Republicans very stupid on immigration
According to the Wall Street Journal, Senate Republicans are “upset” about the White House immigration plan which is “threatening to complicate the delicate legislative process now under way.”
Republicans have been living in this fantasy that they could pass some immigration/amnesty bill and become heroes to Hispanics. Did they really think they could become more liberal than Democrats on this issue? It was so obvious that Democrats would just push for even easier immigration that Republicans couldn’t stomach, once again making Republicans look like the bad guys. It was always obvious that the end result would be more Hispanic citizens, and those citizens would know it was the Democrats who were really on their side and not the Republicans.
This also demonstrates how Democrats are always angling for more votes in the next election, and Republicans always fall into their traps.
Check this article from City Journal about the same issue:
http://www.city-journal.org/comments/index.php?story=7766
I wanted to write about it in my pseudoblog because it focuses on California, maybe later I will. But, basically, hispanics vote for Democrats because they get more free stuff, they are not “natural conservatives”, whatever that means, and they are not much into the upwards social mobility thing.
California is 50% hispanic. California is permanently Democrat. California is doomed.
zenocosini
February 18, 2013 at 11:52 am
“This also demonstrates how Democrats are always angling for more votes in the next election, and Republicans always fall into their traps.”
True.
The Democrats are currently gearing up to turn Texas blue (which would mean that the Republicans never win the Presidency every again):
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=B5493B89-1D74-4968-B0E7-71854BCCDEBA
Say what you want about the Democrats, but they are masters at playing the game.
Jay
February 18, 2013 at 12:00 pm
“they are masters at playing the game.”
Well, they are masters at cheating. Their stated ideas do not work.
not too late
February 18, 2013 at 4:32 pm
“the game” is politics. the dems are DESTROYING the gop. the media, dems. universities, dems. gov’t, dems. the wealthy who set the adgenda are increasingly dems. look at it this way, if you believe it’s wrong to kill a baby b/c it hasn’t been born yet in 21st century america, you’re considered crazy. hell, if you *don’t* believe in discrimination by race/sex you’re considered racist/sexist b/c that would require getting rid of affirmitive action…all those white guys that stayed home, or voted for obama, in the mid-western states will rue what they did in 2012. their sons are doomed.
aki (@DSGNTD_PLYR)
February 19, 2013 at 3:37 pm
I really find all of this incredibly ironic. I became politically awakened when Bush II was elected. I was incredibly partisan at the time, hating him with a passion. I was a frequent reader of DailyKos and a host of other pro-Democratic party blogs. At that time, much hay was made in Democratic circles about the efficiency of the Republican election machine. There was much talk about a “matrix,” basically an integrated system to get Republicans elected that included grass roots campaigning, getting R’s into low level offices (school boards, etc.), fund raising, think tanks, media-ready content, etc. Rick Pearlstein wrote a book about much of this called “A Gathering Storm.”
Now that more time has passed, I don’t view Bush II with any hate. Sure his policies were dumb, and Iraq was an expensive exercise, but the imperialist projections by the Democrats have largely failed to come to pass as far as I can tell. Does anyone even care about Iraq anymore? What’s happening there? Was my life worse under Bush II than it is under Obama? I can’t say it was. Neither is it better under Obama as far as I can tell. Obama is also doing some highly questionable things, of which drone attacks are only the most recently well-publicized endeavor. Not much fire & brimstone about it though.
Anyway, now Republicans appear to be where Democrats were around Bush II’s election. Democrats are running circles around them during campaigns and with their use of technology, but this stuff is not rocket science. What one man can do, another can do. So I would not get discouraged that it’s all Democratic presidents from now until eternity; everyone is politically certain until it turns out the other way.
I really wish Republicans would offer a positive conservative vision. They are just so negative these days. No one likes negative nellies, even if they may speak the truth (and I’m not saying everything they say is the truth). They need to try to be less ideological and more practical, although not completely populist. Show how liberal policies are not working. I might start with a Popper-style analysis of policies…how do you know the policy is working? How can we tell if it has failed? If we can’t tell when it’s failed, then what is it even based on? Actually, such an analysis would be generally beneficial for everything the government does. Then offer a positive, factual vision of what conservative policies might look like. I realize this is all very idealistic and they will probably just try to get Rubio elected and fail. Oh well.
ASF
February 18, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Republicans at the grassroots are fat, dumb suburbanites and retirees still stuck in 1988. They have no idea what’s coming. They have no idea that all the ‘vibrants’ who vote Democrat don’t want gun control either, for reasons the geezer conservatives and SWPL liberals will not allow themselves to imagine.
