Redstate

I think these kinds of omnibus bills are a fraud, and a terrible abuse of power, especially when something as important as control of our borders and national soverignty are at issue. Make them vote on each piece of the legislation, up or down. Get them on the record, and turn it into a looooooong list that you can scroll past the viewers in a 60-second television commercial.

I am a hawkish warmonger with a crusty demeanour and a heart of steel. But I have a softer side.

Incidentally, has anyone seen a television spot by any candidate--R or D--that touts their support of a guest worker program and mass migration? I'm serious. All I see emphasize border security and immigration law enforcement, and I travel frequently. Just curious...

should be mandatory. I read a lot, but this one is having an impact. So far, I'm for a wall, deporting as many as possible plus anything that would coerce the rest to leave, abandoning NAFTA, disqualifying "anchor babies" from citizenship, and making English the national language. And I'm only about halfway through the book.

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.

-Theodore Roosevelt

I skimmed through Buchanan's book. It totally creeped me out.

I thought it was brilliant.

...living in one of the several sprawling illegal immigrant regions of southern California for a week or two.

More National Guard on the border for a start, and not just digging ditches as they are doing now. As a round number 20,000.

Regular Army forces on the border providing logistics, intelligence and support. Logistics like field detainment facilities. Guard and police can arrest them, Regular Army can be the jailers under direction of Homeland Security forces.

How about another 10,000 Regular Army in the support roles.

Other than paying for deployment of forces, I do believe President Bush can do all the above with executive orders. Congress won't or can't act, fine let the President act. He's not the most popular person in Washington with the left, so might as well make himself really unpopular with some and wildly popular with others.

Seal the border by November.

from the saving on incarceration of illegal alien criminals. Elsewhere on RedState one diarist reported that something on the order of 25% or all federal prisoners are illegals and a similar percentage of California inmates are illegal.

Build the wall; staff the wall; deport the criminals as soon as its done; start reaping the savings.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

If people want in, let them wait in line. At the fence.

--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.

Oh, and what about the 3 million children who are American citizens? Do you round them up and deport them?

As for a guest worker program, go ask a farmer what would they do without the program. They'll tell you crops would rot in the fields.

Put the kids in foster care -- the same thing you do with any other child of criminals.

As for farmers, they will pay what the market will charge. This open border as an economic convenience is a disaster.

--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.

not every crime committed by an individual lands them in jail for a lengthy prison sentence. People plea bargain to lesser offenses and agree to stay crime-free on probation for a period of time to stay out of the slammer. This is the deal illegal immigrants in the US will be offered at some point in time. A plea bargain and probation.

To be eligible for a plea bargain, you have to stop committing the crime. Illegal aliens are not eligible for anything but a bus ticket.

Except maybe an ear tag.

--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.

to an illegal alien would be considered aiding and abetting a felon. This is a serious offense. You would go to jail for providing them a bus ticket back to their native country under the House bill.

Did you come by that name from your parents or are you wondering who might pick up on the name of a disgraced LBJ aide?

In Vino Veritas

He thinks he is the Waterboy of RedState?

Get Rich Slowly

The bus ticket is one provided by the govenment to deport them.

Back off with the personal shots.

Now.

Thank you.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

"Peace had a chance"

you want to extend the broken criminal justice model to the broken immigration system to produce an even more broken immigration system.

Nope, I'll stick with a fence, deportation, and serious criminal charges against employers of illegals, farmers included. I will not sell my birthright for a bowl of soup.

When did that system break? When our crime rate got so low? When our prisons started to fill up?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I will not sell my birthright for a bowl of soup.

Typical Buchannanite protectionism. If someone else has somthing, he's taking it from me. Competition doesn't work. Free trade doesn't work. I, I, I, Me, Me, Me.

There's another word for this: Liberalism.

Of course, the irony is, you end up with less then you would have had, but damn it, at least the other jerk wouldn't have gotten wealthy at the same time.

If you want to be a liberal, fine with me, but don't pretend you are something that you are not.

Protectionism is the prohibition or curtailing of foreign competition for domestic products by banning or taxing their import. It is not banning or taxing the import of labor.

It is not "Liberalism", either. Liberalism is favoring the use of government to provide for the common good, in the belief that if people are taken care of they will be good (and that taxing me to support my neighbor is "the right thing to do"). Protectionism is an inefficient use of government to benefit the few over the many, but that is all it has in common with Liberalism, it seems to me.

You appear confused between nationalism and protectionism. You also seem to favor argumentum ad hominem, but perhaps you have more talent than you have shown thus far.

We want our laws to be enforced, and to be able to know that everyone who is here is a citizen, or is trying to be. We (generally) don't mind what the level of immigration is; we care deeply who comes here, how, and why.

--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.

Sure its harsh... but imagine how many would run for the borders and take their kids with them should that be the case? Taco Bell will have to relinquish "Run for the Border" as a slogan... thats how many.

"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."

I'd hate to see my kids go into foster care because I am a criminal. I see illegals as criminals as the same par as myself...85 in a 65.

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

You're a citizen (I presume :-).

The issue is this: who gets to decide who is a citizen, them or us? Who gets to be here, citizens or just anyone?

I prefer to let as many people come here as can find legal means to support themselves. But they must be on a path to citizenship, and that must not be given to those who have broken the law (or there will be more law breakers).

As it is, we have people here to collect Welfare. Round them up, send 'em home. And yes, that includes their kids. ("But what about the children?")

86 is a criminal misdemeanor and can get you arrested. Over 100 is a felony. Your kids will be in foster care.

And the illegals kids should not be in foster care, they should be deported along with their parents. If they are US citizens, then they can go to foster care if their loving parents don't want to take them back to Mexico.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

Yes, you are right. I got all soft and tried to be compassionate.

It won't happen again :-).

--
If you thought that was bad, you should see my blog.

Now that I have kids... It's all a matter of perspective.

"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."

and end the "anchor babies" madness.

In Vino Veritas

John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

who would destroy the United States as quickly as a terrorist: yes. Deport them all. And we shall make no apologies. Start with the child rapists and others you have taken into our bosom to destroy the most innocent among us, and then get down to the more difficult cases.

Seems to be quite prevalent in the news these days. I'm surprised the MSM doesn't cover that up... either that or when it comes to child misery there aint a better headline.

Extra thought: I wonder how many of them are emboldened by the fact they feel they can get deported rather than sent to jail for their attrocities (correct or not)?

"Took the nickname Troll long before BlogTrolls existed..."

Open the Southern Border from the US to Mexico. We shouldn't stop anyone who wants to go to Mexico. Shut down the other direction...
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

I'm tired of hearing a huge class of welfare, sorry, subsidy, recipients whine that we're going to take away their source of helots. The convenience and profitability of farming operations is of little concern to me. Perhaps they should move their operations to where the labor is. Or get some government job training. I thought you guys were big fans of creative destruction (or is that only for people without powerful lobbies?). Either way, it's not my bleeping problem.

--------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

I suppose that if the buggy whip industry had good lobbyists and compliant liberal Republicans, we could find something to spank horses fairly easily.

All you need is a lobby, and an underdeveloped sense of shame

...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

the farmers, more correctly the agriculture corporations, would find ways to either afford legal labor or automate. Either might involve price increases, but the market would adapt.

When I was growing up in the rural South in the Fifties and Sixties, cotton and tobacco were the cash crops. In the mid fifties, cotton was still cultivated with hoes and picked by hand just as it had been a century before. Tobacco was almost entirely a hand crop from planting through cropping and curing. The labor was black sharecroppers and tenant farmers who lived in a state of peonage distinguished from the slavery of a century before only by the fact that the landowner had no obligation for the welfare of the sharecroppers and tenants.

With the coming of the Civil Rights Movement and urbanization, the farmers were very rapidly, little more than a decade, deprived of that labor force. By the Seventies both crops had been totally automated, something dearly held as a impossibility a decade or so before. Small, single family farms, ours included, had virtually disappeared by 1970, and, economically, that was a good thing; there was no way to make enough cash income on a hundred or so acres to participate in a modern industrial economy.

If the fruit and vegetable and chicken farmers are deprived of their peons, they will find a way to automate those crops; right now, government immigration policies are allowing them to continue to use peon labor and inefficent practices. To twist a phrase, if they don't come, you will build it.
In Vino Veritas

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

I agree here. We would adapt.

Although many redstaters think the car industry would die if we raised targets for fuel efficiency.

Conservatives believe children should be with their parents. Besides, I hear New Orleans has a bunch of busses they're not using. I see a plan forming...

-------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

Why is it that every time someone says… well it’s a complex issue I get a bad taste in my mouth? I feel like people say that when they don’t know the reasons they advocate a position. I guess yes it is complex if you don’t know why you think something.

That said I have no real problem with some sort of amnesty program as long as real border security is in force first and employment laws begin to be enforced.

While we may not like illegal immigration in general there is not outright anger at the illegal immigrants working construction jobs, picking vegetables, and working in our communities.

I think you may be mistaken on this point. I know plenty of people upset about the effects of illegal immigration and its effect on wages.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

and has been attacked viciously by conservatives and many Republicans for his idea. Border enforcement comes first for the simple reason that any guest worker program/path to citizenship will take several years to implement and the rules to be issued. That part of the plan is complex and it takes the bureaucrats a significant amount of time to write the rules and procedures. While that's being done, border security efforts such as building additional fencing can be done. There's not really a time lag in how that can done. It can be done relatively quickly, just look at the Guard on the border now. There is a natural "break" in how immigration reform will play out in practice. Many people don't want to acknowledge this and say border security first. Then we'll talk about other things later. In reality, people like Tancredo have no intention of getting to the later part.

"Then we'll talk about other things later. In reality, people like Tancredo have no intention of getting to the later part."

You mean like in '86 when we were told that along with amnesty, there would be border security?

does not address the problem. You do know that slightly more than 4 out of 10 illegal immigrants in the US today came here on legal visas and never left. They didn't come throught the desert. They didn't hire coyotes to lead them across. The came LEGALLY on visas.

You're complaint was that those that say "secure the border first and worry about the rest later" would never get around to "later". We've been down the opposite road, and it's been a cluster****, so if they secure the border and begin serious workplace enforcement, I really wouldn't care if they never got around to "later". You can call me whatever you want.

don't trust the "lets give 'em amnisty" and get to the security part later folks. Given a choice, I'd opt for a three tiered wall the entire length of the southern border, and deportation of every illegal we can find. It's not complex. It's enforcement.

With respect to the guard on the border, they are aren't doing squat and it's not their fault. We should send the guard and militarize the border.
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

because you know they are lying--and know it.

Play time is over. Get an enforcement bill out of the House, send it to the Senate, and watch how quickly these dominoes fall into line to vote for it.

n/c

I know plenty of people upset about the effects of illegal immigration and its effect on wages.

So you are saying that you know lots of people who are Buchannan like, anti-trade protectionists, pro-increased-minimum-wage etc.? Because from an economic standpoint, there is 0 difference between the two.

You also overlook the basic fact that anybody who studies basic economics should know: Border security without addressing the supply and demand question is doomed to fail. If the demand is high enough, the supply will come, it's just a matter of how. We will NEVER secure the borders as long as we do not allow for a realistic influx of immigrants. Period. Saying 'secure the border first' is essentially like saying 'We'll allow for the river to start running again once the dam stops 100% of the flow.' What that will get you is a busted dam, not a stopped river.

I heard some moron on TV (can't remember who) saying that the Senate Republicans were 'Holding border security hostage' to 'Amnesty and guest worker' programs. They don't get it. We won't get border security without guest workers. We can throw any amount of money into it and it won't work, the incentive will remain too high. What's worse, we'll continue wasting our time arresting Pablo the Fruit Picker and his friends instead of being able to focus on Terrorists and Drug Dealers.

These nativist can call themselves 'conservatives' all they want, but they aren't anything of the sort. Ignoring market forces and protectionism are not conservative, and they aren't smart. I know it's hard to find myself in the company of such flaming liberals as Sam Brownback, George Bush and The CATO Institute...

Oh, wait...

We hope you're enjoying your RedState experience. I see you've been with us for two months now, with relatively little in the way of a commenting history. In the interest of having you stick around, a few ground rules:

(1) Please review the posting rules.
(2) Please cut the ad hominems.
(3) Please cut the "nativist" crap when aimed directly or indirectly at fellow commenters.
(4) Please don't be sophistic in replying to (3) above.

Thank you for your time and attention. Please return to your commenting with the above guidelines in mind.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I will not cut the 'nativist' crap. I will continue to call it as I see it, and the way I see it, if you are against legal guest workers, which make economic sense according to any respectable economist, you are a nativist. There is no other reason to rationally oppose them other then the belief that 'America should belong to Americans' kind of like the French are. Nativism may be a respectable position (I don't respect it, but people seem to respect the French's point of view), but let's not beat about the bush as to just what it is.

I didn't post any ad hominem attacks, if I did, please tell me what it is and I'll stop it. Calling someone a Buchannanite or a protectionist is not an ad hominem attack.

If this is unacceptable behavior, then feel free to ban me. My points of view are held within large sections of the conservative mainstream, as I pointed out. Sam Brownback and the CATO Institute are hardly leftwing fringe groups. If you wish to hold solidly to the Buchannan position, fine, but don't pretend that's not what you are doing, don't make up some fake ad hominem attack arguement, because I did nothing of the sort.

I will continue to call it as I see it, and the way I see it, if you are against legal guest workers, which make economic sense according to any respectable economist, you are a nativist.

Let me be clear about something here, for future commenters, as you're no longer with us:

You may think that "being against legal guest workers" is "nativist" -- a position, by the way, that stretches the term "nativist" to the breaking point -- and you may hold this position as honestly as someone who believes that, say, one who resorts to the economic utility of human beings when discussing the pros and cons of legal immigration is a mere dehumanist, who views humans as commodities. Both insults, however, are off-limits in this discussion. Period. End of story.

I would prefer a more restrictive approach to illegal immigration than we have now. Other Contributors favor the status quo or an even less restrictive approach. That is utterly beside the point.

This topic engenders unusually strong feelings. One of my jobs is to keep the tone around here, among commenters, as civil as possible.

Your tone is not civil. You were warned. You chose to keep going anyway.

