Saturday Politics Thread: Illegal Immigration Backgrounder [Y-not]

Good morning, morons and moronettes!

I've started preparing the candidates' backgrounders on my least-favorite issue -- illegal immigration -- but it is a tremendous slog and I'm still trying to decide on the format. Frankly, there is so much posturing and outright lying going on that it is difficult to tease out where the candidates stand, and what they have done, when it comes to illegal immigration and immigration policy more generally.

In any event, to get us started on this topic, I thought we could do a quick review of the mess we're in and how we got here. Then I'd like to get the sense of the AoSHQ Horde with a poll. *typo fixed*

First, take these:

How did we get here?

In trying to get a sense of the historical trends in U.S. immigration, I reviewed a number of sources. I wanted to avoid an out and out advocacy group (even one from the Right side of the aisle) to get as neutral a description as possible. (Of course, the Smart Set, which includes the Media Complex, is so in the tank on this issue, there is no truly neutral source, but I did my best.)

I thought this piece at History.com did a decent job reviewing U.S. immigration policies since 1965.

According to this article the origins of the move away from an immigration system based on quotas was the Civil Rights Movement, based on the notion that the old system was discriminatory in favor Northern Europeans. In a speech given in 1963, JFK called the system "intolerable."

After Kennedy's assassination that November, Congress began debating and would eventually pass the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, co-sponsored by Representative Emanuel Celler of New York and Senator Philip Hart of Michigan and heavily supported by the late president's brother, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. During Congressional debates, a number of experts testified that little would effectively change under the reformed legislation, and it was seen more as a matter of principle to have a more open policy. Indeed, on signing the act into law in October 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson stated that the act "is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions... It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives or add importantly to either our wealth or our power."

IMMEDIATE IMPACT
In reality (and with the benefit of hindsight), the bill signed in 1965 marked a dramatic break with past immigration policy, and would have an immediate and lasting impact. In place of the national-origins quota system, the act provided for preferences to be made according to categories, such as relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents, those with skills deemed useful to the United States or refugees of violence or unrest. Though it abolished quotas per se, the system did place caps on per-country and total immigration, as well as caps on each category. As in the past, family reunification was a major goal, and the new immigration policy would increasingly allow entire families to uproot themselves from other countries and reestablish their lives in the U.S.

In the first five years after the bill's passage, immigration to the U.S. from Asian countries -- especially those fleeing war-torn Southeast Asia (Vietnam, Cambodia) -- would more than quadruple.

The article claims that under the old system, immigration from Asia was suppressed. I did a little cross-checking at the Center for Immigration Studies (which appears to be an advocacy group promoting low immigration levels) and they appear to concur with this characterization. You can read their article on the Hart-Celler Act here.

History.com's article continues:

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, illegal immigration was a constant source of political debate, as immigrants continue to pour into the United States, mostly by land routes through Canada and Mexico. The Immigration Reform Act in 1986 attempted to address the issue by providing better enforcement of immigration policies and creating more possibilities to seek legal immigration. The act included two amnesty programs for unauthorized aliens, and collectively granted amnesty to more than 3 million illegal aliens. Another piece of immigration legislation, the 1990 Immigration Act, modified and expanded the 1965 act, increasing the total level of immigration to 700,000. The law also provided for the admission of immigrants from "underrepresented" countries to increase the diversity of the immigrant flow.

I found a good column (from the Washington Post, of all places) explaining why the Immigration Reform Act of 1986 failed. Here's the money quote (emphasis mine):

Why were the employer restrictions so ineffective? During the debate in Congress, the bill's sponsors ended up watering down the sanctions on employers to attract support from the business community, explains Wayne Cornelius of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at U.C. San Diego. "The end result was that they essentially gutted the employer sanctions," he says.

Under the final law, all employers had to do to avoid sanctions was to make sure their workers had paperwork that "reasonably appears on its face to be genuine." If the documents were decent fakes, that wasn't the boss's problem. In fact, employers were actually penalized if they scrutinized a worker's nationality too aggressively.