The Anti-Gnostic
February 18, 2013 at 8:45 pm
Showing that liberal policies don’t work never has done anything for conservatives. The reason why is because liberal policies aren’t supposed to “work”, they’re supposed to build constituencies.
For example, extending unemployment benefits extends average tenure of unemployment. Is that a good policy? Of course not, but it creates a loyal Democrat constituency, which is the point. The quality of the policy and its outcomes are irrelevant.
ntk
February 18, 2013 at 10:21 pm
Bush’s useless war cost huge amounts of blood and money. He could have cut every American adult a check for $2000/year instead, or cured cancer, or made a pancake the size of Toledo instead, bringing glory and Guinness Book recognition to his country. Anything would have been less useless than his war. The war also demoralized the US, so it looks like we’re going to let the Iranians get nukes now (actual nukes not imaginary ones like the Iraqis had), and probably whoever else decides to build them. Bush was also the last president who had a chance to stop the demographic changes that have since come home to roost – there was nothing stopping him from enforcing immigration laws that were already on the books. Instead, he pushed for amnesty. Now it’s too late.
The Bushies were good at coming up with a message that would get their submoronic base to turn out the vote, but it was clear at the time that the GOP was doomed because of demographic change that Bush not only failed to stop, but tried to speed up. This is not just Captain HIndsight talking – Pat Buchanan wrote a book saying the same thing at that time, and so did Ruy Texeira and John Judis on the left (their book, “The Coming Demographic Majority,” got a lot of play from the Kos crowd at the time, so you should have heard of it). His ineptitude also discredited the GOP brand for a new generation, which trends D even if you factor out changing ethnic demographics.
So, yeah, there are still good reasons to hate Bush.
aisaac
February 19, 2013 at 9:10 am
Recently I came across an article in JSTOR that discussed updated findings on Latino voters. One interesting revelation from the research is that second and third generation Latinos are more likely to become mainline Christians rather than clinging on to Catholicism. The GOP is going to be in a lot of trouble if they’re imagining that this group will remain socially conservative in the long run. Actually, many of the attitudes that we attach to Latino voters are already shifting away from the GOP’s favor.
AE
February 18, 2013 at 12:06 pm
Mickey Kaus has a good piece on this. The way I read it is Rubio was offended Obama didn’t deal liberal Republicans in on this. The way it is supposed to work is some liberal Republicans get a piece of the action for the appearance of “bipartisanship” and the liberal Republicans get to beat up on the populist Republicans. Obama may think he can force through a deal without giving any prominent Republican any credit- and this is probably true. Or, he may not want to pass amnesty at all. Amnesty will be a huge blow to blacks. Appearing to want to pass amnesty but blaming its failure on the evil racist Republicans protects blacks and keeps HIspanics angry and pumped up and voting for Democrats.
Liberal Republicans aren’t stupid. They understand the role they have to play in maintaining the system and they play it well. The stupid ones are the Tea Party people who still think we live in a democracy under the Constitution. Amnesty will enrage these people and possibly push them over the edge and destroy the Republican party. That would not be good for the system, as it needs the appearance of an effective opposition party. Another reason to always be pushing for amnesty without actually achieving it.
thrasymachus33308
February 18, 2013 at 12:11 pm
The Republican policy should be to pay legal Hispanics $100,000 per family member to leave for their ancestral homeland. Citizenship buyouts would save white US tax payers money currently being wasted on third world immigrants, improve the quality of life for white Americans as third worlders take the money Eduardo Saverin style and leave, and also reduce the lessen the need for more harsh measures against unassimilable third world immigrants such as eugenics and restricting their right to vote via income requirements for voting. If they leave for another country then there is less need for more overt anti-immigrant policies, policies which will become much more popular when the Chinese announce they’ve found the genes for intelligence and the US public finally learns the third world immigrant class will never assimilate due to genetically wired low IQ.
The Undiscovered Jew
February 18, 2013 at 12:15 pm
This idea is so far fetched it almost seems like a dream since Republicans aren’t even in power, and they may never get back into power (control of all branches of government) ever again.
The attitude currently is legalizing Hispanics as fast as possible, with Republicans falling over themselves to outdo the Democrats.
Here is my bold prediction: In 10 years, the Republicans will no longer be a national party. They will be a regional party at best.
Jay
February 18, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Why would more overt anti immigrant policies become popular if genes for intelligence are discovered? Why wouldn’t it lead to support for genetic engineering to improve black and Hispanic IQ, especially since blacks and Hispanics increasingly dominate politics?