I didn't post any ad hominem attacks, if I did, please tell me what it is and I'll stop it.

You called your fellow commenters nativists. I'm sorry that you vacilate between understanding that this is an insult, then professing not to understand that it is an insult.

My points of view are held within large sections of the conservative mainstream, as I pointed out.

Your points of view are utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

If you wish to hold solidly to the Buchannan position, fine, but don't pretend that's not what you are doing, don't make up some fake ad hominem attack arguement, because I did nothing of the sort.

First, it is "Buchanan." Second, see the foregoing.

If you disagree with this decision, you may use the contact form. You may also email me at t(underscore)h(underscore)crown-at-yahoo(dot)com.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

. . . anybody who studies basic economics should know: Border security without addressing the supply and demand question is doomed to fail.

A nation that cannot maintain its territorial integrity is no nation at all; yet according to you, whenever there is any serious pressure from the outside to get in, maintaining territorial integrity becomes impossible. In short, your teaching on economics liquidates the nation-state as a workable construct.

This is a dubious assertion compounded by a dash of Marxian economic determinism.

You will forgive us, I hope, when we answer your counsels of economic servility with a touch of derision.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Your view says that immigration policy must be set based purely on economic factors, and nothing else, and that it must be surrendered to the will of foreigners; if they want to come, then there is nothing we can do about it. And what exactly is a 'realistic' influx of immigrants in your mind? We already admit about one million per year. Should it be 1.5 million? 2 million? What about 3 million?

And what happens when there is an economic downturn? Would you then support large reductions in the number of people we let in? Would you support sending back 'guests' and their families who no longer have work? I'm guessing that your answer to last two questions would be a resounding 'no', because, well, that would be mean and xenophobic, and anti-whatever.

And all this talk about market forces is always on one side of the ledger. Well, simple economics also tells you that if the supply of something is reduced, then the price will rise if demand is unchanged. Well, if immigration were reduced, then the market would adapt by raising wages/benefits, increasing mechanization, etc.

As to the people and organizations you mention; President Bush is a liberal on immigration. Sam Brownback is also a liberal on immigration, and he is a hypocrite on refugee issues. CATO is more a libertarian organization than a conservative one. See, its possible to hold conservative views on some things, and liberal views on others.

It was entirely predictable that pro-mass immigration conservatives would someday try to claim their liberal positions on immigration as the 'conservative' position on immigration, as you have done. Well, its not conservative to favor a policy that will only make it harder and harder for the GOP to win elections. Its not conservative to transform the nation for little or no gain. And its not conservative to use typically leftist tactics -- like calling your opponents names and impugning their motives -- in discussing immigration.

And what exactly is a 'realistic' influx of immigrants in your mind?

What the market will handle. Novel idea, I know.

And what happens when there is an economic downturn? Would you then support large reductions in the number of people we let in?

You seem to think of this as a one-way street. It doesn't work that way. People come in and people go out based largely on economic incentives. In spite of what the anti-immigration crowd wants you to believe, many, many do not stay here. Most come and go as the work comes and goes, others stay for a few years and make some money to start a business back home. And yes, some stay. As long as they are working and not taking government hand outs, most of them, BTW, they are helping, not hurting, everyone around them.

I support this proposition: If you have a job and aren't a criminal (by that, I mean a 'real' criminal, not 'I wanted a job so I went to America' crime. I mean crimes that hurt people, not help them, rape, murder, assult, etc.), you can stay.

Well, simple economics also tells you that if the supply of something is reduced, then the price will rise if demand is unchanged.

Very true, but it doesn't happen in a vaccume. Wages would indeed rise for a small segment of the population, prices would increase, profits would drop, the pie would get smaller, etc.

If we expelled all 12 million illegal immigrants tomorrow and somehow magically stopped any new ones from coming, our GDP would drop 20% in a year, prices would skyrocket, and we'd sink into an economic depression faster then you could say 'Hooverville'.

What you are talking about is classic economic protectionism. The economy doesn't know if you are outsourcing or brining in new workers. What you are hinting at is nothing more then anti-free-trade theory: We can't have Americans competing with low-wage workers abroad because it means less for everybody. It's patently false, and has been proven so time and time again, yet still, many pro-free trade Republicans buy into it in this alternate form. Why? Your guess is as good as mine. I don't like to think it's racism or nativism, but I can't personally see another reason.

President Bush is a liberal on immigration. Sam Brownback is also a liberal on immigration, and he is a hypocrite on refugee issues.

Just because you call it liberal doesn't make it so. Just because the Buchannanite crowd calls it conservative doesn't mean it fits in with conservative principles.

And how is Brownback a hypocrite? Nobody has done more to fight for refugees then Brownback.

Well, its not conservative to favor a policy that will only make it harder and harder for the GOP to win elections.

Oh please! I don't know if I should laugh or cry when people say this. They run around convincing the fastest growing segment of the population that we don't like them and wish they would not have come and/or would go back to their country, and then they are surprised that they are disinclined to vote for us.

George W. Bush has done more to attract Hispanic votes then any other national GOP figure in history. It is you that are undermining that work.

Its not conservative to transform the nation for little or no gain.

Ah! And now we get to the real issue: You think that 'Mexicans' will 'Destroy America'. You think that it'll be doomsday if they sell enchaladas at baseball games instead of hot dogs.

Sorry, if you find Catholic famers to be threatening, that's classic nativism. That's a respectable position, I suppose. Lots of people want things to remain just as they are, but those people never, ever get their way. Things change. It's important that we see them change in a way that protects things like free markets, free trade, etc.

Oh, and that gain isn't so little. I'm no nobel prize winner, but when Alan Greenspan says it was a large part of our prosperety in the late 90's and continues to be, I listen to him.

And its not conservative to use typically leftist tactics -- like calling your opponents names and impugning their motives -- in discussing immigration.

If that isn't a laugh riot, I don't know what is. The anti-immigrant crowd denounces EVERY SINGLE PROPOSAL that allows for increased LEGAL immigration 'Amnesty', which either means they can't read a dictionary, or don't care because they think they can win with that word.

I have called people 'nativist'. That isn't name calling, that's an observation. It's the belief that America would be better off isolated as it is, with those who are born here the only ones that should share in the wealthy. It's nonsense on a whole hoast of levels, and indistinquishable from economic protectionism, but it's not 'name calling' as you call it. It's an accurate description of those who want less immigration reglardless of the cost.

---What the market will handle? That pretty much sums it up for you, doesn't it? The Market decides. All that matters is the Market. All other considerations are secondary. If you think it will boost GDP by 0.00000001%, then you're all for it, no questions asked!

---Its 'anti-MASS immigration. At least get that right. You say that 'some will stay', and make it sound as though most will return home. Do you really believe that, or do you say it because you know the belief most will go home helps drum up support for the bogus 'Guest Worker' programs? Speaking of which, why is it that your side insists on selling your ideas as A when its actually B? Why do you push what would be a massive increase in permanent legal immigration under the guise of a guest worker program, with all that the word 'guest' suggests? Again, you speak of how 'some' will stay (i.e. most), and that's no big deal. If so, then why not just admit to the enormous numbers we are almost certainly dealing with here? If your position is so superior, then why not be upfront with Americans and tell them what you really want, which of course is massive increases in permanent legal immigration? Do you favor fraud and deception in legislation? Do you oppose informing the public of the near-certain effects of the bill, or do you favor deceiving them so that when they realize they have been duped into admitting 2 or 3 million immigrants per year, it will be too late to do anything about it?

---You're right that things don't happen in a vacuum, but that cuts both ways. Large increases in immigration of low-skilled, low-educated immigrants will increase the strain on all sorts of public services and infrastructure (and as the customer base for these services grows, so too will the power of the party offeirng more ot it; i.e. the Democrats) beyond that which is gained in taxes or economic activity. Studies have come down on this question both ways. Perhaps the biggest study was the one done by the National Academy of Sciences during the mid-late 90s, and it did find a net positive contribution from immigration...to the whopping tune of one tenth of one percent of GDP.

---Talk of expelling all illegals 'tomorrow' is a typical red herring. Opponents of amnesty and increased legal immigration generally favor the attritition strategy of gradually reducing the illegal population through a combination of border security, interior enforcement, cutting off of other magnets, and yes, deportation. This would prevent a catastrophic shock to the almighty Market.

---If you can't see any other motive behind your opponents than racism or nativism (or any other -isms or -ias), then all I can say is; that's very leftist of you.

---Brownback is a hypocrite because of how he wants to bring in ever more refugees -- just as long as they are not placed in Kansas. To be fair to this otherwise excellent Senator, it was said that he initially supported the resettlement of Somali Bantus in Kansas, but for some reason (most likely he heard about it from Kansans), Brownback changed his mind and made sure that they weren't settled in his home state. Now, if he was responding to the will of his constituents, fine, but I'm willing to bet that similar consideration wasn't given to the communities that wound up as the destination for the Bantus. Generally, the question of whether or not these communites want to be the destination for refugees is not asked. It should be, but its not.

---I don't claim to be the arbiter of what is and is not conservative. But its hard to see anything conservative about unending mass immigration itself, and its hard to see it serving any conservative ends or goals. And while anti-mass immigration sentiment is widespread across the public, and cuts across political and racial lines, it also almost certainly the case that conservatives are the most opposed to mass immigration and amnesty. Do you think most conservatives would support the massive increases in legal immigration that you support?

---You say, "Oh please! I don't know if I should laugh or cry when people say this.
They run around convincing the fastest growing segment of the population that we don't like them and wish they would not have come and/or would go back to their country, and then they are surprised that they are disinclined to vote for us. "
The 'oh please' should be directed at you. First of all, Bush won at most 40% of the latino vote. That's good, even admirable, but it was still a double-digit loss to the very liberal John Kerry. Your side has created a policy that invites in millions of people who as a group are naturally and predictably going to favor the Democrats, then when the predictable happens, you have the gall to blame my side for daring to point that out. You say its because we are mean, and hostile, and anti-whatever. The truth, of course, is that ANY position short of amnesty + increased legal immigration will be falsely portrayed by the Left (which includes the Democratic party, the media, universities, professional ethnic grievance groups, Hollywood, etc) as anti-whatever, xenophobic, racists, etc. So what you're really saying is that we must surrender to this perversion of debate and demagoguery of the Left. You're saying that no political expression can be given the very mainstream (usually majority) views of the public that favors less immigration, lest it offend immigrant communities (and again, the Left will make sure that it offends them...its bound to happen when there is an industry devoted to finding offense, even when none is intended, and to makking sure others share in the offense). This is very convenient for your position, but I see it as a further indictment of mass immigration, because it just goes to show that for all its alleged wonders, diversity is no strength when it comes to free, open, rational debate. In fact, its poison to it. But its precisely what you are saying. You're saying that rational discussion must be held hostage to the greater principle of not offending someone. I hate to break it to you, but that is 100% leftwing. Sorry, but its true. And you want to compete for votes in such an environment? Conservatism is doomed in such an environment because the rules and paramenter of acceptable debate will always be set against us. You may like it and find it convenient as it relates to immigration because you hold liberal views on the subject, but I guarantee you won't find it so agreeable on issues where you actually hold conservative positions.

To finish on this point, let me ask you this; do you think there is any way for someone to put forth the view that we should have less immigration in an acceptable manner, in such a way that won't get one called names; or is that very mainstream, widely-held view not fit for polite society?

---When I spoke of transforming America for nothing, you immediately go into a whole thing about being anti-Mexican. Your problem here is that -- like a liberal -- you can only imagine one type of bad guy in any conflict with racial or ethnic dynamics; that of course being a white guy, probably from the South, who drives a pick-up truck, with a Confederate flag in the window.
If you want to find genuine racists, then look at some of the inflammatory, outrageous remarks of extremists in the latino/open borders community. Is it fair to tar all on your side by their comments? No, of course its not, but neither is it fair to do the same to my side. The big difference of course, is that the media will ignore the racists on your side, and will not play the guilt-by-association game to taint the pro-mass immigration side, while they love to play that game with the anti-mass immigration forces through the very few genuine racists in our midst.

And as far as the transformation of the nation goes, why is so forbidden to discuss? Largely as a result of immigration policy, the United States is on its way to becoming a majority-minority nation. If current trends persist, then for the first time in our history, the US will not have a demographically dominant racial group (that its always had one has been very helpful in assimilation). Now, maybe that will prove to be a neutral thing. Maybe it will be a good thing. But mabye, just maybe, it won't be good. And if its not good, then mabye, just maybe, the bad guys won't be Buchananites. I don't know the answer, and neither do you. No one knows. But if we played it safe, and reduced immigration now, we could always increase it again later if need be. But if we continue with mass immigration, and indeed increase it even more as you call for, and if it turns out you are wrong, then it will be almost impossible to reduce immigration in the future.

---As to who is more guilty of disparaging their opponents in this conservative civil war, well, that's something else we just aren't going to be able to agree on. I see your side as the most guilty, with chief culprits being the WSJoural editorial page.

You say that "The anti-immigrant crowd denounces EVERY SINGLE PROPOSAL that allows for increased LEGAL immigration 'Amnesty', which either means they can't read a dictionary, or don't care because they think they can win with that word. " Well, first of all, accurately calling an amnesty plan amnesty, is not name-calling of people; its accurate labeling of legislation. Second of all, it would be exceptionally refreshing if proponents of increasing legal immigration would come out and say that they are calling for increases in legal immigration. and that their legislation allows for increases in legal immigration. But they don't do that. Instead, they play games by using deceptive and misleading language to describe their proposals. So anti-mass immigration forces are justified in blasting the proposals for this duplicity as much as anythine else.