Sound familiar?

Back to the History.com article:

The economic recession that hit the country in the early 1990s was accompanied by a resurgence of anti-immigrant feeling, including among lower-income Americans competing for jobs with immigrants willing to work for lower wages. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which addressed border enforcement and the use of social programs by immigrants.

You can read about IIRIRA here (Wiki link). The sponsor was Bill Young, a Republican Congressman from Florida.

History.com's article on U.S. immigration stops with the election of Barack Obama, which conveniently allows them to ignore his open borders policies. SMDH at that.

As a reminder, last year Obama announced his intention to grant executive amnesty to five million (or more) illegal aliens, which led to a mass rush to (and across) the border. The administration has lost several court cases, but continues to ignore the law.

What's the current situation?

Current estimates put the number of illegals in the country at 12 million, although the number could be much higher. Meanwhile, roughly 4.4 million immigrants are waiting in line to enter the U.S. legally. The U.S. Census puts the country's total population at over 318 million.

This report from the (left-leaning) Pew Research Center, provides some information about the illegal alien population in this country, including which states have seen increases in their numbers:

Six states alone account for 60% of unauthorized immigrants -- California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois. But the distribution of the population is changing. From 2009 to 2012, several East Coast states were among those with population increases, whereas several Western states were among those with population decreases. There were seven states overall in which the unauthorized immigrant population increased: Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Meanwhile, there were 14 states in which the population decreased over the same time period: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Oregon. Despite a decline, Nevada has the nation's largest share (8%) of unauthorized immigrants in its state population.

Unauthorized immigrants make up 5.1% of the U.S. labor force. In the U.S. labor force, there were 8.1 million unauthorized immigrants either working or looking for work in 2012. Among the states, Nevada (10%), California (9%), Texas (9%) and New Jersey (8%) had the highest shares of unauthorized immigrants in their labor forces.

More information about the population here:

Unauthorized immigrants are settling in the South

President Obama began the public push for his executive order in Nevada, but while that state does have a high Latino population and the highest percentage of illegal immigrants in the country, it doesn't make the top 10 of states as far as total undocumented population. (Roughly 210,000 undocumented immigrants live in Nevada.)

This list, which is mostly made of blue states, isn't exactly surprising. Georgia and North Carolina are part of a more widespread Latino population boom in the South. Relative to the overall population, Latinos -- undocumented and otherwise -- make up a small share. But their growth is rapid, doubling in some states in recent years.

Also from that Washington Post article:

Well over half of the illegal immigrant population arrived after 1995

Obama's executive action will cover people who have citizen or legal permanent resident children who have been here for at least five years, meaning 2009 or before. His move will also expand the time frame use for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) measure to include any children who were brought to this country illegally before 2010.

Both of those reports were from last Fall, when Obama announced his amnesty program and both are from outfits friendly to the President. I think it's fair to say the situation is much worse than it was portrayed in those articles. For example, they suggest that immigration from Mexico is down and portray Obama as the "deportation president," but a recent article in the Washington Times contradicts that contention.

What do we do now?

So that's some background on how we got here. The question is: what do we do about it?

First, let's get a sense of how the horde views the issue of illegal immigration in terms of its importance:

Most Republicans want the flow of illegal immigrants stopped (and actually reversed).

A CNN/ORC Poll conducted in February of this year asked the following question of registered voters: "What should be the main focus of the U.S. government in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration: developing a plan that would allow illegal immigrants who have jobs to become legal U.S. residents, or developing a plan for stopping the flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. and for deporting those already here?"

Here are the results:

These results really illustrate a major challenge to conservatives. Although it is clear that Republican voters want illegal immigration addressed (and stopped), general election voters are much more inclined to favor some sort of "amnesty." So to win back the White House, it seems to me that we need to nominate someone who has the trust of GOP voters on this issue, while remaining palatable to less hardline voters in the general. I can think of several ways that might be achieved without caving on amnesty. How about you?