Seth
February 18, 2013 at 2:49 pm
Because people deal in the present, not the future. The elites who might actually support genetic engineering are way, way outnumbered, and Third World proles who have far less aversion to violence are not going to abide any policy that suggests they are inherently unequal.
The Anti-Gnostic
February 18, 2013 at 8:50 pm
On the face of it, that seems stupid. They’d just take the $100,000, leave, and then come back.
CamelCaseRob
February 18, 2013 at 2:56 pm
TUJ, charmed as I am by your program (and it would save money, to be sure!), wouldn’t it be simpler to assume (or hope) that, once the welfare spigot runs dry, our Mexican-”Americans” and their Latin peers will simply run home anyway?
The problem becomes, I suppose, getting rid of their citizenship, or else they can come back someday. But perhaps if there simply were no welfare, they’d never come back– but do we have to worry about their kids? So I suppose that, work it out how one may, you’re correct that they have to be divested of citizenship somehow . . .
Lucius Somesuch
February 19, 2013 at 3:19 pm
The Republicans are the party of the rich and so they should support every effort to bring in more and more poor third world peasant to drive worker salaries down and management profits up. Over the past thirty years Republicans from Ronald Reagan, to both George Bush’s, to John McCain, to the WSJ editorial page have indeed looked after their class interests first. Now of course the Republicans have to make some vague outreach to the white working class so they cannot be too loud and proud about this class warfare of theirs. The people who should be against immigration are the Democrats.
Back in 1969, before Identity Politics, when the Left actually cared about economic issues, Cesar Chavez, Ralph Abernathy, and Walter Mondale held a rainbow march at the Mexican border AGAINST illegal immigration. But economics gave way to social issues, and now the Left don’t care if the rich are getting richer as longs as gays can marry and serve in the military (ironically the two institutions most gay men want nothing to do with).
So while the Republicans may tactically lose a few elections, it matters little since they are winning strategically as the rich continue to get richer and richer with every poor immigrant they manage to lure over the border.
Torn and frayed
February 18, 2013 at 1:52 pm
YES. Republican politicians were never as keen on the idea of reducing immigration as the Republican base, or very keen at all, for that matter. It was only after a few alt-right types in the nineties stirred up Republican voters that our politicians got the message. That dipshit McCain, along with forgotten luminaries like Chris Cannon of Utah, really fought hard for amnesty.
Stealth
February 18, 2013 at 8:06 pm
Republicans are not the party of the rich. The Democratic Party is the actually the party of the rich. Why else do you think that Conn. is a deep blue state. The Republicans are generally middle class whites. The problem is that the leadership and establishment Republicans keep proposing policies that are meant to help the rich such as Sheldon Aldeson instead of focusing on the middle class.
superdestroyer
February 19, 2013 at 4:53 am
Republicans are the party of the rich because in any battle between management and labor the Republicans will always take the side of management. And it is very much in management’s interests to have access to cheap undocumented workers too weak to stick up for themselves. But some Republicans are smart enough to hide this class preference by privately doing everything they can to let the illegals in while publicly decrying this invasion. Pete Wilson in California was the classic example.
The only people that have an interest in stopping immigration are the Left but as we all know they are too indoctrinated by Racialism and Identity Politics to do anything about it. Besides the Democrats HATE white working class people. The only answer, given the complicity of both parties, is a working / middle class-oriented Nationalist Party (similar to the National Front in France).
Torn and frayed
February 20, 2013 at 5:29 am
Why can’t Republicans go on the offense on immigration, pass English as an official language, border security, and an end to birthright citizenship, and put red state Democrats (and Obama) on the defense? I know many Democrats – not one is in favor of amnesty for illegals. Who’s for this? Ridiculous.
What’s even stranger is this meme that Republicans think obama is going to campaign against House Republicans in conservative districts on the amnesty issue, and win. What world are they living in?
Jack
February 18, 2013 at 3:26 pm
“Why can’t Republicans go on the offense on immigration” because Republican politicians are actually people who would be Democrats if they weren’t in office. Let’s say that you are thinking of going into politics. Most people who want to go into politics are Democrats. That’s the nature of how these things work: people who support big government have a lot more desire to be part of it. So you can try to be a Democrat and compete with 20 people, or you can try to be a Republican and compete with 2. So what happens is a bunch would-be Democrats go into political careers are Republicans. Thus the result is that something like 9 out of 10 Republican politicians. are more like Democratic voters than they are like Republican voters. Gingrich is the perfect example of this, but the vast majority of them are this way.