---So in the end, the big question is why your side can't just be honest and upfront about what you want. Face it, your solution to the illegal immigration problem is to so massively increase already large-scale legal immigration to the point that pretty much all foreign demand to come here is accomodated, or to the point where it meets demand for jobs Americans won't do at the low wages offered. Why play on the assumptions and ideas that words like 'temporary guest worker' puts in people's minds of people who will eventually go home? Why not just say you want gigantic increases in permanent legal immigration? I understand that the public would oppose such plans, but you would have the media on your side, and you'd have most elites. And what the elites want, they almost always get, so why not just be upfront with the American people?

then look at some of the inflammatory, outrageous remarks of extremists in the latino/open borders community.
It's not extreme -- it's entirely mainstream, and matter-of-fact. Even Republican advocates of more immigration concede this implicitly when they attempt to scare us with the specter of the lost Latino vote. The subtext of that argument, after all, is that the loyalty of Latinos to their co-ethnics outside the US is stronger than their loyalty to their non-Latino fellow citizens, and that they will vote accordingly in favor of bringing in more people like themselves. They're probably correct to imply this because it is a fairly common feature of human existence, because it is the operational assumption behind the ethnic gerrymandering encoded in the Voting Rights Act, and because it is what Latino ethnic activists actually say. But it is racist, using the (somewhat unsatisfactory) common definition, insofar as it expresses a strong preference for one's "own kind" at the expense of other groups.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

You are assuming that everyone agrees with your view that immigration is bad for the non-Latino American population. Not everyone does.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

You are assuming that everyone agrees with your view that immigration is bad for the non-Latino American population. Not everyone does.

No, I am trying to expose the reasoning and assumptions behind the hypothetical future proposed by Republican advocates of increased immigration. In their imagined future:
- The restrictionists have won, meaning that, as far as our political system can discover, a majority of Americans have concluded to their satisfaction that current immigration flows are harmful to them. Insofar as premise 2 is correct, this majority consists almost entirely of of non-Latino Americans.
- The bulk of "Latinos" or "Hispanics" oppose this new policy, and attempt to punish the people or parties that have enacted it.

I argue in my previous post that these two premises are founded on the unspoken premise of what I referred to as ethnic loyalty. With all due respect, I believe your response to me is a non sequitur.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

Your conclusion that Latinos oppose the policy _because_ of their ethnic loyalty is based on the unstated premise that they could not possibly oppose the policy because they think it is misguided and against the interests of Americans as a whole.

Most people who oppose particular policies, and punish the parties that support them, do so because they believe the policies are wrong. Much - probably most - of the time they believe the policies are wrong for the country as a whole. You seem to rule this out as a possibility in this case.

This is not to say, of course, that you are wrong about ethnic loyalty. However, it only follows logically from your statements with the unstated premise included. I believe your unstated premise is false.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

It's possible, which is to say it's not at variance with the laws of logic, that in this scenario we are discussing, the group of people with the most interest in the outcome of immigration legislation have a better understanding of the interests of their countrymen than do those fellow citizens themselves. It's also possible that sugar growers are better judges of the national interest when it comes to sugar tarrifs and subsidies than the 99% of us who are not sugar growers. In general, one is well advised to be sceptical of claims which are so obviously self-serving, and not obviously true.

I believe your unstated premise is false.

Your alternative proposition, which is that Hispanic immigrants are uniquely blessed among all the groups of mankind with positively Solomonic objectivity, a degree of loyalty to their new home exceeding that of those whose ancestors came here ten generations past or more, and a public-spiritedness not generally noted in Latin America is, putting it charitably, far less likely to be true.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

The first question, on which I have not commented, is whether immigration is, in fact, in the interests of the wider community.

The second is whether people who support immigration believe it is so.

It is perfectly possible for you to be right on the first question and wrong on the second.

Your comment was premised on the assumption that Latinos have an ethnic loyalty which causes them to *consciously* support policies which they believe are against the interests of America as a whole. I simply countered that this does not follow from the fact that they support policies which *you* believe are against the interests of America as a whole.

As a result, your sugar growers analogy, while strong of itself, is a genuine non-sequitur. I don't suppose sugar growers snicker behind their hands about suckering the American public. They have probably convinced themselves that sugar tarrifs and subsidies are good for America. Thus it would be grossly unfair to say that sugar growers have a trade loyalty that goes beyond their loyalty to their country.

This whole nonsense of attacking people not for their policies but for their motives is usually a left-wing phenomenon. On the whole, conservatives tend to regard their opponents as misguided. It is the left which generally believes their opponents to be bad people.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

The first question, on which I have not commented, is whether immigration is, in fact, in the interests of the wider community.

It's a question, anyway. Before addressing it, we might ask ourselves this: Of what and of whom does the wider community - that is, those to whom we have direct responsibilities - consist? It is obvious that the two sides in this debate have different answers to that question. To give an example, it is quite likely that the "community" of a recent immigrant will include his coethnics abroad who are, after all, his relatives, friends, and former neighbors, alongside, and quite possibly ahead of, the more abstract community of his adopted nation. This is to be expected, and it is on this, and on the extent of one's implication in the racial spoils system, that the ethnic loyalty of which I speak is founded. That this makes him a better steward or representative of the interests of those whose families have been here for generations, and whose inner horizons of community are contiguous either with the United States or a region therein, is dubious.

Your comment was premised on the assumption that Latinos have an ethnic loyalty which causes them to *consciously* support policies which they believe are against the interests of America as a whole. I simply countered that this does not follow from the fact that they support policies which *you* believe are against the interests of America as a whole.

I don't believe that I either implied or explicitly stated that Latinos on the whole (MeCHAistos excepted) believe that increased immigration is bad for the United States, much less that they favor it because it is bad for the United States. To the extent that I gave that impression, I apologize, but it is not what I meant. Presumably Latinos think themselves splendid people by whose increased numbers any place would be improved.

As a result, your sugar growers analogy, while strong of itself, is a genuine non-sequitur. I don't suppose sugar growers snicker behind their hands about suckering the American public. They have probably convinced themselves that sugar tarrifs and subsidies are good for America. Thus it would be grossly unfair to say that sugar growers have a trade loyalty that goes beyond their loyalty to their country.

Actually, the analogy is perfectly to the point: Interest pulls sincerity in its train. People readily convince themselves that what is good for them is good for everyone else, which is why we insist on disinterested jurists and look askance at conflicts of interest on the part of legislators and bureaucrats. The most cynical excepted, sugar growers are probably quite a patriotic bunch, and sincerely believe that it is to the benefit of America, as they understand America, of course, to support sugar prices. That so doing lines their pockets is mere happy coincidence. This is why sincerity is such a poor guide to action.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

I think we are largely agreed. A great many Latinos support a liberal immigration regime; they do so believing it is in the interests of America; you disagree; you think that, in part, their assessment of America's interests may have been influenced by their own personal and family interests.

I would suggest this puts them in company not only with sugar growers, but with almost everybody. I really, really, try to separate these questions in my own mind, and I genuinely believe my ability to assess the wider interest separately from my own is better than most. But I don't claim to be perfect at this.

(By the way, I never thought you were implying that Latinos support immigration because it is bad for America, but I did believe you were implying they supported it knowing it was bad for America).

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

This whole nonsense of attacking people not for their policies but for their motives is usually a left-wing phenomenon

I have to assume that you are a newcomer to the immigration debate, because those who constantly attack people for their imagined motives rather than for their policies are the pro-immigration camp. I have yet to see an "argument" from their side which was not either (a) you are a bigot or (b) you are a statist.

I have yet to see any pro-immigrationist put up a diary making a case for their preferred policy, as opposed to casting aspersions on the motivations of those who oppose them. I'm starting to think that they are incapable of doing so.

Pro-immigrationist, heal thyself.

You are addressing this as a reply to me. Insofar as it is on point you are endorsing my opinion that attacking people's motives instead of the substance of their argument is a bad thing.

I also said it is usually a feature of the left. You said it is usually a feature of the pro-immigration side of the debate, which I happen to know you think is a left-wing view. So we are agreed on that, too.

But it is your last remark that puzzles me most. "Pro-immigrationist, heal thyself."

I am sure you are not suggesting that I have ever called you, or anyone else, a bigot or a statist for your opposition to immigration. In fact, as I recall one discussion we had, I was moved to step in because you were describing Mike Pence and supporters of his plan, socialists, which I felt (and feel)was (and is) an absurd description.

And if the tag 'pro-immigrationist' was aimed at me, well I am sure you have noticed that, while you and I have crossed swords on this issue in the past, I have never expressed support for increased immigration.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I don't like to pay taxes, secure workman's compensation, and do other costly things to operate my business although the law requires these things. Would you kindly get President Bush or Sens. Kennedy or McCain to mail me the list of laws I don't have to follow? I mean, if the buggy whip industries are subsidized by illegal labor and the other crimes associated with it because they cannot be competitive without lawbreaking, shouldn't we all have that right?

Incidentally, I thought economists were opposed to government subsidies like costly non-enforcement of our laws and the related social services to prop up dying industries. Has that changed?

First I don't consider myself an isolationist. As a matter of fact I'm in favor of all manner of free trade. I am not pro-increased minimum wage but I am for not allowing market forces not to be sabotaged by illegal manipulations (i.e. illegal labor capital).

I suppose we should just give up on the War on Terror. Let’s just let them do what ever they want to us. After all they are exerting a tremendous amount of market force for our destruction.

Your damn analogy is flawed. You’re mixing philosophies that of military/national might and economics. Looking just at economics a better analogy might be a vacuum that will decrease in pressure (higher wages) until filled (by legal workers). You propose instead by filling the vacuum with illegals at a lower wage.

Are illegals the unstoppable force of nature? I find this a hard line to swallow. If I remember correctly the Berlin wall was fairly effective despite the great desire of many residents to pass through it

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

We have mixed emotions because in the back of our minds we know that all of us, minus native American Indians, came from somewhere else at some point and our ancestors were viewed as less than desirable.

This is just a parroting of the standard tripe foisted upon us by those who have little respect for the intellect of average Americans in hopes that we'll be conned into the notion that a) we're a "nation of immigrants" and b) because of "a", it would be wrong if we ever placed limits on immigration. So, please, don't project your "mixed emotions" upon us. And not all of our ancestors were deemed as "less than desireable."

The people who were here when the colonies became states did not consider themselves "immigrants" or even "descendants of immigrants." They were British subjects one day and American citizens the next, and they considered themselves as such. Soon after that, and American geographer coined the term "immigrant" that became a colloqualism citizens used to describe those who came here AFTER these United States became a reality.

Let's take your plea to its extreme and insist that NOBODY whose ancestors migrated here has a claim on this land and we all must go back to the place our ancestors all came from. It would be pretty crowded in between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and there would be all those IEDs to deal with, but what the heck. Because our ancestor migrated, we have no right to create societies and cultures anywhere else. And surely it would be wrong for us to decide the size, character and cultural makeup of the society we leave for our desendants. Our ancestors were so wrong for doing this very thing...handing down cultural artifacts and ideals...that we should pave over all their cemeteries to make sure that they are forever forgotten.

If you did not "get" that last bit of snark, the "native Americans" migrated here too. They fought wars, they enslaved each other, sometimes even ATE each other after victory in battle and, well, acted just like humans acted as we moved toward higher orders of civilization, more advanced internalized ideals of right and wrong, etc.

And Buchanan's "failed" immigration plan is almost wrote copied from Eisenhower's wildly successful immigration plan. If you're going to bash the house bill, at least strive to reach the intellectual level of that premier wench of the multicult, Tamar Jacoby, rather than string out errant middle school civics essays for us.

Sometimes I read a post or reply that smacks of the notion that we're supposed to feel guilt for believing that the nation our ancestors created is something world keeping. This is one of them.

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.

-Theodore Roosevelt

Buchananism is a nightmare of the party of old that was isolationist & protectionist during WW2 and at best internationally acquiescent and at worst isolationist & protectionist today. The Buchananites make way too much noise for the sliver of the party they represent (see 2000 election results) --though they claim to be the heart & soul of the party. They do harm to the country by facilitating the election of Democrats who are the appeasers of our Islamofascist enemies.

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

and that is a mistake. Buchanism post I-just-visited-a-manufacturing-plant-on-the-day-their-bosses-fired-them and pre- that same event are quite different. On that day Pat decided that protecting American workers was the absolute highest calling he could have, and was willing to sacrifice his other ideals to achieve that objective. What came before was usually rational, well-thought through, and good conservative policy. You deride him at your own risk, because there are more of out here you are familiar with his pre- work than you know. And when he moves back in that direction, he is still worth reading/listening to. Republicans who ignore his current book, and do not craft a thoughtful response to it will find themselves out of office or in the minority. They may have self-satisfied egos, but they will not retain the hearts and minds of their countrymen.

I want NOTHING that will encourage more illegals to come into the country. Guest worker programs have an abysmal record of failure elsewhere in the world. AFTER, I repeat, AFTER we start enforcing our workplace and border laws, Then we can consider some sort of path to citizenship for those who have been here peacefully and hard at work for a long number of years.
I admit that it would be impossible and not constructive to ship out those people. BUT, enforcement first!

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

We hope you're enjoying your RedState experience. I see you've been with us for over a year now, with relatively little in the way of a commenting history. In the interest of having you stick around, a few ground rules:

(1) Please review the posting rules.
(2) Please cut the ad hominems.
(3) Please cut the "nativist" crap when aimed directly or indirectly at fellow commenters. This applies to your comments downthread, as well.
(4) Please don't be sophistic in replying to (3) above.

Thank you for your time and attention. Please return to your commenting with the above guidelines in mind.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

format once in a while... :>)
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The only thing missing here was a reference to the Statue of Liberty!

And you really need to stop believing the Micheal Barone/Karl Rove nonsense about Hispanics being a group that is anxious to be Republicans, if only we'd stop being such mean, racist, xenophobes. Yes, as a group, Hispanics hold some conservative views. They have strong pro-life sentiments, and they favor preserving traditional marriage to name a couple, yet at the same time they favor Democrat office-seekers. If the consequences weren't so dire, it would almost be worth it to try a little experiment whereby we pass the awful Senate bill, and all anti-mass immigration voices in the GOP became silent as we engage in a war of pandering with the Democrats to prove who is the most morally pure. Then 15 or 20 yrs down the line we could examine the voting pattern of the illegals who took the path to citizenship, and the new 'guests' who took the same path. Seeing you explain why Hispanics still favor the Democrats by wide margins, and why Texas has become a battleground state, would be very interesting as you'd no longer have any boogeymen on the right to blame.

What I simply can't understand is how pro-unending mass immigration conservatives actually think that the GOP can break even with immigrant communities so long as mass immigration persists. Mass immigration is anti-assimilation, and strong assimilation is the only way the GOP can win with immigrants.