Next week, we'll start to look at the individual candidates' statements and track-records on illegal immigration. I don't know if any of the current or likely candidates will measure up on this issue, frankly. But I would like to see if we can identify who falls on the extremes and who is outright lying to us.

You might want to bring a bottle of these to next week's thread:

If you have any suggestions for good sources of research material on candidates, particularly with respect to illegal immigration, please mention them in the comments.

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 I'm depressed now.

Posted by: bossybarb at May 16, 2015 08:38 AM (QyBQv)

2 Our present de-facto open borders policy will destroy America as we know it. As with the old satirical poem, the government has decided it is easier to dissolve the people and elect another.

It's the most critical issue. If we consent to let ourselves be flooded out with people who ignore our laws, and break them in order to vote, then we're dead as a nation.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at May 16, 2015 08:39 AM (HalrA)

3 Yeah, tell me about it, bossybarb!

Posted by: Y-not at May 16, 2015 08:39 AM (RWGcK)

4 Great post . I want illegal immigration curtailed and the removal of those who will not pledge to assimilate. Close the borders. Cannot address the problem when the doors are still open.No more Muslims and any Muslim who wants to promote sharia deported. Yes...deported.

Posted by: bossybarb at May 16, 2015 08:43 AM (QyBQv)

5 You can't grant any level of legal status to illegals and hope to prevent full legal status.

Once they get a small amount the Courts will step in and give them the rest they need.

A little bit legal is sorta like a little bit pregnant.

Posted by: eman at May 16, 2015 08:44 AM (MQEz6)

6 Pelosi and Hoyer say that we are 'newcomer-unfriendly'. Fucking traitors, the lot of them.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 08:44 AM (gMdv4)

7 Three point:

1) the late great libertarian economist Milton Friedman hammered home the point that a nation cannot survive with open borders and a massive welfare state.

2) Roughly 40% of guest workers with temp visas have over-stayed their visas, and are therefore here illegally. Deport those people now

3) No candidate will get my vote unless they are a staunch advocate with a reasonable plan for closing our southern border. Period.

D) Abolish the Dept. of Education.

Posted by: locomotivebreath1901 at May 16, 2015 08:45 AM (gel9+)

8 I'm really struggling to come up with a scheme to identify where the candidates really stand and what they would actually do if elected.

I'll give Jeb credit for one thing: he makes no bones about being for amnesty.

Posted by: Y-not at May 16, 2015 08:45 AM (RWGcK)

9 Part of the problem is the feeling that deportation is unfeasible. Another feeling is that it's unAmerican. A third feeling is that white America is dying.

Posted by: Feh at May 16, 2015 08:45 AM (pOSLv)

10 I expect nothing will change no matter who is elected.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at May 16, 2015 08:46 AM (R8hU8)

11 When you don't enforce the law, at some point you will get vigilantism.

You want a sane immigration policy
You will settle for a secure border
You will get Pogrom

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 08:47 AM (gMdv4)

12 Reading about how the 1986 law was gutted by the Usual Suspects in the business community nearly made me rage-stroke.

Posted by: Y-not at May 16, 2015 08:47 AM (RWGcK)

13 Let's face it,nothing is going to be done to curb illegal immigration.Those already here will become citizens.They will change the electorate permanently.

Posted by: steevy at May 16, 2015 08:47 AM (mGBKM)

14 This is not something that just sort of happened; it was engineered.

They knew this would take decades.

Sith, they are.

Posted by: eman at May 16, 2015 08:47 AM (MQEz6)

15 Part of the problem is the feeling that deportation is unfeasible. Another feeling is that it's unAmerican. A third feeling is that white America is dying.


The first two is what gives rise to the third.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 08:48 AM (gMdv4)

16 Come to America, perform none of the obligations of being a citizen, get free bennies, obey no law, insist that all the organs of society actively collaborate in this lawlessness, force lawlessness by means of riots, violence and lawfare(!) and suffer no consequences from the portions of our government entrusted with enforcing the laws because enforcing the law on the lawless is hard and it is far easier to force compliance on the compliant.

