey, I never overstate. Anything. Ever....

And I hope you're right about Edwards. Not sure how you'd prove that he can change the dynamic (well, my snarky suggestion is that we'll know whether he *can* change the dynamic by whether he *does* change the dynamic), but good luck.

Posted by Chris | November 3, 2007 6:23 PM

The dirty Mexicans stole ChrisKellysSpaceBar, and he wants it back!

Deliver the MissingSpaceBar to PuddleOfPiss, UnderTheBedsville, LosAngelOhFuckThatsASpanishName.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | November 3, 2007 7:43 PM

Do [unskilled]Immigrants Impose a Net Fiscal Burden? Read what the National Academy of Sciences had to say on this.

The Center for Immigration Studies draws on this National Academy of Sciences data and notes:

"The NRC [the National Research Council (NRC), which is part of the National Academy of Sciences] estimates indicated that the average immigrant without a high school education imposes a net fiscal burden on public coffers of $89,000 during the course of his or her lifetime. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000. In contrast, the average immigrant with more than a high school education was found to have a positive fiscal impact of $105,000 in his or her lifetime."

[...]

"Using the fiscal analysis developed by the NRC, it is possible to roughly estimate the fiscal effect of adult Mexican immigrants on the United States. Applying the NRC’s estimates by educational attainment and age is possible because the NRC’s research is based on the same data as this study — the March Current Population Survey.28 Using the estimates developed by the NRC and based on the educational attainment and age of newly arrived adult Mexican immigrants in 2000, we find that the lifetime fiscal burden created by the average adult Mexican immigrant is $50,300.29 It should be pointed out that these figures were based on 1996 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, the fiscal burden would be $55,200 in 2000.

Since a very large share of Mexican immigrants have little formal education, the fiscal burden they create seems unavoidable. The modern American labor market offers very limited opportunities for the unskilled — immigrant or native. It therefore should come as no surprise that they use a great deal more in public services than they pay in taxes during the course of their lives. While consistent with previous research as well as common sense, the large fiscal deficit created by Mexican immigration should sound a cautionary note to those who argue that there is no harm in allowing large numbers of unskilled workers from Mexico into the country. Even if employers wish to have access to unskilled immigrant labor, the cost to taxpayers indicates that for the nation this may not be wise. Mexican immigration becomes, in effect, a subsidy for employers of unskilled labor, with taxpayers providing services such as education, health insurance and medical care, and income-transfer programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit to workers who, because of their low incomes, pay nowhere near enough in taxes to cover their consumption of services."

Posted by Fred | November 3, 2007 8:50 PM

And before anyone starts making spurious comparisons between Mexican immigrants and the Ellis Island immigrants, take a look at how second and third generation Mexican-Americans compare with non-Mexican-Americans socioeconomically. The vast majority of them haven't climbed the economic ladder after seven generations here; why do you expect them to do so now? Because our public schools are so effective?

Posted by Fred | November 3, 2007 8:55 PM

One thing that really frosted me on the Hillary driver's license blunder the MSM did not mention was how she tried to redefine the problem.

When asked if she supported Spitzer's plan to give illegal persons ID that will help further enable their stay here - Hillary tried recasting it as: "The problem is, Tim, how we can help the UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS avoid driving illegally, and better assimilate."

That is the mindset that liberal Democrats have as they join the Republican Corporatist Elites to just pay lip service to the problem - but in reality doing all they can to make the NAFTA Union of nations and Open Borders a reality.

Bush may lie through his teeth and say it is all about "freedom" and people just willing to do the jobs no American is willing to do as well as all the skilled engineering, nursing, software, and coonstruction jobs H-1B visas are urgently needed for since poor Americans are too dumb or lazy to learn them.
But Democrats lie in service of their wealthy Elites. The 1965 Act that initially opened the borders was driven by Jews and Catholics and ironically unions, that saw America being enriched by wretched masses from others teeming shores and Democratic voting base enriched by adding tens of millions more "natural constituents". Later, liberals like Hillary added multiculti as a reason onto itself to help "Transform" America into a better, very different culture they favored. And denying they are illegal invaders, but instead lawful residents just lacking documentation - does Orwell proud.