While we may not like illegal immigration in general there is not outright anger at the illegal immigrants working construction jobs, picking vegetables, and working in our communities.

You must live a very sheltered existence. Here in my segment of the real world, we are quite upset with the casual disregard shown by many immigrants, most of whom, if the US government's statistics on the immigrant population of the DC Metro area are to be believed, are legal, for all the petty laws (and all too often, the serious ones, too) and unfashionable rules of bourgeois propriety that make civilized life possible. Yes, I am upset with the men, whose paint-spattered clothing presumably is evidence of employment, whose idea of recreation is loitering and public drunkeness. Please, I invite you to explore Columbia Pike in Arlington west of Walter Reed/Fillmore, or pretty much any part of Four Mile Run - I can assure you that the profusion of beer bottles, the graffiti, the used condoms, and the occasional rape and murder are not the evidence of surreptitious visits by thrill-seeking Federal Government auditors from Woodbridge. In any event, I don't see that immigrants, having gotten here by hook or by crook so that they might enjoy more stuff (that is why almost all immigrants come, not because they believe the self-congratulatory, self-deluding cant about "freedom" so beloved of the propositionalists), are by virtue of that mere fact of presence, worthy of our especial respect or deference to their foreign ways. They came here, so it's their job to conform, not ours.

We have mixed emotions because in the back of our minds we know that all of us, minus native American Indians, came from somewhere else at some point and our ancestors were viewed as less than desirable.

Everyone's ancestors came from somewhere else. Mine were here long before the people who got here yesterday, and for their sake, for mine, and for my longed-for children, I should wish to keep faith with them by leaving the country better than I found it, and not some English-speaking version of Brazil.

I'm afraid Republicans are doing long-term damage to our party by this new embrace of Pat Buchanan's failed immigration plan. Hispanics have so much in common with conservative principles and leaders.

Evidence, please, by which I expressly do not mean some 19th century stereotype of happy, devout peasants. Please tell me something that matches current conditions in either Latin American countries or "Hispanic" communities (anomalous wealthy, white Cuban exiles excepted) in the United States. I look around today, and see a party that has suffered far more already, having lost California to the demographic changes it abetted, to the ideological dreams of the propositionalists and optimists than from the recrudescence of "nativism." But ideology has the virtue of unfalsifiability, and I'm sure that when Virginia, the Carolinas, and Texas go blue because these "natural conservatives" turn out to be anything but, you'll still be blaming the "nativists" for the damage you wrought yourselves.

--------------------------------------------------------------

...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

Unless you define including both as:

Deport everyone and increase limits on legal immigration.

and the rest are useful. A couple to ponder:

"Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time?"

Deport All 16%
Remain if Meet Certain Requirements 66%

"Do you think illegal immigrants mostly take jobs that nobody wants or do they mostly take jobs away from Americans who need them?"

Nobody Wants 51%
Take Away Jobs 27%

"One proposal is to create a 'guest worker' program that would give a temporary visa to noncitizens who want to work legally in the United States. The program would provide a path to permanent resident status if certain requirements were met. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say?"

Support 46
Oppose 22

"One proposal would allow undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say?"

Support 67
Oppose 18

The questions are getting long, so if you want to read more of them go to the link. Here are some more results:

Only Tougher Enforcement 32
Tougher Enforcement And Guest Worker 58

House Approach 33%
Senate Approach 50%

Favor applying for temproary status 63
Oppose 29

Support Guest Worker 61
Oppose 36

And the one that most applies to this diary:

If Congress does not pass an immigration bill this year, would you be pleased, or disappointed, or not care one way or the other?"

Pleased 6%
Disappointed 60%

The bottom line
Most of the country wants a tighter border including a fence and/or increased security stopping people from coming in illegally. They also want a rational system where hard-working immigrants can come into the country and work. The Senate Bill is a perfect compromise that puts Republicans on the side of 60+% of Americans. It helps secure the border and deals with the underlying economic issues at hand through a popular guest worker program. That is why scuttling it looks so bad and is a disappointment. Now the borders aren't secure and there is no new rational program for immigrant workers.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

is a definitional fallacy. Just because you can find a majority of the mob to support something doesn't make it right.

Nobody in America wants a confrontation about anything; it's the price of being an affluent, peaceful, and somewhat indolent society, so it stands to reason that the typical respondent would answer that they didn't want to "round 'em up and throw 'em out." That said, I'd be willing to bet that if the question were put differently, they'd say, "round 'em up and throw 'em out.

And there's that picky little thing about it being against the law to be in the country against the law.

In Vino Veritas

I'm not in the majority on some things. I think legal immigration quotas should be raised. I'm not arguing that popularity makes it right. I'm mainly arguing that this is why Congress does and should see their inability to solve the problem as a shame rather than with pride. And it is why it may cost Republicans the House. The public and a majority of legislators agree on the issue. On major issues, if you are in charge and you can't deal with the issue then it is likely you won't be in charge for much longer.

Alas, it seems more important to "take a stand" to Tancredoites than actually accomplish a reform to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Unfortunately, it seems too many are opposed to the immigration rather than the illegal.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I don't think most can see the legal immigration for the forest of illegal "immigration." There really aren't a lot of isolationists or xenophobes out there, and Americans have always tolerated if not welcomed those who came here legally. It is just all lost in what can only be characterized as an invasion of illegal immigrants.

The Senate and GWB with their "comprehensive" reform phrased the issue this way and the People aren't buying it. The American people will accept people coming here by the rules, but they won't accept repealing the rules as a matter of economic or political expediency.
In Vino Veritas

I personally believe legal immigration benefits the United States. However, I (as do most Americans) also acknowledge immigration is a privilege and not a right. Therefore, the Senate can vote to let 66 million new immigrants into the United States--or the House can limit it to zero, depending on what their constituents dictate.

My prediction is that uncontrolled illegal immigration will lead more and more Americans toward the zero side of that equation, and Congress will not be able to push back that demand for much longer.

And that is the shame because it is the legal immigrants that bring knowledge and skills with them. So if your scenario is accurate we will end up with allot of illegals and keep all the good labor capital out side. Seems like the wrong approach to me.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

America's legal immigration success has been one of frequent pauses that facilitated assimilation. The first generation immigrant success story has always been the anomaly, which is precisely why it has always been newsworthy. Innovations resulting from an influx of newcomers generally do not exhibit themselves until the second and third generations composed of fully allegiant Americans. Today's diaspora communites are semi-adjuncts of other nations that are not fully American, regardless of what they may claim or believe. Ask any 50-year resident of Miami, if you can find one.

It is reasonable to argue that the restrictions implemented by 1924's Johnson-Reed reform laid the foundation for the rapid pace of post WWII innovation. The five-percent foreign born population level we had throughout most of the 1950's and 1960's inspired us to build rockets and go to the moon. Today's likely 15 percent foreign born population will inspire us to build more gated communities and distrust our neighbors. I shudder to think what this nation will be like during my child's adult years if anything as poisonous and radically inadvisable as the Pence or Senate bills become law.

We've never had even one third as many foreign born in this nation at one time as we do today, and we're likely at an all time high percentage of the resident population that is of foreign birth. There is no credibility in positing that today's immigrants' offspring will reach the heights that past waves of newcomers have. The status quo is too radical a departure from any prior era for legitimate comparison. A prudent nation with an appropriate level of respect for its future generations would impose restrictions on immigration rather than facilitate more of it when the signs of a potentially dangerous culture clash are marching in the streets making demands for rights to which they have no legitimate claim.

One thing that we do know for certain is that, given the chance, human beings will choose to associate with and promote the interests of those with whom they share the most ancestral commonalities. Immigration pauses, and even occasional net emigration, have proved vital to success in the American immigration/assimilation story: Simply, assimilation is contrary to human nature but mandatory for the success of this nation.

It is counter-intuitive to simply take it as faith that today's mass immigration scheme will be good for future generations, especially based on the sole argument that "it worked before." There is no precedent or comparable set of circumstances. It is a radical departure from past patterns, and based on that fact alone should not be supported those who subscribe to a conservative thought framework (as opposed to one of the many conservative ideaologies that all claim to be the "true conservatives") and who still believe that success comes from a conservatism based on prudence, prescription and prejudice.

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.

-Theodore Roosevelt

with that logic is that "The American people" do buy it. They support guest worker programs and comprehensive reform. I posted about 15 poll questions above and linked to more from a slew of outlets. You can argue that "The American people" are wrong but that is a different argument. Most Americans want a compassionate system where illegal immigration is stifled. That's what the Senate plan does. A small minority want to get rid of most immigrants because they threaten our culture or heritage in some way. It's a defensible position, but not a widespread one.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Honestly and fairly characterize the people advocating different sides of the debate.

I'm just sayin'.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

The original diary tiptoped around called me a traitor. I've done my best to avoid trigger words like nativist, but it is not hard to read Tancredo and Buchanan and see a streak of anti-immigrant fervor. If they were merely followers in a bigger movement, that would be one thing. But they are the ostensible leaders of this minority. Their views matter. And Tancredo's denouncement of Pence is just more evidence that he will not stand for anything that does not clamp down on all immigration, not just illegal immigration.

If you want to police the word choices, then it would be nice to see you slap down every "amnesty" post as well as every "nativist" one.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I've done my best to avoid trigger words like nativist, but it is not hard to read Tancredo and Buchanan and see a streak of anti-immigrant fervor.

They can take their 3% of the electorate and shove it. Feel free to call them nativists, xenophobes, or whatever you prefer. The idea, however, that Buchanan and Tancredo are the "leaders" of one side of this debate, outside of their own minds, is as risible as saying La Raza is at the head of your side.

What set me off is this:

A small minority want to get rid of most immigrants because they threaten our culture or heritage in some way.

A tiny minority wants to get rid, etc. A minority, or perhaps a plurality, or God alone knows, wants to check illegal immigration, or even immigration in general, without "getting rid of most immigrants" or even "getting rid of immigration," for those very reasons, in good faith, with no xenophobia, with no nativism, with no racism. Preservation of culture may be a codeword for racism to some folks, but to others, it is a legitimate concern.

You know this, or should know this.

The original diary tiptoped around called me a traitor.

Really? Because I see "treason" referring to what the House has done, and "sedition" referring to the act of flying the flag of a foreign power in an act of protest (which, indeed, it is). Share.

And Tancredo's denouncement of Pence is just more evidence that he will not stand for anything that does not clamp down on all immigration, not just illegal immigration.

La Raza's denunciation of the House bill is proof that the folks-who-view-human-laborers-as-commodities will stop at nothing to destroy the sovereignty of this country.

Now, mine wasn't fair, starting with more or less word one. In fairness, you waited until word two to be unfair.

If you want to police the word choices, then it would be nice to see you slap down every "amnesty" post as well as every "nativist" one.

Well, given that (1) the Senate bill is a conditional amnesty in all but name, and (2) that referring to the Senate bill that way is not, in fact, a shot across the bow of another commenter or diarist or Contributor or whatever, you're going to have to pardon me if I don't have to unwad my panties now.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

A minority, or perhaps a plurality, or God alone knows, wants to check illegal immigration, or even immigration in general, without "getting rid of most immigrants" or even "getting rid of immigration," for those very reasons, in good faith

I think that is true of a majority of Americans. The question continues to be how to check illegal immigration. But many are arguing in bad faith that the Senate Bill somehow invites more illegal immigration. It does not, and you know that. So if you're fact checking everyone's argumentation closely, then note that everyone in this debate agrees that illegal immigration is a problem. Then we can move on to how to solve it: The Senate way or the House way.

The President, a majority of the Senate, a majority of the House, a majority of Americans, and myself think a comprehensive approach that cracks down on border crossings and works with the market to provide labor where it is needed is the better option. How that makes me only inches from treasonous, I'm unsure.

As for leadership, I see President Bush, Senator McCain, and Senator Brownback as the biggest proponents of the Senate Bill, not La Raza. In fact, I'd be quite surprised if La Raza supported the Senate Bill and the President. Who do you see as the leadership of the anti-Senate Bill faction? Sure there are crazy groups on both sides, but only elected leaders who are raising the banner and fighting tooth and nail the way Paul wants them too are the Tancerdoites. Even men like Mr. Pence are not willing to do that.

If Buchanan and Tancredo are not the leaders of the House faction, who are? And having Buchanan and Tancredo as the face of the GOP will drive out members like me. They are isolationist who are at best borderline anti-Mexican and anti-immigrant.

I welcome debate with those of "good faith" who want to limit "illegal immigration," but most of those types are okay with either a Senate style bill, a guest worker program, or at least a Pence compromise. Once you reject all of those options, really it comes down to wanting fewer immigrants which is distinct from combating illegal immigration. I think there is a market for those who want to oppose immigration, but it is much smaller than the market for those who oppose illegal immigration.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

that if the Senate bill is a disguise for amnesty then it's fair to say the House bill is a disguise for isolationist nativism under the banner of "enforcement." I don't think either is actually a good description but if we're going to police wording it shouldn't be one-sided.

When the Senate puts forward a bill granting clemency and citizenship for nothing in return, then I will call it amnesty. And when the House puts forth a bill cutting the level of legal immigration and calling for deportation of 12 million people living here, I'll call it nativist. Until then, I'll avoid both terms and I wish others would too.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

But many are arguing in bad faith that the Senate Bill somehow invites more illegal immigration. It does not, and you know that.

Bad faith? Liars, he calls his opponents, sure that their dislike of the bill comes from something other than its own disastrous effects. He goes on to label his opponents isolationists and nativists.

The Senate bill doesn't invite illegal immigration as long as it remains an artifact of purely historical interest.

The dead Senate bill put those who are in this country illegally in a different class than those who have obeyed the rules. It would have rewarded the act of illegally immigrating by showing that if an illegal immigrant is able to put down roots, he doesn't need to follow any stinking rules, or at least, the rules he needs to follow are much less onerous than those with which he would otherwise have to contend.

I'll stop there.

There is zero evidence that a majority of Americans thinks that "a comprehensive approach that cracks down on border crossings and works with the market to provide labor where it is needed is the better option."

There is also zero evidence that the Senate bill backers, President Bush, Senator Brownback, or anyone else on the pro-immigration side has any interest in suddenly enforcing the law if only we would "bribe" them by giving them their precious new citizens. The border could be secured tomorrow, under existing law, if we had leadership interested in doing so.