Well, at least we have a good conduit for drug trafficking, and a reason to call the apolitical middle class bigots and racists.

Posted by: Kindltot at May 16, 2015 08:48 AM (t//F+)

17 I feel like Dr. Zhivago when he comes home to find a dozen families squatting in his house on the orders of some government flunky. We're expected to say Of course it's only right that we share.

Fuck that.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 08:49 AM (gMdv4)

18 Cruz.


At this point, the only candidate who has up front said no more invasion. I like Walker but he's squishy on this.




And, yes, depressing.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 16, 2015 08:50 AM (QOdik)

19 How do you educate lawbreakers on entry to respect the law and feel like citizens?

Obama has not only betrayed us, he has betrayed the idea of nation of laws.

Posted by: Feh at May 16, 2015 08:51 AM (pOSLv)

20 "Fuck that."


Indeed. Ownership, citizenship means something or it doesn't.


Decide.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 16, 2015 08:51 AM (QOdik)

21 But I would like to see if we can identify who falls on the extremes and who is outright lying to us.

Oh that's an easy one--they're all lying to us! Politicians and all, y'know...

Mind you I'm of the admittedly extreme position that the illegals should be sent home and everyone in gov't should be sent with them, both never to return, but it's not like anyone listens to me anyway...

Posted by: Brother Cavil, by the Pale Moon light at May 16, 2015 08:53 AM (m9V0o)

22 Part of the solution would be for the countries south of the border, Mexico especially, to get their houses in order, and establish free market economies and the rule of law. You know, like we used to have here.

Posted by: Emily at May 16, 2015 08:53 AM (7Rn+/)

23 The elites snicker when they hear us talk about law and citizenship,

They run Bartertown.

Posted by: eman at May 16, 2015 08:53 AM (MQEz6)

24 Democrats. Everything they touch turns to shit. It's part of their plan to flood America with new party-loyal voters.

And obey the law? Hahahahahaha.

Posted by: Michael Haz at May 16, 2015 08:54 AM (APCKW)

25 This is why oaths of office were oaths.

Taking an oath used to mean something.

Obama lied when he took his oath. He had no intention of being faithful in executing the laws.

I will spit on his grave.

Posted by: Feh at May 16, 2015 08:55 AM (pOSLv)

26 22 Part of the solution would be for the countries south of the border, Mexico especially, to get their houses in order, and establish free market economies and the rule of law. You know, like we used to have here.
Posted by: Emily at May 16, 2015 08:53 AM (7Rn+/)

They can't do that until the cartels are destroyed, though.

I have to wonder how much money flows from the cartels into our political system, given the lack of will to close off the human and drug pipelines crossing the southern border.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at May 16, 2015 08:55 AM (HalrA)

27 23 They snicker because they consider us subjects,not citizens.

Posted by: steevy at May 16, 2015 08:56 AM (mGBKM)

28 New voters and new supporters of the Eternal Entitlement Machine.

The Empire needs these things.

Stop crying, serfs!

Posted by: eman at May 16, 2015 08:57 AM (MQEz6)

29 Mickey Kaus has been hammering Cruz in recent weeks, claiming he's gone soft on illegal immigration. However, Daniel Horowitz (@RMConservative on twitter) was pushing back on that argument. I'm still trying to ascertain what got Kaus so riled up about Cruz.

I'm afraid most of the candidates in the pool would cave to (or defer to) Congress, which has shown no inclination to do much of anything other than serve their business interests and try to pander to Hispanics.

What I like about Cruz is that he has shown some backbone when dealing with the GOPe. I doubt he'd start to deferring to the Turtle if he (Cruz) was POTUS.

Walker... I can't tell if this new hardline talk is sincere. Even if it is, he doesn't have much experience with this issue, so I'm concerned he'd allow himself to be talked into some form of amnesty and/or defer to Congress.