*******************
Fred - Unskilled immigrants consume more in government resources than the pay in taxes. Importing more poor people from Mexico means that there will be less government largess available per each poor American.

The unholy alliance of Bush Corporatists, wealthy Jewish influencers, and multiculti-loving liberal Democrats who live far away from such multicultural Paradises as South Central reject this line of reasoning because for them, immigration is a huge money-maker and GNP grower.
Because while it makes poor and middle class Americans less wealthy and powerful, it makes those in the Elites far wealthier, and not just more powerful because of the wealth - but many have hopes of added political power from control of new immigrants votes. And for the uppercrust in both parties, illegals and wage suppression means cheaper nannies, house cleaners, landscapers...and exciting new ethnic cuisine.

And better yet, the penalties for illegals crime and consumption of services to not fall on the towns and regions where the REpublican Corporatist, wealthy Jews, liberal DEmocrats live -, but on the poorer or working middle class host communities where the illegals settle. And those host communities do not get the revenue that comes from cheaper labor causing boosted profits to the landowners and business owner. Example: that strawberry industry revenue doesn't show up in Centralia's coffers in the Imperial Valley where the Agribiz happens - but to absentee landlords in San Francisco and Scarsdale, NY. Centralia just gets the repercussions - tens of thousands of low-paid illegals forcing depressed wages and huge tax increases to pay for the added schools, police, "free" medical care.
Centralia homeowners cope with higher car and homeowner's and business insurance, as well as higher taxes - and a radically altered 3rd World culture the Elites avoid unless they choose to sample it as tourists.
A good example is

Posted by Chris Ford | November 3, 2007 8:56 PM

american hero, "common sense solutions' you mean amnesty to 20 million.You don't see enough crime and anarchy in this country yet huh?

"how are they selling out Ameicans" Oh I don't know, maybe the pandering they do to La Raza, MECHA, ACLU, most major Corporations.

I am not saying they are the only ones that pander the Republicans are quilty with the corporations, but If you vote for the Dems you will be voting for amnesty, cheap labor,people with little or no education that will at some time end up on the welfare rolls,and we will continue to pay for there medical, subsidized housing, school lunches etc.

Demacrates choke on the word immigration and never answer a question honestly,

If Americans did not feel we have a real problem in this country, why are towns countys and states all across this nation passing tougher immigration laws in this country?

Majority still rules in this country over 70% of Americans have said NO amnesty, You sound like one of those people who would not live in corrupt Mexico but are in a hurry to turn the U.S. into what these people here illegaly are running from.

Enforce the laws take away the magnets and they will go home!!( alipac.us ) maybe you could learn something at alipac, american hero.

Posted by sosadforus | November 3, 2007 9:14 PM

Chimps: Can't let that brown monkey in here! They'll take all the bananas!

Morons.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 3, 2007 9:45 PM

So like most Democratic politicians and leaders, you support discrimination based on national origin: http://www.legalimmigrantsfirst.org/aboutamnesty.html

Gee, that's a good way to get elected, by saying: "I support national origin discrimination!"

If the Dems don't say it, many of their Republican challengers will.

Posted by Vinh Le | November 3, 2007 10:39 PM

If Americans did not feel we have a real problem in this country, why are towns countys and states all across this nation passing tougher immigration laws in this country?

I really don't mean to minimize this, or deny the fact that if you work construction or assembly or service, undocumented labor is going to have a nasty impact on your life.

But it isn't towns and counties and states all across the nation that are freaking out. It's towns and counties and states out in the sticks that are freaking out because they don't have any experience dealing with anything but a redneck monoculture. They'll get over it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 3, 2007 11:08 PM

But it isn't towns and counties and states all across the nation that are freaking out. It's towns and counties and states out in the sticks that are freaking out because they don't have any experience dealing with anything but a redneck monoculture. They'll get over it.
Posted by Ed Marshall

Unlikely. The hardest hit by illegal immigrants are low-skilled blacks in California, Florida. They are now in the process of not being just jobless, but being cleansed from Hispanic-majority neighborhoods sick of black crime and dysfunctionalism.
An example is Watts, where the once black dominant culture is being marginalized and blacks consigned to less choice areas by the arrivals they used to bully and prey on. And the move is on to push blacks out of the government jobs for low-skilled they once flocked to, and divvy those jobs up based on demographics...