That the GOP leadership would attempt to blackmail the American people in this fashion, basically saying "If you want us to enforce the law, you have to give us what we what first", makes it look as if we are already far doen the road to being just another banana republic where the "law" is simply a fig-leaf for the interests of the rich and powerful.

Once you reject all of those options, really it comes down to wanting fewer immigrants which is distinct from combating illegal immigration. I think there is a market for those who want to oppose immigration, but it is much smaller than the market for those who oppose illegal immigration.

Adam, you need to read those polls you keep quoting, I mean read them this time. They say the opposite of what you keep saying they say. Majorities of Americans consistently support reducing legal immigration.

Your consistent namecalling is getting tiresome. If there are good arguments to be made for the policy positions you favor why don't you make them? The alleged benificial results of immigration seem to be rather elusive.

The border could be secured tomorrow, under existing law, if we had leadership interested in doing so.

Sandor: I don't see how you can make this statement with a straight face. I'd bet my last dollar it would take more than the "interest" of the leaderhip to secure the border under existing law. What you've posited assumes:

1) Securing the border under existing law is technically feasible; and,

2) Financially viable.

I don't know what you consider to be a secure border (an 80% reduction in illegal crossings/stayovers? 90%? 99%?), but anything approaching the higher reduction numbers looks pretty doggone difficult to me without at least glancing at the economics behind the illegal inflow. The results of our trebbling (or is it quadrupling?) what we spend on border enforement these past fifteen years or so aren't encouraging. I personally don't see why the law of diminishing returns is going to exempt enforcement-only stragegies. So far it hasn't.

Mind you, I'm not saying it would be impossible to secure the border "under existing law" and using an enforcement-only approach. It just seems overwhelmingly likely that taking the dismal science into consideration in combination with enforcement is an approach more likely to bear fruit if one is concerned with reducing illegal immigration.

What you've posited assumes:

1) Securing the border under existing law is technically feasible

So you are assuming that it is not even technically feasible to secure the border? That is some mighty big assumption all right.

Beats me how all the other countries manage it though. Perhaps we can ask some of the Mexicans how they handle it.

>>Beats me how all the other countries manage it though. Perhaps we can ask some of the Mexicans how they handle it.

Where are all these countries that have prevented illegal immigration?

How do the Mexicans secure their border? Well that would probably be the big fence, machine gun posts, rabid dogs etc. along the border with Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.

What is it that makes you think the border is hard to cross in one direction and not the other? I think you will find that the main difference is actually this: many Mexicans want to move to the United States, and not many Americans want to move to Mexico.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Mexico has more than one border... they have no interest in securing their Northern border but they are pretty ruthless in keeping people from crossing in from the South.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Question: Does their 'Ruthless' enforcement work?

NO.

How do I know this? Because a very large chunk of illegal immigrants here are not from Mexico. They are from other parts of Central and South America. How do you think they got here? Hint: They didn't swim.

Nomatter how much the nativist, anti-guestworker crowd screams, they won't change the laws of supply and demand. The border will never be secure so long as we do not allow for a reasonable flow of legal immigration.

I put the blame for failure to secure the border directly on them.

It is important to stop Hazzeem the Terrorist and Raul the Drug Dealer from crossing our borders. They are a lot harder to find when we are busy trying to stop Pablo the Fruit Picker from coming accrost the border.

When you want to complain about homeland security, look at yourself in the mirror.

But they also have very little interest in preventing people from moving on through Mexico to the US. Staying in Mexico is a whole different story. They also have a very corrupt army that can be bought for the right price. I am sure there are coyotes operating between other latin america countries and the US, paying bribes along the way.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

The results of our trebbling (or is it quadrupling?) what we spend on border enforement these past fifteen years or so aren't encouraging. I personally don't see why the law of diminishing returns is going to exempt enforcement-only stragegies. So far it hasn't.

The enforcement plans don't just involve increasing the number of warm bodies who don't have the tools to stop illegal entry into this country and leaders who don't have any interest in stopping or slowing down the same.

Building a fence and getting serious about enforcement would greatly increase the productivity of all that expensive personel on the border at a very low cost. If I were to take the governments approach to the border, say, in building a house, I would:

1. Hire a bunch of people to stand around at the construction site.
2. Be sure those people know that if they try to do their job they just might have to spend a few decades in prison.
3. Hire contractors that know just how serious I am (wink wink nudge nudge) about getting this house built.
4. Don't allow the use of any tools on the construction site... after all, things like hammers and drills are expensive and wear out... and they are pointless anyway. We just can't afford that kind of thing.
5. When I want it to appear like I'm really interested in building the house, I bring in some more people to stand around. But they aren't builders and I've given them strict instructions to not do any work on the house, but we sure got our fingers crossed and hope that they make the difference.

Now, I could look back after I've spent a hundred billion dollars trying to build this house and say that it just can't be done. After all, with results like this, what is an additional expense (hammers and drills) going to do to improve things? Might as well give up... I guess it's just not feasible.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

believing comprehensive immigration is the only way to stop illegal immigration does not make it a fact. Especially when we have evidence that the very same process, passed with the very same rhetoric under Reagan produced the current intolerable conditions. That HISTORICAL FACT trumps POLITICAL MAJORITY BELIEF in my book.

Your own arguments further undermine your position. You say that the majority of illegal immigrants came here legally then overstayed their legal visas (an argument I don't buy). You then proceed to say that the guest worker program in the "comprehensive" bill will reduce illegal immigration. This is inferred because you say the "comprehensive" bill is the only way to reduce it, and this provision is in the compreshesive bill and you make no effort to exclude it.

And if you think I give a d*mn about polls, you missed one of my earlier posts.

I'm gonna leave it at that, because I know you're out of pocket, and it's no fair taking shots that you can't return.

Best of luck, man.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

I welcome debate with those of "good faith" who want to limit "illegal immigration," but most of those types are okay with either a Senate style bill, a guest worker program, or at least a Pence compromise. Once you reject all of those options, really it comes down to wanting fewer immigrants which is distinct from combating illegal immigration. I think there is a market for those who want to oppose immigration, but it is much smaller than the market for those who oppose illegal immigration.

Best summation of the situation I've ever heard.

Read those polls again. Not only do Americans want an end to illegal immigration, all the poll's you mention have a question along the lines of ""Do you think the United States should increase or decrease the number of legal immigrants allowed to move to this country?"

And the majority consistently says that the number of legal immigrants needs to be decreased. I can't understand how you managed to miss that fact. Since the Senate bill does in fact increase legal immigration, I'd say that any of those who are seemingly supporting it don't quite understand it.

Sadly, to disagree with some people on this issue is now viewed as disloyalty to the country. It's in the original post itself. We supported a "dispossession" of the United States of America - and thus are guilty of treachery.

a guest worker program, it is because they have not looked closely at what has been proposed. Guest worker programs every other place they have ever been tried are a failure, They end up allowing people to immigrate permanently.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

...push the Pence plan. That compromise strikes hard to split the anti-illegal immigration plurality from the anti-immigration portion of the party.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I don't think it is the best plan, but it would be a good first step and it would be much better than the current status quo.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

Agreed. The Pence plan isn't pefect, (and neither is the Senate bill, even though I'm more or less in favor of most of it), but it's an acceptable compromise.

If they support the Pence bill is the perfect way to see if they are honestly interested in the rule of law and against anything that they call 'amnesty' (although I'd argue that paying a fine and back taxes, and learning english, is more practical and doesn't undermine the rule of law either), or if they are actually just nativist who don't want those funny looking weirdos from south of the border in 'their' country.

That would be more accurate. Even the super racist/xenophobe/Hispanic-hating Buchanan thinks we should admit upwards of 250,000 immigrants per year. Tancredo has called for capping it at 300,000 per year. While those numbers are much lower than current levels, or those levels the Senate or Pence bill would unleash, it is still a lot of people.

When you want a one-to-one correspondence of incoming and outgoing persons, it's hardly a ringing endorsement of the concept of bringing people in.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I want levels set at what the American people want, and what congressional studies show to be appropriate level for the economy, national stability, and the general welfare to use an old phrase. An immigrant should normally be admitted to the United States only if this benefits the nation (yes, asylum and other special circumstances form the exceptions). Again, this is a privilege. Whether the proper number is zero or 660,000 should be based on consensus and fact, not hubris, political correctness, or the rants of demagogues of any stripe.

The low point, for me at least, during the Senate's psychotic episode came not from the usual suspects like McCain or Kennedy but from a very reasonable guy--Sen. Dick Lugar. When asked how many immigrants legal and otherwise the legislation he supported would allow into the country, Sen. Lugar said he honestly didn't know. That defined the entire charade, and why the House actions were appropriate--which was the point of Paul's diary, after all.

A. The American people want a guest worker program.

B. Even if I'm wrong about that, what the American people will want in the long run is for supply and demand to be in synch. There was a time where the American people wanted Alcohol banned. It didn't work out very well. The demand was too high and it created crime, real crime, not wanting a drink crime, all over the place.

The situation on the border is identical to prohibition.

unless they want something you don't like? C'mon. Immigration is a decision made by the American people, and if they don't want a guest worker program, fine. If they want one, fine. The same goes for raw numbers. The obligation on the part of the Congress is to craft legislation that fits this simple reality. And the Administration is required to enforce those laws. Failure on either part is illegitimate.

Why does there need to exist a "ringing endorsement of the concept of bringing people in"?

Who actually believes in this? I think I'm pretty familiar with the views of various freemarket economist types, and they don't have the same passion for immigration as some of the posters here.

Even the paleo-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist types at Lew Rockwell, who regard the GOP as just another socialist party, are not on board with the whole open borders concept. See that noted Buchananite, Ron Paul, here.

Is the whole pro-immigration movement anything more than employers saying "free-market capitalism means we can do what we want to"?

Write a diary about this, and I'll give it a go sparring with you on this subject.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Maybe later on tonight.

Is not so obviously brilliant, so let's discuss it. I think we're overcrowded, and letting in too many of the wrong people, and setting up a horrendous collision twenty or thirty years hence. Obviously some number of people will come and go to take jobs, or marry, or what have you, but I'd rather the wisdom of net immigration be argued for, rather than posited.

--------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

Following up on Neil's point, anybody who is not familiar with the legal immigration system and how the quotas are distributed might think that the 250,000 - 300000 number being offered by Tancredo and Buchanan are somehow reasonable. Those in the know realize that would be virtually ending immigration as we know it. The number represents pretty much the best the restrictacons can hope for. Suppose the planets were to reallign and all Americans and Congress agreed with Tancredo and Buchanan about keeping out the "barbarians at the gate". Congress would be hard pressed to pass a law allowing zero immigrants. Such a law, basically forbidding U.S citizens from marrying or adopting a foreign national would be succeptible to constitutional challenges, and likely be struck down in the courts. Currently, the spouses and minor children of U.S citizens make up about 250,000 "immigrants" of the 1M allowed currently. After considering this in context, it is easy to see that Tancredo and Buchannan want to stop basically all immigration which can be stopped. Which shows up their proposals for what they really are.

>>Congress would be hard pressed to pass a law allowing zero immigrants. Such a law, basically forbidding U.S citizens from marrying or adopting a foreign national would be succeptible to constitutional challenges, and likely be struck down in the courts.

Zero immigration would restrict US citizens currently living abroad from ever returning. Even if US citizens were specifically exempted, there is the question of people *already* married to US citizens. Presumably any total cap would recognise the following priorities:

+ US citizens
+ Current spouses and dependents of US citizens
+ Prospective spouses and dependents of US citizens.

Full disclosure: my wife is in the first category. I am therefore in the second.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

In what way are US citizens who have been living abroad considered immigrants?
---------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

Immigration is inward migration. All immigration is therefore, of course, also emigration, since migration, of necessity involves leaving one country and entering another.

Some definitions of migration - at least its human form - carry the implication that it is for permanent settlement. But in today's globalised world I am not sure 'permanent' has much meaning. It is a bit like the difference between 'permanent' and 'temporary' jobs. Perhaps 'indefinite' would be a better word in the context. Understood in this sense people can migrate several times in a lifetime.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

if you could cite any case where a citizen returning to his/her country has been considered "immigration", much less a case in the United States. The technical term is repatriation but it is most assuredly not immigration.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

What definition are you talking about?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Not the meaning whereby someone born, raised, and resident in Washington DC who returns from missionary work in Mali is considered an immigrant.
--------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

This is the ordinary meaning of the word. Your example is meaningless. If someone was indefinitely settled outside the US and then returned this would indeed be immigration. If it was for a short and defined period that they were abroad it would not.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

That the immigration service does not consider a returning US citizen an immigrant no matter how long they have been absent, a week or a lifetime. In this country a (legal) immigrant must have some form of documentation establishing that they may enter and remain in the country. A returning citizen requires only a current passport --- and in a true emergency even a lack of that can be dealt with. And the census folks don't count returning citizens as immigrants.

Returning ex pats are not immigrants.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

presumably bases its current policies on the basis of current law. My only point is that a policy of zero inward migration - or indeed any other quota based approach - somehow needs to take account of the needs and rights of citizens living abroad, either by exempting them from the quota or by setting the quota high enough that it does not restrict their rights.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

A vacation in France is not emigrating to France. One does not become a expatriate while spending two weeks bumming around Provence.

But in today's globalised world I am not sure 'permanent' has much meaning. It is a bit like the difference between 'permanent' and 'temporary' jobs. Perhaps 'indefinite' would be a better word in the context. Understood in this sense people can migrate several times in a lifetime.

This is all so unintentionally postmodern, and it what is what I am fighting against. I don't want to be a free spirit, floating above the world, playing at life.

--------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

>>A vacation in France is not emigrating to France. One does not become a expatriate while spending two weeks bumming around Provence.

Of course not. No-one suggested otherwise. But some Americans move abroad for work purposes and indefinitely settle elsehwere. My wife, for example, has been living in the UK for three years and has indefinite leave to remain here. We have no current plans to move to the US, though we may.

>>This is all so unintentionally postmodern, and it what is what I am fighting against. I don't want to be a free spirit, floating above the world, playing at life.