Posted by: Y-not at May 16, 2015 08:57 AM (RWGcK)

30 Move to Canada, out-compete and outbreed what used to be the USA, and then invade and conquer the USSA ca. 2100 AD?

Posted by: Feh at May 16, 2015 08:58 AM (pOSLv)

31 As soon as the rule of law means nothing to the government, what does it mean to the rest of us....?


Just saying.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 16, 2015 08:58 AM (QOdik)

32 Move to Canada, out-compete and outbreed what used to be the USA, and then invade and conquer the USSA ca. 2100 AD?

I half suspect a variation might work--they may control the cities, but what about the rest...?

Posted by: Brother Cavil, by the Pale Moon light at May 16, 2015 09:00 AM (m9V0o)

33 31 The government has almost unlimited power to enforce the laws they want,against the people they wish to enforce the laws on.

Posted by: steevy at May 16, 2015 09:01 AM (mGBKM)

34 It seems what's electable is clear statement of principle, and something felt to be "fair enough."

Posted by: Feh at May 16, 2015 09:01 AM (pOSLv)

35 "I half suspect a variation might work--they may control the cities, but what about the rest...?"


This breaks out into that whole urban vs. rural debate. It may not be red vs. blue, but, city vs. the countryside.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 16, 2015 09:01 AM (QOdik)

36 27 23 They snicker because they consider us subjects,not citizens.
Posted by: steevy at May 16, 2015 08:56 AM (mGBKM)

Exactly. They see themselves as superior. They believe that their education (despite having debauched the system into a hivemind circle-jerk) and political beliefs elevate them above the masses, and gives them the right to rule. They believe that they and only they are capable of making wise decisions, and that this makes it their duty to make all of the decisions in society.

Their hubris will be their downfall, perhaps not today, but perhaps not tomorrow, but the Gods of the Copybook Headings are always out there. Let's just hope they go down without taking us down the old, tired road of despotism and failure.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at May 16, 2015 09:02 AM (HalrA)

37 30 Move to Canada, out-compete and outbreed what used to be the USA, and then invade and conquer the USSA ca. 2100 AD?
Posted by: Feh at May 16, 2015 08:58 AM (pOSLv)

You can have Canada. It snows there. I will go to Belize.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at May 16, 2015 09:03 AM (HalrA)

38 " The government has almost unlimited power to enforce the laws they want,against the people they wish to enforce the laws on."


Until they stop obeying, en masse, for realistic reasons.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 16, 2015 09:03 AM (QOdik)

39 Once illegals get the vote Black people will be dumped by the Democrat Party.

The new Latina hottie will take the passenger seat.

Posted by: eman at May 16, 2015 09:05 AM (MQEz6)

40 "Until they stop obeying, en masse, for realistic reasons"

ie following the example of the political class

Posted by: Feh at May 16, 2015 09:05 AM (pOSLv)

41 This breaks out into that whole urban vs. rural debate. It may not be red vs. blue, but, city vs. the countryside.
Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 16, 2015 09:01 AM (QOdik)

That's one of the oldest conflicts in human relations. The city lords want to rule. The hill folk and freeholders want to be left alone. The problem is that the city mentality has taken over DC, and is trying to impose its will on everything.

Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at May 16, 2015 09:06 AM (HalrA)

42 Breaking nood.

Posted by: Mama AJ at May 16, 2015 09:06 AM (0xTsz)

43 " The problem is that the city mentality has taken over DC, and is trying to impose its will on everything."


Agree. Both parties think D.C. is the country now. It is not.

Posted by: Ricardo Kill at May 16, 2015 09:08 AM (QOdik)

44 I have to wonder how much money flows from the
cartels into our political system, given the lack of will to close off
the human and drug pipelines crossing the southern border.
Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at May 16, 2015 08:55 AM (HalrA)

Traditionally post war, drugs, prostitution and corruption were the major revenue streams that supported dem candidates, at least in major cities and big money machine politics.

Posted by: Kindltot at May 16, 2015 09:08 AM (t//F+)

45 People are now talking about acts of quiet civil disobediance in ways that were unheard of just a few years ago.

It is like hearing creaks and groans signalling a catastrophic event is about to happen.