T
February 19, 2013 at 12:11 am
@ thrasymachus
>>Amnesty will enrage these people and possibly push them over the edge and destroy the Republican party. That would not be good for the system, as it needs the appearance of an effective opposition party.
So we should worry about preserving the Republican party, for the sake of appearance. The Republican party is incorrigibly stupid. There is no hope for reform. I want them destroyed. I’m actually warming to the idea of amnesty because this may destroy the Republicans immediately, and true opposition to Democratic insanity may arise and harness the remnants of conservative America (a considerable force) and take effective action
Daniel
February 18, 2013 at 4:07 pm
@ASF
>>I don’t view Bush II with any hate..
You should feel good about hating Bush II. It is a sign of a healthy heart and soul. Bush II was the epitome of all the bad trends in the Republican party that had their inception in Eisenhower’s time: work assiduously to conserve the gains made by liberalism and leave it to Democrats to advance the liberal agenda.
>>Anyway, now Republicans appear to be where Democrats were around Bush II’s election.
>>So I would not get discouraged that it’s all Democratic presidents from now until eternity; everyone is politically certain until it turns out the other way.
Not true. Bush II first term was the first election where the demographic trends, initiated with the 1965 immigration law, had their effect on the national level. There is no turning around or stopping these demographic trends unless immigration from third world countries is halted, immediately. That means no immigrants from Asia or Latin America. None. Ninguno. If immigration is not stopped immediately it won’t even matter in one or two generations because already the number of Latinos and Asians being born in the US approximates that of whites.
Latinos and Asians can be nice and good people, just like anybody else, of course, but there is no denying that generally they harbor an ingrained resentment towards white society. Their natural party is the anti-white party: the Democrats. Recognize this.
>>I really wish Republicans would offer a positive conservative vision. They are just so negative these days. No one likes negative nellies, even if they may speak the truth (and I’m not saying everything they say is the truth). They need to try to be less ideological and more practical, although not completely populist. Show how liberal policies are not working. I might start with a Popper-style analysis of policies…how do you know the policy is working? How can we tell if it has failed? If we can’t tell when it’s failed, then what is it even based on?
Positive conservatism? What, well manged anti-white liberal government? “Popper” style analysis? Sure that will really go well with the proles, whose vote the Republicans need to win. No,the proles and others need a message that the wrath of hell will descend on this country if immigration inspired demographic trends are allowed to continue.Fear works.
Why do Latinos and Asians own our immigration policy? Where is it established in custom or the constitution that these two groups are so favored? Since 1965 these two groups have comprised 90% of immigrants coming to this country. Why are they so privileged?
If a Republican Senator or Congressman got on national TV and made the above statement it might clear the fog out of the heads of so many who think that massive Latino/Asian immigration is as inexorable as the tides, when it is just a matter of policy.
Daniel
February 18, 2013 at 4:32 pm
An excellent point (the original post), but what about the influence of the mainstream media, which is in favor of amnesty? Any attempt to play hardball will cause media blowback as they tar the GOP with accusations of xenophobia and such. What are the realistic alternatives available to the GOP? Maybe this will neutralize some of the damage.
Preston Bell
February 18, 2013 at 5:10 pm
I saw a news story on immigration and the pictures they showed were of immigrants working at various jobs with the implication being they are vital to the US ,so we have to legalize them. No mention of the lowering of wages or the increase in unemployment for natives that this causes, not to mention the drain on society because of the costs that these people add to the US.
This has already become a country I don’t want to live in and it’s going to get much worse. With Europe being destroyed too, there is no place to go.
Twain
February 18, 2013 at 7:13 pm
“I saw a news story on immigration and the pictures they showed were of immigrants working at various jobs with the implication being they are vital to the US ,so we have to legalize them.”
It’s impossible to underestimate stupidity of journalists.
What’s so bad about not legalizing imigrants? Will they quit those “vital” jobs?
WRB
February 18, 2013 at 11:55 pm
Australia is the ONLY sane “western” country left on Earth.
Conquistador
February 19, 2013 at 12:14 am
The alternative is to get a sack and kick the media in the balls with the following narrative – we should be focusing on the Americans, 20 million of whom are out of work, rather than rewarding lawbreakers. Why don’t you, media leftist, care about the Americans out of work?