Not postmodern, just modern. Things have changed. Jobs for life don't exist any more, except in Japan, and even there the concept is regarded as a problem, not a solution. Remember the scene from The Graduate when the neighbour advises the graduate to go into chemicals? It made sense in the 1960s, but technology changes too fast now for anyone sensibly to predict what the boom industry is going to be for the next few decades. Who would have predicted the internet in the 1980s? Robert Heinlein did, but he was an SF writer, not a careers counsellor.

You want jobs for life, go buy a house in the 1950s. But if that is what you want, you are the one who is playing at life.

This century, face up to the facts that you will have dozens of jobs, and several careers. They may be in different locations or different countries. They won't necessarily be sequential - ie you might have more than one at a time.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

If so, I'm clearly already failing, having had several already by the age of 33. I suspect, you're just being deliberately obtuse, just as with your over-literal parsing of the word "immigrate," because you find it an amusing way of interacting with your perceived intellectual inferiors.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

I was commenting on the fact that people frequently and increasingly move from job to job - and with that from place to place - several times in the lifetime. For a substantial - and growing - number of people that sometimes means moving from one country to another. You seemed to take issue with that and say it was what you are fighting against. Did I misread you? Did you misread me?

I am glad we are agreed, however, that the 50s are over. :)People move around. This means that when someone moves abroad it may be indefinite, but may still not be permanent.

I *am* being literal about the meaning of the word 'immigration' and deliberately so. We are debating the merits of changing the law, and laws will tend to be interpreted literally, unless the definitions are clear.

Where I came into this discussion is that someone said a quota of 250-300,000 immigrants a year would be fully taken up by Americans marrying and adopting foreigners. (I have no idea if this is so or not, as I don't know the numbers).

I suggested that there are actually two higher priorities that would need to be either exempted from the quota or allowed for in it:

@ American citizens currently settled abroad (and I meant settled, not vacationing).

@ Current npn-citizen spouses and dependents of American citizens.

These groups both, presumably, take an even higher spot on the list than people who, in the future, marry or are adopted by US citizens.

My only real point was that in setting a quota, these groups will need to be taken into account. (Full disclosure once more, my wife is in category one and I am, therefore, in category two). Not least because, as has been previously suggested, a law which prohibited such people from immigrating to the US would certainly face legal challenge. (Maybe even from me, or more probably my wife).

It is perfectly simple to either state expressly in the law that such people do not count towards any quota, or to set the quota high enough to accomodate such people, as well as such others you feel should be accomodated.

By the way, when I feel that I am interacting with my intellectual inferiors, I do not usually hold back from expressly saying so. You will note I have not said anything of the sort in this discussion.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

Zero immigration would restrict US citizens currently living abroad from ever returning.

If you don't, I suggest you polish up a bit on this subject before you dig a deeper hole.

If the proposed law defined immigration as something other than all inward migration or specifically exempted US citizens currently living abroad from consideration.

I do not perceive that I am in a hole. The only 'hole' that would arise is if Congress were to pass a law in which the omitted to take these factors into consideration. That would be likely to face a legal challenged, don't you think?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

either. Yes, you are in one. Take it from someone with experience: quit digging.

So I probably would not perceive that I was in a hole, if I was. But I am pretty clear that I am not.

All I am saying is that the needs and rights of US citizens living abroad need to be accounted for in setting policy.

You have commented several times on this thread (and I believe others) that immigration is a privilege, not a right. That is true, though not for US citizens.

I doubt that a court would declare that I have a right to immigrate to the US, but it might well declare that my wife has a right to bring her husband into the country.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

as it is without a judge's fiat that someone has a "right" to immigrate or to a family member has a "right" to do so. That privilege is solely in the province of Congress and should reflect the will of the American people. And we must always bear in mind it is a privilege. Many on the Left, as well as fringe conservative elements such as are found in the Wall Street Journal and other places, would like to transform immigration into a universal human "right."

As a former ex-pat, I can tell you that the limitations the United States places on travel and work and subsequent re-entry are really minute. Further, our solis juris right of citizenship is rather unique and even detrimental in recent years.

I agree that the legal mechanisms for a spouse of an American citizen to become a citizen are rather tough, but that was Congress' call. I hope you make it soon and welcome to the United States.

I would think that a law which prevented my wife (a US citizen) from settling in the US would face legitimate constitutional challenge. A law which prevented her from bringing her husband into the US for settlement would be a much greyer area. It would also face challenge, the result of which I am unsure, but it could certainly be seen as an infringement of HER rights (not mine) as a citizen. I have, of course, no right to immigrate other than that granted in current law by Congress.

Thanks for the good wishes. I am discussing this in theory. We have no immediate plans to resettle in the US, but we certainly scan the jobs market there.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

if he found a "constitutional basis" for your wife to circumvent immigration laws because she has a "right to marriage" or some such nonsense. I actually look for such legal challenges to immigration laws here after the borders actually do become secure and interior enforcement begins to be taken seriously, incidentally, so this isn't a pure hypothetical. And, yes, there will be liberal judges who find a "right to immigrate." The fringe elements of the right who tend towards open borders will be placed on the spot then.

I can find no right to marriage in the US Constitution. I would have thought any ruling would rest on sounder foundations if it suggested that excluding her husband from settling in the US was an unreasonable restriction on her right as US citizen to settle in her own country. There may be no right to marriage, but it is an accepted tradition of societies the world over, and long predates the Constitution.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

We want to end immigration as we know it, which ought to be preferred to ending America as we know it.

...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

"We want to end immigration as we know it"

Yes, those on the pro-immigration side have always known that was the real agenda. The main question then is: Why do many on the other side of the argument feel the need to hide the true agenda from view? How is it that in interviews, many feel the need to hide behind statements regarding "illegal immigration", "amnesty", "rule of law", and gasp: "sending a wrong message to the ones who did it the right way" (one quote which Tancredo has used extensively), when he could just say plainly: "We want to end all immigration which we can end"? Pat Buchanan's book perhaps patents the "restrictacon bait n' switch", which goes something like this:
Problem: Illegal immigration is so bad, rule of law, illegal behavior, nation of laws, etc, etc.
Solution No. 1: End all legal immigration
The true agenda is always 'back-doored', never front and center. Maybe they are counting on people not seeing through this? They would never do that, of course.:-) If that is what the American people want, they would embrace it, not so?

The best thing to happen might be if Tancredo and Buchannan formed their own anti-immigration party along the lines of the British National Party, and left the Republican Party alone. And they can take the "vast majority" of the electorate which supports them (no more than 2-3% in my opinion) along with them.

a majority of my restrictionist colleagues. I take them at their word when they say they are concerned chiefly with illegal immigration. I just think that position is content-free, verging on incoherent, so I try to do my bit to convince them that the major problem isn't whether the laws are followed, but who gets in and why. One who fights solely from procedural ground will have no control over content in the end, and it is very easy to disarm those who oppose only illegal immigration by declaring that you will, as the Senate and President propose, simply open the floodgates.

Now, in a narrow sense, actually limiting illegal immigration would be ending immigration as we know it.

The best thing to happen might be if Tancredo and Buchannan formed their own anti-immigration party along the lines of the British National Party, and left the Republican Party alone. And they can take the "vast majority" of the electorate which supports them (no more than 2-3% in my opinion) along with them.

There's no power there. We have a two party system built into the structure of American government. I would prefer that the Davos brigade of the two parties get together and form its own party, representing only itself, but while this would strip most of both houses of Congress from their parties, it would unmask the charade of two-party democracy, too, and we can't have that... Our political system is not really designed to be sensitive to the wishes of the populace, and isn't. Redstate isn't the place for this discussion, though.
---------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

I would prefer that the Davos brigade of the two parties get together and form its own party, representing only itself, but while this would strip most of both houses of Congress from their parties, it would unmask the charade of two-party democracy, too, and we can't have that...

My biggest concern is the rank criminality and gangsterism intentional non-enforcement of the law represents, but that isn't for here, either. Since I can't add anything to the above quote, I will move on to other things, some of which concern today and the failure to monitor visas.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

DING DING DING!

Moderator: This is why I will continue to use the word 'Nativist' as I see fit.

If you find it right to ban me for calling people such as this 'nativist', then fine, ban me.

But you are banning the truth.

(P.S. I was brought to this cite by an old writer for Polipundit, which was destroyed by the owners own insistance that everyone take his side on the immigration debate. I was told this place was more reasonable. I hope I'm right.)

What's the alternative? Oikophobia? Xenophilia? No thanks. I'll try and defend my home.
--------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

Citizenist

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.

-Theodore Roosevelt

No one has a right to immigrate to the US. It is a gift. An activist, arrogant, power-usurping, leftwing judiciary is always a threat, but that's a bridge to cross when we get there. And Congress could simply change the mix and timetable for immigration. If we wanted to cap immigration at 250-300,000 per year, we could set aside part of it for spouses and minor children of citizens, part of it for refugees, part of it for work visas, etc. There are already wait-lists for legal immigration, a reduction would simply make the wait longer for some.

Going back to the Courts; Congress could actually use its power to limit the judiciary's jurisdiction. Of course, this could set up a rather outrageous moment where the Sup Court rules that Congress can't do so, even though they clearly can, but if that in any way turned the public against the Courts, and chipped away at the idea of judicial supremacy, then that's just another good reason to reduce immigration.

As for showing 'their proposals for what they really are'; yeah, their proposals are to reduce immigration. What's so sinister about that?

or deliberately chose to. The point is this: Buchanan and Tancredo do not propose the 250,000 number because they want even one more immigrant allowed into the country. They propose the number because that is the minimum number Congress can enact, (at least without facing a protracted constitutional challenge it is likely to lose). The 250,000 number represents currently the number of spouses and minor children of US citizens who move to the country each year. If the minimum number Congress could enact without facing any such challenges is zero, they would be pushing for the zero number. Someone was trying to suggest that they supported legal immigration, because they advocate the 250,000 number; the fact is, they do not. Its just an arithmetic limitation. They want Congress to end all immigration which it can end.

I've been reading restrictionist stuff since Peter Brimelow's National Review cover article in 1994 or so, and I've never heard of this as the basis of the number. I've read many statements to the effect that there is far too much of what is euphemistically called family reunification permitted currently, so I don't think that CIS, Brimelow, Tancredo, FAIR, etc. would, in their perfect world, keep the number of family reunification admissions as high as they currently are. So, if you have a citation, I'd love to see it.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

Even the super racist/xenophobe/Hispanic-hating Buchanan thinks we should admit upwards of 250,000 immigrants per year. Tancredo has called for capping it at 300,000 per year. While those numbers are much lower than current levels, or those levels the Senate or Pence bill would unleash, it is still a lot of people.

Good point -- and it sheds light on the nature of the debate. Those of us who who might be called "immigration enthusiasts" merely advocate different numbers than, say, Buchanan or Tancredo. We tend not to favor either illegal immigration or unlimited legal immigration (I myself favor a sweet spot between 2 and 3 million, especially if we were to nudge the immigration mix a bit more in favor of the highly skilled, and a bit less in favor of those lucky enough to have an American sibling). A legal limit of two or three million may not be your cup of tea, but it's a far cry from "unlimited". And yet when we try to make our case we're lumped in with advocates of "open borders" (which I assume means "unguarded" borders, since any nation conducting trade or allowing tourism obviously has a border that is "open" -- albeit subject to guarding and inspections). So I'm glad you pointed out that even folks like Buchanan and Tancredo favor continued legal immigration. They just favor less continued legal immigration than I, as well as different strategies to end the immigration that is illegal.

Even the term "mass" immigration (invariably used while making the pro restriction case) is a loaded, and highly non-objective term. Most of US history saw net immigration rates higher than those of today's America. Why not call such numbers "historically traditional" and argue honestly that the America of 2006 can't handle the immigration rates that the America of 1830 or 1890 or 1923 could, and state why? *

I do give the restrictacons their due: by portraying recent immigration numbers as obscenely, ahistorically "massive", they put the onus on those of us who favor America's historically generous immigration quotas to justify our preference for past precedent. In my mind, it is the restrictacons who must justify a return to the historically aberrant forty year timeout during the middle of the last century.

*(side note: I understand the uneasiness associated with greater population densities. Population growth obviously can bring benefits, but it very obviously can bring problems as well. Part of my puzzlement with the common preference of my conservative brethren for sharply lower immigration numbers is their unwillingness to recognize that, even with today's immigration levels, America's population growth is slowing down fairly rapidly; this shouldn't come as a surprise, given the proclivity of rich westerners to forego reproduction, and the fairly rapid emulation of native customs on the part of immigrants. Even so, recognizing that slower population growth isn't without substantial benefits, I'm basically "ok" with the status quo in terms of population increase, and have no particular desire to see America grow as fast as she was growing circa 1900, nor have a net rate of immigration of that era -- which would translate into nearly 5 million immigrants annually today. But that's just the point: we're not growing any where near as fast as we were back then. We don't have anywhere near the immigration rate we did back then. Heck, our population's not even growing as fast as it was in the 40s or 50s or 60s (during the famous immigration "breather"), and all projections point to a substantial further slowdown. So, given all that, I just don't see the rationale for ratcheting down our growth rate far lower than it already is, which is what would happen if we were to cut immigration by the 70 or 80 percent advocated by Tancredo. Tell me, please: what is that rationale?).

America's population growth is slowing down fairly rapidly;

Americas population is currently estimated at just under 300 million. It is projected to reach 450 million by 2050, a growth of 50%. That is with current immigration, which you consider too little. If we increase immigration as you would like, the 2050 population would be well north of the half billion mark.

What is the economic justification for any of this?

If you look at the past century, that rate of growth doesn't really stand out as exceptional in any way. We have 50% more people here now than we had in 1970. Are we worse off than we were then?