Posted by: eman at May 16, 2015 09:08 AM (MQEz6)

46 Feh: "Part of the problem is the feeling that deportation is unfeasible. Another feeling is that it's unAmerican. A third feeling is that white America is dying."

eman (not in reply, I don't think, but applied by me as reply): "This is not something that just sort of happened; it was engineered."

What was engineered in the long haul was an electorate basing their decisions on "feelings," as Feh illustrates. Extremely confused feelings ungrounded by intellect, values, or faith.

Don't know anything that can be done about it, at any level other than living and preaching faith, values, and intelligent reflection. Which ironically can only be done by making a stronger appeal to feelings by truth than by the lies.

They may play the long game. I'd bet the Spirit of Truth plays the longer game.

Posted by: mindful webworker - everybody's got one... an opinion I mean at May 16, 2015 09:09 AM (RRfF8)

47 >>Don't know anything that can be done about it, at any level other than living and preaching faith, values, and intelligent reflection.

As I have said before, support your local homeschoolers! And support/help educate kids outside of schools, in whatever organizations you're comfortable in.

Posted by: Mama AJ at May 16, 2015 09:13 AM (0xTsz)

48 Mama AJ: "...support your local homeschoolers! And support/help educate kids outside of schools..."

Yeah, well, did that with our three, and it seems to have taken. took. tooken?

And I know they continue to influence their fellows, so it does radiate.

Feels like a pitiful drop in the bucket, compared to the Federal Indoctrination Institutions, but there's hope in that the enemy are so self-defeating, they create converts: for recent example, the school lose-your-lunch program.

Posted by: mindful webworker - autodidacts' dad at May 16, 2015 09:20 AM (RRfF8)

49 The trouble with home-schooling is that you are already paying property taxes to support the public schools.

So,
what's to be done? Go live where the property taxes are the least. With
Internet and Computers, home-schooling is ridiculously easy.

Posted by: Grampa Jimbo at May 16, 2015 09:25 AM (V70Uh)

50 That prevents infection locally, but ...

Posted by: Feh at May 16, 2015 09:27 AM (pOSLv)

51 This breaks out into that whole urban vs. rural debate. It may not be red vs. blue, but, city vs. the countryside.

Hate to be that guy that says It Has Always Been Thus, but It Has Always Been Thus.

Nothin' new under the sun, indeed.

Posted by: Brother Cavil, by the Pale Moon light at May 16, 2015 09:28 AM (m9V0o)

52 What a lot of time and effort you took on this post, Y-Not. Thanks so much!

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at May 16, 2015 09:28 AM (1sJza)

53 >>What a lot of time and effort you took on this post, Y-Not.

Yeah, well it got stomped after 26 minutes, so I'm not a happy camper. Oh well.

Posted by: Y-not at May 16, 2015 09:33 AM (RWGcK)

54
There is in place a codified procedure dealing with immigration and all it's aspects.

Simply FOLLOWING EXISTING LAW would alleviate most, if not all, the current problems.

I don't understand why this is such an insurmountable problem.

Posted by: irongrampa at May 16, 2015 09:40 AM (jeCnD)

55 Y-not maybe you can post these on a slow weekday instead.Even a slow weekday gets more traffice than Saturday morning.

Posted by: steevy at May 16, 2015 09:41 AM (mGBKM)

56 1. Tax reform to "appease" business interests pushing amnesty.
2. Secure the damned border.
3. Enforce the laws we already have, especially on businesses who hire them.

...not like any of that's gonna happen.

Posted by: Vukdawg at May 16, 2015 09:41 AM (5Ym7Z)

57 Y-not maybe you can post these on a slow weekday instead.Even a slow weekday gets more traffice than Saturday morning.
---

The Weekend Cobloggers are not allowed to post on weekdays.

Posted by: Y-not at May 16, 2015 09:42 AM (RWGcK)

58 Y-not... kinda sounds like you guys are "living in the shadows" lol

Posted by: Vukdawg at May 16, 2015 09:43 AM (5Ym7Z)

59 57 Discrimination!

