Amnesty And Other Immigration Follies Of The GOP

It has been a steady drum beat since the election last November.  Republicans, full of remorse, have taken to self-incrimination over the matter of the so-called Hispanic vote.  Further, they have seized upon the novel notion that their failure to win Hispanic voters, whom, we keep hearing, are social conservatives (and therefore Republican voters in waiting), was due to poor “messaging.”  Said Hispanics would naturally flock to the GOP if only Republicans would improve their messaging, and, in particular – and this must be taken as clear evidence of the confusion that has swept the Republican Party – would, in some form or other, embrace amnesty for the ten to twenty million illegal aliens who now reside within our borders - living, as they say, in the shadows. 

Why they would come here to “live in the shadows,” no one knows.  Why, furthermore, they would come to a nation as intolerant and racist as our friends on the left say it is, no one has explained.  Perhaps it is that they do not live in the shadows at all but rather in broad daylight, going to school and university, often subsidized, some working and sending remittances back to Mexico, generally paying little or nothing in taxes, some demonstrating in our streets for rights they do not have in their own country, a fair number (not all, but some) involved in criminal activities including murder and drug dealing, some receiving tax credits from the federal government, many taking full advantage of our public programs including free healthcare, and, a fair number of them apparently even voting...

That Democrats would seek to enfranchise some 20 million likely Democratic voters, all but ensuring continued political dominance for decades to come (or until their utopian fantasies collapse) is clear; but exactly why Republicans would be so intent on committing political and national suicide is less obvious - although not really - for when a political party becomes unmoored from its grounding philosophy, which is to say the promotion of liberty, well then there is little to distinguish it from the party of government.

Will it help Republicans to run a Hispanic in the next Presidential election or to promote amnesty?  I don’t think so.  Hispanics vote Democrat because they are, in general, liberal and support a larger government role; they use taxpayer funded government programs disproportionately and so will naturally favor the Democrats.  Their illegitimacy and poverty rates are higher than the national average, while academically they perform below the average.  Such patterns will trend Democratic.  Hispanics are also concentrated in large cities, which are run by Democrats.   Hispanics can be relied on to deliver roughly 70% of their vote to the Democratic Party and have done so for decades. Even after President Ronald Reagan signed into law the original “amnesty” bill or “Simpson-Mazzoli,” in 1986, giving amnesty to some 3 million illegal aliens at the time, only two years later, in the 1988 election, Hispanics gave Reagan’s Vice President, George H.W. Bush, a mere 30% of their vote.

At the Republican National Convention, the GOP trotted out every prominent Republican member of an official “minority” it could find, and an impressive array of high ranking talent it was, far more so than the Democrats (who delivered unto us the “Castro” brothers), including such notables as Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Susan Martinez, soon-to-be Senator Ted Cruz, and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, desperately striving to demonstrate its multicultural bonafides, but alas to no avail.  The Hispanic (and black) vote still went overwhelmingly in favor of Barack Obama, notwithstanding the stultifyingly high unemployment rates for Hispanics (and blacks), in this, the Obama economy.

If, however, the Republican Party chooses to move to the left, to favor expanding government and pandering to various racial or ethnic groups, offering preferential treatment and other goodies, well then its reason to exist will have ended, and the party will go the way of the Whigs, fractured and ultimately abandoned by its  conservative base who seek a nation of individuals not one of competing racial tribes jockeying for government favors and patronage.  Do Republicans now accede to the “politics of identity,” the splintering of America into racial fiefdoms, with each group demanding proper tribute and compensation?

The math, further, does not add up. A path to citizenship for some 10-20 million illegal aliens (future Democrats all) will doom the Republican Party to permanent minority status.  The pursuit of such a strategy even if it were good for the nation, which it is not, is political madness for Republicans.

But, indeed, as bad as “comprehensive immigration reform,” or amnesty, is for the GOP, it is even more destructive for the nation.  A “pathway to citizenship” for millions of illegal immigrants with roughly 8^th grade educations, low skills, and little or no English, will mean the creation of a permanent underclass; they will burden our schools, hospitals, courts, and prisons, lower wages, compete for jobs, increase criminal activity, burst our public programs, bankrupt cities and states, and balkanize the country into a bilingual, bicultural state: it is, in short, a recipe for national disaster.

The correct policy is to secure the border, end anchor baby, deport all criminals here illegally, encourage the self-deportation of others, no citizenship, no amnesty, no work permits or legalization, no access to public programs, implement e-verify and proper entry/exit tracking, and promote close cooperation between local, state, and federal enforcement agencies - for the purpose of enforcing existing law.

Then target our flawed “legal” immigration system.  

The first absurdity that must go is the so called “diversity” visa, wherein 55,000 US visas are handed out in a global "lottery" annually to individuals from nations that are “under represented” in our society, as if this were a sound basis for determining immigration policy. 

There should be means testing for prospective immigrants whereby candidates demonstrate that they possess the resources required to support themselves and dependents (bank accounts, assets, job skills, employment)  so as not to burden the state; immigrants, furthermore, should not have access to our welfare programs.  Of what benefit is it to the country to allow individuals in who promptly become public wards? 

Ending chain migration, limiting family reunification to spouse and minor children, and basing entry into the country on market needs, and specific technical skills (“STEM” or science, technology, engineering, and math skills) relevant to our advanced economy (not to mention knowledge of English) are critical to restoring common-sense immigration practice.  We should reemphasize immigration from Europe (and other parts of the developed world, such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.), where many highly skilled and educated individuals with at least some English language ability are anxious to come. 

Our priority should be to attract the best and the brightest from around the world not the least educated, least skilled, and, therefore, least likely to succeed in our knowledge based economy.  We should also slash the number of immigrants entering the country until adequate time has elapsed for assimilation of the large numbers of legal immigrants residing here today. 

Immigration is not an entitlement program; it must serve the interests of our people, not the people of other countries.  The pursuit of such a policy is good strategy for the GOP and the nation.