There may very well be too much immigration now, but if you remove the illegal immigration from the equation, it is a whole different story. Immigration can be a very good thing if we go about choosing the people in the right way. Right now we are choosing all the wrong people... those who are willing to break our laws and asylum cases from dysfunctional countries, where we can't send them back even if they kill somebody.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

In many respects, yes, we are.
--------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

Then we don't agree. I have no desire to go back to 1970. There was nothing particularly great about the era of the 60s and 70s.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

What is it about the simple quantity of population growth that has made the country a better place to live? Or is it just that you like larger populations for their own sake?
---------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

The point is we weren't better off. There is no reason from me to take from our past experience that 50% population growth over 50 years (less than 1% per year) is some kind of doomsday scenario.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Violent crime was a great deal lower then than now, despite being twice what it was ten years before, and without the necessity of locking up two million people and cordoning off entire cities... The illegitimacy rate was lower, the average man without an advanced degree could still aspire to middle class family life on one income (in California, no less!), there were more open spaces, "gay marriage" was inconceivable outside of a comedy sketch (rather than being something that a large percentage of Republicans profess to support), and Roe had not yet been decided. Granted, we do have things that didn't exist in 1970: DVD players, personal computers, and attractive clothing and haircuts. We also have rap music and AIDS. Forgive me for not being convinced that things are so much better now.
--------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

You are wrong on crime stats. Crime was much worse in the 70s than at just about any other time. Now, it's not uncommon for people to look back on "the good ole' days" unrealistically, but it isn't something that I buy into and certainly isn't the way to make policy.

As for the rest of the 70s, I'll pass on a repeat of JFK/LBJ/Nixon/Ford/Carter. I'll pass on the stagflation, price controls, and the misery index. I'll pass on the oil embargo and the Islamic revolution. I'll pass on the abandonment of our allies in SE Asia. I'll pass on the hippie protests and hippie terrorists blowing up police cars, robbing banks, kidnapping and killing people. I'll pass on our uncompetitive manufacturing industry cranking out lousy products without regard for quality that just alienated future generations of consumers. Some good ole' days.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I'm not a statistician, but to show that I wasn't just pulling numbers out of the air, or some place smaller and darker, I give you this, which was the source for my claim: http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystater...
The chart indicates a very large increase in reported crime rates between 1970 and 1973, when the chart to which you link begins. So there's that. Secondly, overall violent crime rates in terms of number of offenses recorded (rather than victimization rate, as shown in your chart) peaked between 1990 and 1993. Finally, the murder rate is a poor indicator of overall violence over time, since quite a few people who would have died with the medical care available in 1970 or 1980 probably survive with the medical care available in 2006. This is almost certain when one compares the previous peak in homicide, in the 1930's, to the more recent peak in 1980. The aggravated assault rate, which isn't dependent on the competence of either the assailant or the medical personnel tasked with patching up his victims, is much higher now than then. Though, robbery is lower. Thank the Lord for small mercies. I think the evidence can be plausibly interpreted as depicting a highly violent society where things are kept at a barely tolerable level only by dint of wholesale imprisonment. This is not a call for letting the criminals out - I can only imagine how much worse the situation on our streets would be were the US imprisonment rate as low now as it was in 1965 or 1970 - but a call to a little less self-congratulation.

I don't intend to defend the period 1970-79 in toto, nor would I wish to (re)live it (I wasn't born until 1973). Since you mentioned the year (not the decade) 1970, I thought I would point out that in many ways this country was a better place, in that year, in ways that are or ought to be important to conservatives. It is clear in retrospect, as it was to many at the time, that the wheels started to come off of the American experiment sometime around 1965. There are no, or at least very few, golden ages, but there isn't much progress, either. Conservatives are supposed to know that.

/Threadjack
--------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

As far as crime goes, we are much better off now than in the 70s as a whole. It doesn't really matter what year you pick. We didn't have a massive influx of immigrants between 1970 and 1973. Or a massive exodus between 1992 and 2006... so I don't think you can pin this on immigration.

There are no, or at least very few, golden ages, but there isn't much progress, either.

I agree with the first part, but disagree with the second part. Over time, there has been great improvements made. We have a much longer life expectancy. We don't scrape by just trying to grow enough food so we won't starve to death in the winter. We have equality of different races. We have a better environment, with more finely calibrated rules, to do business in. We have a much better natural environment. We have much more prosperity than we've ever had before. These are pretty substantial improvements. I would call that progress.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Not 1970-1979 inclusive. But I'll let it rest, as I consider my point sufficiently proved.
---------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

I personally just like reality.

Pretending like we can keep the population numbers static as the world population booms is naive. Plain and simple. It just won't happen. It's like liberals assuming people will continue to work the same amount even if you tax away all their extra earnings. It just won't happen. You can't change human nature.

Why is it so many conservatives become liberals on this issue? Why is it they suddenly want to change people's nature to accept things they will not and cannot accept? It's madness.

Americas population is currently estimated at just under 300 million. It is projected to reach 450 million by 2050, a growth of 50%.

Right. A fify percent increase over a half century. As opposed to the 90% increase over the last half century (1950-2000) and the 100% increase over the half century before that (1900-1950) and the 350% increase in the half century before that (1850-1900) and the 450% increase in the century before that (1800-1850). Like I said, population growth in the US is slowing down rapidly -- the continuation and acceleration of a 200 year old trend. That, perhaps, is all for the good, I just don't see why the might of the state must be enlisted to speed up the slowdown even more.

If we increase immigration as you would like, the 2050 population would be well north of the half billion mark.

I'd gladly settle for the status quo indefinitely -- ie., probably somewhere between 1.5 million and 2 million yearly. This would, of course, gradually cause America's net rate of immigration to decline over the long term, as indeed it may be starting to do already (if you accept the evidence that immigration numbers peaked around 1999, which I think is likely). I can assure you in my dotage I won't be depressed if America's population is a mere 450 million in 2050 instead of 550 million (but nor would I consider the latter number a diaster, either, just as I don't think someone in 1950 would be wise to consider the 285 million of the year 2000 to be a diaster).

If you think that 50% growth over forty five years id "slowing down rapidly" you might want to get your ideas recalibrated. It's not 1806 any more. America is no longer this big empty country desperately looking for people to come here and chop trees and plough land and mine ore. I'd love to hear you explain why you think that America needs these extra people whom you have your heart set on bringing here. But I suspect I'm going to be left hanging.

Compared to what it should be compared to, virtually overy other country in the world circa 2006, Americas growth rate is quite high.

I'd gladly settle for the status quo indefinitely -- ie., probably somewhere between 1.5 million and 2 million yearly.

I'm guessing you are not a math major, nor a science major of any sort. You do realize that a net inflow of 2 million per year indefinitely would mean that the population of America would tend towards infinity?

can assure you in my dotage I won't be depressed if America's population is a mere 450 million in 2050

Thats nice, but I'd be a lot more interested if you could take a stab at telling me why you are so anxious that Americas population should grow at a faster rate than that provided by native born births.

If you think that 50% growth over forty five years id "slowing down rapidly" you might want to get your ideas recalibrated.

As I demonstrated, this 50% growth is substantially less than the preceding half century, which in turn represented a decline over the one preceding that, and so on, and so on, going back to the early days of the republic. Heck, the projections I've seen indicate the caucasian population of the US has already stopped growing. You can quibble with my use of the adverb "rapidly" but the trend is clear: a declining natural rate of population growth for the forseeable future, continuing two centuries of slowdown, with no reversals of this long term trend in sight. As I said, I don't see a problem with that, and I'm all for allowing nature to take its course. The process simply doesn't need a boost from government, however.

I'd love to hear you explain why you think that America needs these extra people whom you have your heart set on bringing here.

I don't know that it's a question of whether we "need" or "don't need" immigrants. Just like in 1806. Had we allowed no immigration at all after that period, we'd obviously have a much smaller population than we do now. Would we be worse off? Maybe, maybe not. Would we be better off? Maybe, maybe not. If you are so keen on the idea of limiting population growth, are you saddened that we didn't stop immigration in 1806? I doubt Americans would enjoy a higher standard of living or be more secure if there were only 30 or 40 million of us today, but who knows? Would you prefer if it had worked out this way? In some ways, we can't avoid engaging in a bit of social engineering when it comes to immigration policy. A policy that allows a 50% increase in America's population between now and 2050 is no more an exercise in social engineering than a policy to slow it down well below that number.

Compared to what it should be compared to, virtually overy other country in the world circa 2006, Americas growth rate is quite high.

I read yesterday that America is the only rich country expected to maintain its share of world population between now and mid-century, so it would appear that she is growing faster than some countries, more slowly than others, and about at the same rate as yet others. You're off the mark to say we're growing faster than "virtually every other country". But even so, why is that either here or there? Why should American strive to grow more slowly than other nations? Just exactly what do you find so objectionable about population growth?

I'm guessing you are not a math major, nor a science major of any sort. You do realize that a net inflow of 2 million per year indefinitely would mean that the population of America would tend towards infinity?

I'm guessing you're not a demographer. Allowing a net inflow of 2 million per year indefintely certainly doesn't mean the population of America would tend towards infinity because it's entirely possible -- nay, likely -- that Americans' avoidance of having babies will one day require substantial increased in immigration merely to keep population stable. Americans are not much different in this regards from folks in other rich countries -- we're merely behind the curve, and we also have this habit of allowing in more immigrants (who, for a brief interlude, at least, outreproduce Americans who are born here). Moreover, I used the word "indefinitely" not "ad infinitum", which have two different meanings. Use of the former term doesn't preclude lowering the number in the future -- it just means I don't think we need to lower this number now, nor commit to a specific date at this time to do so. If the negative effects of population growth exceed its benefits in the future, Americans are free to demand a decrease in immigration, and I'm free to join them.

Thats nice, but I'd be a lot more interested if you could take a stab at telling me why you are so anxious that Americas population should grow at a faster rate than that provided by native born births.

I'm not anxious. That seems to be an emotion more common among the Tancredoites. I am reasonably happy with the effects of America's modest, and increasingly slow population growth, and see no need to push for sharply slower growth than what we'll get even without a reduction in immigration. I rather think the America of 2006 finds itself in something of a sweet spot with respect to population growth. We're able to enjoy the benefits of progressively slower population growth while at the same time we can avoid the geopolitical declines suffered by the Japanese and Europeans. Why do you think such departure from the status quo is needed? I don't deny we have our problems, I just don't think any of the big ones are attributable to our modest levels of immigration and population growth.

America takes in more immigrants each year than the rest of the world combined. To call this a "modest" level of immigration is to do violence to language.

We're able to enjoy the benefits of progressively slower population growth while at the same time we can avoid the geopolitical declines suffered by the Japanese and Europeans

1)Why is this a good thing?

2) What exactly are the "benifits" which you speak of? I seem to recall asking you this before, and predicting I'd get no response ...

Like I said, population growth in the US is slowing down rapidly -- the continuation and acceleration of a 200 year old trend. That, perhaps, is all for the good, I just don't see why the might of the state must be enlisted to speed up the slowdown even more.

By "might of the state," what exactly do you mean? Legislation? Law enforcement? The same "might of the state" that passes and then enforces speed limits and flight patterns? The same "might of the state" that passes immigration laws and then ostensibly enforces them? Wow. This mindset is even worse than I assumed unless I misunderstood you here, in which event I do apologize.

What I mean is I'm all for using government to reduce illegal immigration. I'm opposed to using government to reduce total immigration (illegal + legal) numbers. Among other reasons for this stance, I suspect doing the latter borders on the infeasible, and will be accomplished only at a price that exceeds the benefits gained.

Put some armed guards on the border. Shoot people when they try to cross.

Get some police to pretend to be illegals and conduct stings on employers. Punish those who are breaking the law. (We do exactly this to find stores selling cigarettes to minors. No reason we cannot do it for something worth-while.)

How hard was that?

you aren't against enforcement of the laws, but oppose a reduction in current levels of immigration (illegal and otherwise)?

and recognize that immigrants should be more skilled than what we have now. Most mass migration enthusiasts refuse to admit there has to be limits and qualifications. Whether your number can be justified through congressional hearings and findings, and approved through political consensus, is another matter. This represents quite a contrast with clueless senators who voted on legislation and later admitted they didn't know how many immigrants would result. Yes, that does tend to focus attention.

And since immigration is a privilege and not a right, the burden always is on the advocate to justify the numbers. Congress, in its wisdom, can set that number at zero or infinity. This is not something to be accomplished by judical or executive fiat or inaction. Unfortunately, the failure of this Administration and those prior to it to address the problem of illegal immigration requires those people here unlawfully to be included in any number unless a plan is laid out for their removal. As it stands right now, we can't get child molestors, murderers, and others here illegally deported so I'm not inclined to exclude the run-of-the-mill illegal aliens from the mix.

There is no history in the United States of unending large-scale immigration. All past large waves were followed by periods of low-moderate immigration. Whether it was acts of Congress that returned immigration policy to moderation, or events taking place in Europe, the fact is that all waves came to an end. There was nothing aberrant about the 40 yr period from the 1920s to the 1960s where immigration averaged about 200,000 per year. The current wave, however, has no end in sight w/o an act of Congress. So the past 'precedent' you speak of in no way justifies the current situation, as past precedent would call for a timeout from large-scale immigration. History in no way supports the idea that such large numbers continue indefinitely, and history certainly doesn't justify the whole 'don't worry, be happy' arguement that says we should all take comfort in past successes in absorbing immigration. Michael Barone in particular is guilty of this, as he says that restrictionists of today are just like those of yesteryear, and that today's version are just as wrong as the past versions. But of course the past restrictionists weren't proven wrong at all, because THEY WON! They got the cuts in immigration they wanted, and the resulting 40-50 yrs of low-moderate immigration helped assimilate the waves that had come before. For Barone to ignore this is very disingenuous. Barone is trying to use the success of restrictionist to discredit them.

There are so many other things that make the current situation different from past mass waves of immigration. One is that the native birthrate was much, much higher during all past waves. This is of critical importance in examining assimilation, as it is easier to assimilate an immigrant when they are swimming in a sea of natives. So while it is true that past waves were larger than today's when compared to their share of existing population, it is also the case that current immigration is unprecedented in its effect on, or share of, population growth.

You ask what the rationale is for reducing immigration to 200-300,000 per year. Well, there are many. There is the position that the economic effects of immigration are not positive, or that they are so small as to be meaningless (the big National Academey of Sciences study in the 90s put the net effect at a whopping one tenth of one percent of GDP). There are the concerns about culture and the poisonous combination of mass immigration and multiculturalism/diversity worship. There is the potentially massive and insane collision between racial preference programs and the importation of people eligible for them (why does this never get any attention???).