Similar to the pattern in prison, where blacks that once terrorized Hispanics now find the shoe is on the other foot.

AS for "redneck areas", they will likely do just fine, same with rural "countryfolk" blacks as the Open Borders invasion isn't targeting their regions as much as the well-off areas.

Posted by Chris Ford | November 4, 2007 12:28 AM

See, Ford, I do media research. I read every paper in the U.S. and the bigger English papers in the U.K. and Australia every day.

You want to know how much ink gets spilled in black papers in SoCal and Florida about immigration gripes? None. As a matter of fact if I see more than one editorial space given to the growing threat of the Spanish option on random service number or whatever, I can tell with 99% certainty that you are dealing with something that has a circulation around 10,000. Their community also saw Mexicans move in with any sort of numbers in the last ten years.

This is all beside the point when it comes to the black vote. There isn't any degree of pandering to whoever that isn't going to trumped by the fact that they aren't going to be voting for the same guy that someone who formulates ideas like "neighborhoods sick of black crime and dysfunctionalism" will vote for. Whatever democrats are they aren't you, and oppositional politics as worthless as they are will work. I actually do think there is a downside for black communities regarding immigration, but if you think that's ever going to translate into blacks walking into a voting booth and pulling a republican lever you are high.

Posted by Ed Marshall | November 4, 2007 1:02 AM

Ed Marshall's right: Black people are too stupid or ignorant to vote for their own interests. The Democrats spread the GOTV money to the preacher mans, and the preacher mans say vote for the Democrats and the blacks be voting for the Democrats. If there be any doubt, preacher man say Republicans be for burning da black churches.

Posted by Harry | November 4, 2007 3:26 AM

Fred, you are a racist and so is the national academy of sciences. If haters like you didn't stand in the way of money for education, Mexican immigrants could get the skills to be more productive citizens and tax payers.

Posted by Jennifer | November 4, 2007 3:31 AM

"You want to know how much ink gets spilled in black papers in SoCal and Florida about immigration gripes? None."

And you deduce what from that? That nobody is griping? You can't use the content of editorial pages and letters to the editor as a measure of public opinion; Look at the way the coverage of Prop 209 in California contrasted with the actual outcome of the vote! Illegal immigration is simply one of those subjects, like racial preferences, where the media are overwhelmingly to be found on one side of the argument.

Small town papers, often not being part of large chains, and being run by locals, just don't hew the line on these subjects as reliably.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 4, 2007 7:49 AM

Re: The hardest hit by illegal immigrants are low-skilled blacks in California, Florida. They are now in the process of not being just jobless, but being cleansed from Hispanic-majority neighborhoods sick of black crime and dysfunctionalism.

I don't know about California but Florida's unemployment rate is lower than the nation's as a whole. And in the heavily immigrant-populated counties of S. Florida's it's lower still.

Posted by JonF | November 4, 2007 9:04 AM

Hugo-- I'm pretty sure everyone is going to stop listening to you the moment they find out that your idea for eliminating illegal immigration is to eliminate the minimum wage.

Petey--- you seem to have mistaken a snarky line for a real one. You see, you ACT like you win something personally simply by having the Democrats in office. You get some sort of emotional pay out over it. You do not ACTUALLY win anything. That's the entire point of the remark. Also, every statement you've made is nullified by the fact that we do not have an advanced safety net in this country. We do not have any significant redistribution of wealth. As such, it doesn't actually matter if those things would eliminate or mitigate illegal immigration and unfettered free trade. They never actually happen, despite corrupt people like you saying they will every fucking time you want something like this passed.

And no, calling this xenophobia isn't helping. It's nothing but an attempt to intimidate people who are saying something you don't want to hear, by calling them racist. It's an attempt to shut people up, because you know this isn't a debate you're going to win.

Now, you can all keep belittling the concerns of the american people, if you want. But lets be completely honest here and admit that that is what you are doing. You think you know better than them, so you should determine what happens on this issue. It's the exact same thought process that leads Democratic, Republican and media leaders to do everything they can to keep the war going. Because they think they know better than you do. Tell me, how does that make YOU feel? How do you think doing this to Americans in general is going to make THEM feel? Somehow, I doubt it'll make them feel like voting for the Democratic party.