Why does the Republican party exist? They don’t exist without the conservatives who vote for them as a barrier against leftist socialist racialist rule. They can either cave to the liberals and the media, passing amnesty, or they can fight and go on offense on the issue. But if they cave, we will ALL stay home in 2014. I won’t vote for a party that fucks over its people so blatantly.
Jack
February 18, 2013 at 10:04 pm
The media is the enemy. You’re not going to get anywhere kowtowing to the media. The billionaires who wasted nine-figure sums on the Romney campaign would have been better off to buy their own networks, like Democratic donor Haim Saban.
aisaac
February 19, 2013 at 9:17 am
If bloggers and commenters get it, then why don’t professional GOP strategists?
PA
February 18, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Because SWPL transcends party and ideological labels.
Conquistador
February 19, 2013 at 12:15 am
Caving into amnesty will not help Republicans with the media. Nobody respects weakness.
Jack
February 18, 2013 at 10:05 pm
“Republicans have been living in this fantasy that they could pass some immigration/amnesty bill and become heroes to Hispanics. ”
You don’t seem to understand how this works.
Democrats use the immigration issue every election cycle to try to attract Hispanic votes and scare them away form the republicans. The Republican idea is to take this issue off the table by passing immigration reform. Yes Republicans will will have to win Hispanic votes, and they probably will win less than the Democrats, but they will have taken the immigration issue off the table, so Democrats will no longer be able to scare Hispanic voters with it.
At the margins it makes a difference.
mikeca
February 19, 2013 at 4:25 am
So Republicans will lose the Hispanic vote by a lesser margin. But what about the fact that now MORE Hispanics will be voting (and those new voters will be poorer Hispanics more likely to vote Democrat than the previously existing Hispanic voter base)?
CamelCaseRob
February 19, 2013 at 8:49 am
The Republicans will lose the Hispanic vote by a larger margin. There will be a huge signing ceremony in the Rose Garden with President Obama surrounded by liberal Democrats and Hispanic activist. The message will be clear that Hispanic owe everything they have to Democrats.
Any Republican who panders to Hispanics is a fool. It loses more votes than it will ever get.
superdestroyer
February 19, 2013 at 6:56 pm
Passing immigration reform won’t take the issue off the table. That didn’t work in 1986, and it won’t work now. Far better for the Republican party to actually do something it’s declined to do so far, take a stand against amnesty. Making the case against it isn’t hard but so far Republicans have declined to even try.
Mike
February 22, 2013 at 10:53 pm
According to a recent poll, only 36% of Americans favor amnesty. You wouldn’t know that if you listened to our elected traitors.
“The poll conducted by Pulse Opinion Research on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) finds that only 36 percent of likely voters support “allowing illegal immigrants to legalize their status and remain here.” By contrast, 52 percent support immigration enforcement as the best approach to dealing with illegal immigration, with 37 percent in favor of “encouraging illegal immigrants to return home by removing jobs and benefits,” and an additional 15 percent who want current illegal immigrants deported.”
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/new-poll-of-likely-voters-shows-strong-preference-for-immigration-enforcement-over-legalization-of-illegal-aliens-191202871.html
WRB
February 19, 2013 at 8:04 am
Polls show that hispanic voters are more concerned with free stuff than immigration law. So even if the GOP got “credit” for immigration “reform” the hispanic voters would still vote Democrat. “Free stuff” even trumps their social and religious values. So these RINOs who always talk about conservative hispanics are full of it. They may be conservative but their votes will go towards a liberal social agenda. Immigration reform means more unemployment, lower wages, increased national debt and a liberal social agenda even though the majority of Americans (including a majority of hispanics) don’t want it.
destructure
February 19, 2013 at 10:41 pm
Also, they’re not conservative, really on any issues. Polls show them as liberal or more liberal than whites on social issues. The “natural Republicans” was always a myth.
Jack
February 20, 2013 at 2:22 am
This is why Republicans need to go in the other direction and take a hard uncompromising line if they want to survive. Even if they survive in smaller numbers, they can come back and win the war once the white man is out of the way and the country starts deteriorating (think Brazil) or outright self destructing along ethnic lines. If they don’t take a hard line, then a new party will rise that will represent the people that they have abandoned. There is room for only one democratic party. Republicans should resolve themselves to the fact that the values of their conservative consitutuents should not be seen as being up for discussion. They will recieve their coveted minority consituents once those consituents realize what a bad deal liberalism is, perhaps a couple of decades down the road, and that it actually keeps them on the plantation. Wait, nevermind, that realization is never going to happen… abandon ship.
Tom
February 20, 2013 at 10:06 pm