And finally, there is the political/electoral concerns. You want to admit between 2-3 million per year, which would represent at least a doubling of current legal levels. Immigration already favor the Democrats, as most Hispanics and most Asians favor them. This is so for immigrants themselves, and at least the first generation of native-born. Increasing immigration will only increase the Democrats edge. Can you please explain how the Republicans can even break even with a large-influx of immigrants, let alone an increased influx? I'd love to hear someone put forth a believable way in which the GOP could do so w/o sacrificing conservative views? And I'd love for the explanation to be deeper than saying that Republicans need to stop being mean.

There are certain things one just doesn't notice, as to do so would be evidence of bad breeding. I too am curious how this will work. Twenty-five or thirty years hence - the standard estimate of 2050 is, in my estimation, far too conservative given that half of US children under five are from what we used to call minorities, and immigration is likely to accelerate - whites will be a rapidly diminishing minority of the American population. Yet, even if black and "Hispanic" educational achievement rise to white/Asian levels in the next generation, which is, with all due respect to NCLB, quite unlikely (fifty years of such interventions haven't worked, either), whites will still retain the vast majority of the country's wealth simply by virtue of having accumulated it first. This is, it should be obvious to anyone with a grasp of human nature or history, an explosive situation. I can only imagine that the same sort of racial politics that dominate in most of our major cities will dominate nationwide, and moving to Arizona (from LA) or Westchester (from New York) will availeth not.
--------------------------------------------------------------
...conservatism, in the philosophic sense, does not define the conservative movement; rather, the conservative movement now defines conservatism...

Alas, nothing will happen before the election.

Nothing is a fat lot better than the madness of the Senate bill.

As is, Republicans have played up how terrible the situation is and then proved that they cannot forge a solution . . . But it is likely that if the Democrats take the House, then meaningful reform will occur although it will displease Tancredoites much more than the current legislation.

Which is why the House GOP should, as I wrote, "not hesitate to tell their tale." They have done a fine thing, and they have no reason to fear explain why they did it.

If a huge amnesty will come anyway, let it be done by the appropriate party, when the Democrats -- invigorated to wave a flag of surrender in other important matters -- take the House and surrender also our sovereignty. Let this stain of dispossession be laid at their feet, where it belongs.

__________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

Now that's a well-written comment.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

Every poll I have seen indicates that, too. And you're right. People who think like Tancredo and Buchanan are not in the majority. In my opinion, thank goodness. Buchanan's rhetoric, at least, does often come off as xenophobic, to put it nicely.

BTW, any time you want to talk about this issue in a somewhat more friendly environment, feel free to drop by my site.

Liz Mair is the editor of WWW.GOPPROGRESS.COM, a RedState-style blog for libertarian, mainstream and moderate Republicans

Put your head and heart to fighting Iran & Al Quada, not obsessing over stupid little xenophobias that have always afflicted our population when in the end they've [(racial epithet for Japanese), (racial epithet for I-Talians), (racial epithet for Spanish) like myself]all integrated fine & dandy. I find your lack of faith in the transformational power of America un-American.

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

to others, okay?

Attributing someone's fairly rational, IMHO, views to xenophobia doesn't move the debate forward one iota but threatens to turn this thread, like so many immigration threads in the past, into a pie fight.

who would harm the United States is because it is a discernible nation. Without borders, there is no nation to defend. I could care less about your ethnicity. But I want to be sure everyone here is a citizen or lawful permanent resident or otherwise here legally. Otherwise get ready to be thrown out, just as those from other nations were evicted forcibly in the past when they broke our laws. The people of the United States, through their lawfully elected representatives, determine who gets into the United States. The number can range from zero to 100 million--but it is their decision, and cannnot be imposed by judicial or executive fiat.

Open borders fanatics have seen their time come and go. It went up in a pile of rubble September 11, 2001, and it ain't coming back--precisely because the United States is a nation.

I'm no open boarders fanatic. I believe in the Morris/Hewitt/Friedman plan: huge fence w/ big gate.

Spitballs?!?! / Yo No Soy Marinero, Soy Capitan

believes in this?

Even the Von Mises types think that this "big gate" proposal makes no sense.

with a "One Way South" sign on it.

John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.

He is on record as saying that open borders and the welfare state are incompatible with each other. If he has endorsed the open borders concept somewhere, please post a link.

>> He is on record as saying that open borders and the welfare state are incompatible with each other.

But you can't assume from that that he opposes open borders in principle. After all, he is also on record as opposing the welfare state.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

here.

At least, you include very little more about Friedman's views.

I understand your main point here: Friedman believes (and I happen to agree) that you cannot have open borders while there is a welfare state. However Friedman also believes (and, again, I agree) that the welfare state should be abolished. This therefore tells us nothing about what he believes would be an appropriate policy on immigration if the welfare state was indeed abolished (ie, his ideal world).

You might riposte - with some merit - that this is a matter of merely academic interest, since the welfare state is not going to be abolished any time soon, if ever, and that the US needs an immigration policy in the meantime. I agree. But I maintain my academic interest. (I am an academic after all). And I reserve the right to distinguish between two equally valid interpretations of what Friedman says.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

did not ask directly about the House and Senate versions. The poll I include above asked the direct question and found 33% for the House enforcement-only and 50% for the Senate Enforcement-plus-guest-worker. The poll you cite gives a third option that isn't an option "mass deportation" in an effort to make the House bill look like the "moderate" bill. This is a rather common polling technique to obtain higher numbers for a position. For example, polls find higher support for civil unions if they ask after asking about same-sex marriage. The order can add 10 points to civil union support because it makes it seem more "moderate."

Also despite CIS's claim that the wording of the poll was "neutral" the description of the Senate Bill includes one vague sentence about enforcement instead of giving it equal treatment to the House question. This makes the poll more one measure the sentiment between an enforcement only and a guest worker program rather than the choice between enforcement only and an enforcement plus guest worker. Finally, the description of the Senate bill does not mention that the immigrants would acquire green cards must return home after they expire. Thus it makes the Senate Bill sound like a massive increase in permanent immigration. I happen to support that but the Senate Bill does not and neither does the public.

Unfortunately, that poll is being worded and used to push one viewpoint rather than try to capture what most Americans think about an issue.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

The wording of the comparison question is even worse. It describes the House Bill as "trying to reduce the number of illegal immigrants by..." and the Senate Bill as "allowing the 12 million illegal immigrants..." Those intro statements prejudice the following parts. If the Senate Bill wording was "trying to reduce illegal immigration by providing a legal method for workers to come to America for short term hire" it would have been seen much differently. Both are accurate, but the wording in this poll seems to be set up to get a preordained result.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

consistent in many regards with those you cited, i.e., a demand for decreased immigration, the identification of illegal immigration as a "very big" or "big" problem by two-thirds of the country and so forth. Those seem to be common themes, and show how toxic the Senate bill was to the American citizenry.

I accept your stylistic criticisms as accurate, but strongly suspect all polls conducted by various agenda-driven organizations including the MSM used similar push phrases.

with those two assertions. Americans want decreased immigration, although I bet that most respondants include illegal and legal immigration together. I'd be interested if people want decreased legal immigration which would be a separate issue. Also, it is a "big" problem. I'm surprised only 2/3rds agree with that.

The question is how to solve that problem. The Senate bill tightens enforcement while opening a legal mechanism for workers to come across the border in an orderly fashion. That would lead to less illegal immigration. The House bill tightens enforcement only which would also lead to less illegal immigration. So a finding that says people want fewer illegal immigrants does not answer the question of how they want it done.

And I think the smattering of polls above from multiple sources shows that people are willing to forgive current illegal immigrants if there is some sanction, fine, back taxes, etc that takes place. Also the polls show that some physical barrier has support althogh I still think calling it a "fence" rather than a "wall" would win over more support. Finally, they show that people are supportive of guest worker programs whether you use that term or describe the idea.

Tightened enforcement plus guest worker is the compromise that most Americans have ended up at because they want less illegal immigration but they want it in the most compassionate way possible. That's why the Senate Bill is more popular than the House Bill and its why Congressmen are being shamed for not passing it.

Social Security Choice - Club For Growth

I have yet to see one incumbent (R or D) have a television commercial that touts his or her support of what you described. Whether in Tennessee or Michigan, the opponents play up the enforcement angle. I know this is anecdotal, and if someone can direct me to political commercials that support guest workers/amnesty I would watch them. But this tells me the campaign's internal polls pretty well bear out what Zogby found.

The ones who should be ashamed are the senators (via funds and persuasion) and a White House (via agencies) that refused to enforce the laws on the books, particularly in the aftermath of September 11th. If the Senate races are as tight as the polls indicate, I imagine you have some incumbents in tight races who regret their votes now.

Plenty of polling asks the simple, direct question of what people favor with regards to LEGAL immigration. 'Reduce' usuallly enjoys majority or plurality status, though it sometimes battles it out with 'Maintain' for the top spot. However, 'Increase' always polls poorly. I can only recall it cracking the 20% mark once. So its clear that when asked in the most direct terms, people do not favor increases in immigration, so its probably safe to say they'd oppose the gigantic increases the Senate and Pence bills would unleash...if they were informed of it that is, but that's something the bills sponsors haven't seen fit to advertise or brag about for some reason.

So we clearly have a conflict here between the poll you referenced showing support for allowing a pathway to permanent status (i.e. citizenship, not sure why it didn't use that word instead of permanent residency) for legalized illegals, and future 'guest' workers, and the general preference for less immigration, or at least for not increased immigration. As I said earlier, Presient Bush, McCain, Kennedy, Reid, et al, have not bothered to inform the public about the potentially, and likely explosive effects their approach would have on legal immigration. It took Senator Sessions and the Heritage Foundation to do the research and inform us, but even then the mainstream media didn't give it much play, as I'm sure they agree with McCain and Kennedy that the less the public knows, the better it is for their agenda. So what do you think would happen to the results in the polls you cite if those polled were informed of just how much more permanent legal immigration these 'pathways' would result in? What we really need is to educate the public about immigration law, and how it works, then see what they prefer. Inform people that all legalized illegals, plus new 'guests' will be able to bring their families with them, and in time they will all be able to sponsor extended family members for immigration.

When you say that we need a guest worker program, and that the Tancredoites are standing in the way, I think you need to place the blame elsewhere. If we need a guest worker program, then let's craft one that actually involves guests, otherwise stop playing on the meaning of the word 'guest' and the image it puts in people's minds of a person who will eventually go home. Let's not pretend its something that its not. Those who want massive increases in permanent legal immigration should say so, and stop playing games with words. In this regard, those on your side are more guilty of mixing illegal immigration and legal immigraion than those on mine, because while the Senate/Pence bills are ostensibly about illegal immigration, they actually have enormous impact on legal immigration; its just that, again, its sponsors don't bother to inform the public of it.

I do respect you for saying that you want more legal immigration. I disagree, but I respect that you say it w/o obfuscation. But why can't those trying to make your position law say so? Why must we face the prospect of passing another Ted Kennedy bill that would certainly have effects not advertised by Kennedy and other sponsors?

You speak of how the Buchanans and Tancredos could drive you from the party. That sounds to me like you've bought into demonization about those who, yes, as you put it, oppose high levels of immigration, legal or illegal. Well, how exactly can one go about calling for less immigration w/o being demonized, w/o being a victim of demagoguery, w/o being called one ridiculous name after another? Do you think that wanting less immigration automatically makes one a racist/xenophohe/bigot? If not, then surely you don't think this view held by a large portion of the nation is unworthy of political articulation, do you? I mean, surely you realize that any position short of defacto amnesty, plus unending mass legal immigration will be deemed as racist/xenophobic/anti-immigrant/anti-latino by the Left, whether its the media, the Democrats, or the professional ethnic grievance groups.

Is it the position of favoring less immigration, or your suspicion of less-than-pure motives on the part of some holding that view like Buchanan, et al that could drive you from the party? Because if its the former, then how would you be different from any single-issue voter who routinely gets excoriated for threatening to sit out an election, or bolt the party, because of one issue when they may agree on most others?

And finally, I usually like to ask conservatives who favor existing or increased levels of mass legal immigration just how it is that they think the GOP can avoid electoral catastrophe over the long run? Do you really think that the GOP, even if we purged Tancredos from the party (or at least muzzled them), can compete with the Dems for the existing pool of immigrants? Most immigrants will be natural customers of so many of the Dem policies we find aborrent. No, that's not to say that most immigrants come looking for public services or racial preferences (why is it that almost no examination is given to the insane collision between immigration policy and racial preferences for non-whites???), or multicultural ego-boosts, but who is going to look a gift horse in the mouth? And how can we get past the fact that most Hispanic leaders are leftwing. Who are immigrants going to believe; you and I telling them that they'll be better off with lower marginal tax rates, or some nut who looks and sounds like them telling them that we (i.e. Republicans) really hate them and want to cut taxes to starve them and their children?

truthful statements about the effects of the legislation are "spininning"?

This is why we fight so ferociously against the demagoguery of the pro-legalization crowd. Those of us who remember our history are denigrated as nativist, xenophobic, or spinners of biased polls. The truth is the Senate bill does allow 12 million illegal immigrants to jump the legal immigration line, the real spin is the "attempts to reduce" because it doesn't "attempt to reduce" (that would require historical evidence that such an approach passed in the past and restricted mass immigration), at best its proponents claim that it will.

dismay, some time back. Now polls and other unhelpful data are derided as "spin" instead of "racism" or "xenophobia," which only evokes laughter instead of shame from the targets now. I don't think that is what happened in the immediate exchange at all, but have seen it used elsewhere when polls put a lie to support for mass migration and amnesty proposals.

The day I see candidates tout "comprehensive immigration reform" support rather than enforcement credentials, I will believe public opinion has shifted. To date, I haven't seen or heard of one campaign commercial where a candidate stands up and says, "I want a guest worker program that will permit illegal immigrants to stay in the United States, and stepped up border security and law enforcement." It is always the latter. And it is for the reason Zogby, Gallup and others have identified: the public wants the border secured and immigration laws enforced. I sincerely doubt you could get one person in ten to even describe, let alone support, a guest worker program. All ten can tell you want an illegal alien is.

This debate is all but over. Whether the political class decides to continue to side against the electorate is another matter.

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.