Posted by Soullite | November 4, 2007 9:27 AM

But it isn't towns and counties and states all across the nation that are freaking out. It's towns and counties and states out in the sticks that are freaking out because they don't have any experience dealing with anything but a redneck monoculture. They'll get over it.

Excellent point, Ed Marshall. The most vociferous anti illegal immigration hysteria is found in the deepest red areas of that United States having the slimmest proportions of foreign-born residents. And the most immigrant friendly areas of the country tend to be deep blue urban areas whose residents appreciate the revitalization that immigrants -- legal and illegal alike, if we're to be honest -- have brought to their neighborhoods. New York, Chicago, DC, Boston and many other cities have all benefited immensely from the vitality and decreased crime that accompanies so-called "mass" immigration.

Posted by Jasper | November 4, 2007 11:36 AM

Soullite

Not only would I cut the minimum wage (for immigrants) - but I would rethink progressive income taxation. When the low earners do not pay income tax - there is not much incentive for the state to get rid of illegals (aka uncontrolled, unmonitored, unknown foreigners)?

No matter if one legalizes foreigners or not - a switch to more value added taxation would be desirable - away from an income tax. That is, if you believe in government welfare of course.

When the market has X demand for immigrants but only (X-Z) are allowed in - the rest will come in as illegals whether one likes it or not.

There are two ways to fix a quota on immigration. Either you fix wages for official workers and know that demand for cheaper labor will be covered by illegals. Or you restrict the number of people allowed in. Or you do both (as is currently the case).

You guarantee that there will be illegals in the US by subsidizing coming in illegally through quotas and wage fixes (demand distortions for legal work).

These are economics 101 concepts. Of course - a state with high government welfare is in a strange position. One one hand - immigrants are needed due to generational transfers and demographics. On the other hand - applying wrong economics will reveal that immigrants pose a net loss due to increasing welfare expenditure that low-wage taxes cannot cover. And one cannot tax the rich for it either without an economic deadweight loss. Best to switch to higher VAT (even illegals pay that).

My argument is that whatever you do - you will have immigration. The only thing that one can control is how much of it is legal and how much illegal.

Again - it is strange that you find all this wacko jacko as this is what any half-decent economics school would teach you. There is no value judgment here from my side.

I do not question your goals to protect Americans and high wages. These are noble and I am on your side. But I fear that your solution sounds as if you want to enforce high wages and home land security by law? I.e. forbid terrorists to come into the country and bomb our cities?

No - there are already very good laws to protect you from all things that you are afraid of, laws like "you are not allowed to murder and steal". The question is - what are the best policies that would ensure that we can enforce the laws that protect individual rights in the US? What are the best policies to achieve an increase in high wage work compared to low-wage work. How can we improve integration of immigrants, how can we protect our kids from drugs, etc. How can we raise and not lower our life-style and culture?

Given our laws - what is the best policy to avoid 12 million illegals? What is your solution again? Let me guess: tax the rich to pay for the welfare of the poor, forbid the poor by fixing minimum wages, give the poor tax breaks, increase government health care, education and social security, limit immigration to virtual cultural and not real economic values. I am sorry - but if this is the case - this is religious and nothing else.

Posted by Hugo Pottisch | November 4, 2007 8:08 PM

hmm, low Mexican-American high school graduation rates for 4th generation immigrants (assuming that factoid is correct) have almost nothing to do with illegal immigration.

Since anyone born here is a US citizen, all 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation (and presumably a fair number of 1st generation) Mexican-American residents have citizenship and so the status of illegal immigrants has no impact on their lives. Except, of course, their wages are being driven down by a surplus of unskilled labor and their taxes are paying for the social services that the Mexican elites refuse to pay for its citizens.

Oh and perhaps the reason you don't hear many complaints from California (assuming again that factoid is correct) is because its an easier fix to just move to another state than to stay in California and endure its stratified real estate market, crummy schools and decaying infrastructure.

The math is simple, immigrants with a high school or less in education consume more government services than they pay in taxes. Most immigrants from Latin American have less than a high school education. Its not xenophobic to say we should only allow in immigrants who pay their own freight.

Posted by beowulf | November 5, 2007 2:50 AM