Posted by: steevy at May 16, 2015 09:44 AM (mGBKM)

60 Great background info here, Y-Not. You're awesome. I'll have to comb through the links when I have more time.

Does anyone here know: Is Cruz the best candidate on this issue?

I have no idea. I can't get any sort of handle on it because every politician is so slippery and evasive on this. (I suppose that's wise politically, since they don't want to be cast as anti-hispanic should the invasion continue and we end up a majority-hispanic nation.)

Do any of you have firm opinions on candidates' real positions on this? Ricardo Kill, you're sure Cruz is firm here? And that Walker (my current #1) is a squish on this?

What about Paul and Perry, my back-up options?

And has my hold-my-nose option, Rubio, "evolved" on this issue, which was his only big negative?

Posted by: Pastafarian at May 16, 2015 09:47 AM (pCf+a)

61 I'll see you guys next week.

I'm taking the rest of the weekend off. Need a break from this nonsense.

Posted by: Y-not at May 16, 2015 09:47 AM (RWGcK)

62 Thank you for the primer. It is terribly important to know what actions (and inactions) led to the current situation.

I was struck by this note: "workers had paperwork that 'reasonably appears on its face to be genuine.'"

That's the key phrase right there. I read a feature story some years after Simpson-Mazzoli that told of a farmer checking his new hires' papers. They all had the same Social Security number. He just shrugged and said, "I got to get this crop harvested," and they all went to work.

By now I would imagine all those workers have anchor babies and are well-established in the U.S.

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at May 16, 2015 09:49 AM (jdfYf)

63 Good stuff - thanks for writing. Looking forward to the next episode.

Posted by: John Marshall at May 16, 2015 09:49 AM (5hjXu)

64 Re. changing the timing of these posts:

No, please don't -- these things make my Saturday morning. It's the only time I can sit back and read something substantial like this.

Posted by: Pastafarian at May 16, 2015 09:53 AM (pCf+a)

65 26 22 Part of the solution would be for the countries south of the border, Mexico especially, to get their houses in order, and establish free market economies and the rule of law. You know, like we used to have here.
Posted by: Emily at May 16, 2015 08:53 AM (7Rn+/)

They can't do that until the cartels are destroyed, though.

I have to wonder how much money flows from the cartels into our political system, given the lack of will to close off the human and drug pipelines crossing the southern border.
Posted by: Cato the Rebel Without a Party at May 16, 2015 08:55 AM (HalrA)

Cato, great point about the cartels, and question about their money corrupting our political system.

Thank you for a useful and super researched piece on this fraught issue, Y-not.

Posted by: Emily at May 16, 2015 10:06 AM (7Rn+/)

66 20 minutes since last comment?

Whoa, did Drew's war news post really kill this political-reflections thread while I wasn't looking?

I understand the horde-of-corgis-mooove-on aspect of AoSHQ, but weekend threads shouldn't die so quickly. Why, I might've had something else to say!

Or did everybody just take a long bathroom break?

Posted by: mindful webworker, scratching head (might be ticks) at May 16, 2015 10:08 AM (RRfF8)

67 Ah, Emily makes my comment moot.

Posted by: mindful webworker - moot, mooooot, mootmootmootmootymoot at May 16, 2015 10:10 AM (RRfF8)

68 Militarize the damn border. Defense of the Borders is specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Not in the penumbras and emanations, but right there from inked quill to parchment.

Sadly, there will be no courage for such from D.C., outside of a Pearl Harbor event originating from South of the border.

And doubtful, even then.


Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Posted by: Jim at May 16, 2015 10:11 AM (RzZOc)

69 I'm okay with permanent residency for some (not all) of the illegals AFTER we've secured the border and stopped the inflow. As a practical matter, we're not going to be able to deport them all. The problem for candidates is that the left and the media (but I repeat myself) always want to talk about a candidate's position on citizenship, which becomes an incentive for more illegals to cross the border. I would love for a candidate to say, "I will not discuss any plans for residency of citizenship until after the border is secure," but that answer would be ridiculed in a second. So I guess my ideal candidate would say something like, "We must secure the border, crack down on visa violators and eliminate welfare benefits for illegals which are an inducement to illegally cross the border. Once that has happened, then we can assess whether or not the economy can absorb the illegals already here and perhaps extend permanent residency to those who have jobs and have not committed a crime."

Posted by: biancaneve at May 16, 2015 10:11 AM (Zl68m)

70 Open borders is the greatest act of treason in the history of the world.

I can only see this as a steppingstone towards World Government. First America must be broken up and the debris shoveled out of the way. Then there will be nothing to stop it.

Posted by: rickl at May 16, 2015 10:13 AM (sdi6R)

71 As a practical matter, we're not going to be able to deport them all.

People keep saying this but it just isn't so. Maybe as a Political Matter it can't be done, but that just highlights the corruption of the system. Make me dictator and I can have 99% of illegals out of the country in 180 days.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 10:15 AM (rwI+c)

72 Fucking Romney.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 10:16 AM (rwI+c)

73 A hundred bucks to legal immigrants for each illegal they turn in, and a month off their residency requirement for citizenship when the perp is deported.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 10:19 AM (rwI+c)

74 Nicely set out piece, with much sad truth involved here.

Posted by: exdem13 at May 16, 2015 10:19 AM (/mTq0)

75 Thanks for doing the work on this unpleasant task, Y-not. It's one of my least favorite subjects too, but it's important even if I prefer to ignore it.

I'm always torn between the need to stop illegal immigration, but to do it with language that alienates the fewest Hispanic voters. In Texas, the GOP is trying hard, with some success, to recruit them to the party.

I've mentioned here before that we caught three Ukrainian illegals on our ranch. They were criminals who'd been kicked out of the US, and were sneaking back in through Mexico.

So it's not just a Hispanic deal. Most of the people crossing the river aren't Mexicans. They're mostly from Central America, but many are from Asia and elsewhere. That's a big security issue.

Posted by: stace at May 16, 2015 10:44 AM (CoX6k)

76 I just have to be faster than you.

Posted by: Just the Punchline at May 16, 2015 10:44 AM (rwI+c)

77 If I had a chance to ask candidates policy questions I'd keep it simple. 'Yes' or 'No'. If they posture, they fail. None of this "well that's a complicated...". Bullshit. They're either willing to take a stand or not. My .02

Posted by: THE Big, Old, Fat guy at May 16, 2015 10:45 AM (rVGaB)

78 I live pretty close to some of the towns VDH described in "Mexifornia". Immigration law is not the only problem. Pressure from Social Warriors to excuse illegal immigrants from local laws (building codes, etc.) is strong.

Coastal elites isolate themselves from the realities of lawlessness that they are creating.

Posted by: KT at May 16, 2015 10:59 AM (qahv/)

79 "I'm always torn between the need to stop illegal immigration, but to do it with language that alienates the fewest Hispanic voters"

The native Hispanic population is just a screwed by this lawless immigration as anyone else. Their kids' schools are crowded, their jobs are harder to get and pay less when they get them, their government programs are being burdened to the point of breaking. Their kids are going to have to live with the social and economic mess being created here.

They don't win. As usual, its power-hungry people who win - business and political interests.

Posted by: Lily at May 16, 2015 11:02 AM (eBvf6)

80 Thanks, Y-not, for all the hard work you put into these weekly political threads. Suxxor that you got stomped so damn quick, but I won't cast blame on CBD as even ace has been stomped. Breaking news, er, shit happens.

I rarely get a chance to comment on these threads, because Saturdays are a busy day for me. But I just wanted you to know I do read these threads.

Posted by: GnuBreed at May 16, 2015 11:03 AM (xeept)

81 They don't win. As usual, its power-hungry people who win - business and political interests.
Posted by: Lily at May 16, 2015 11:02 AM (eBvf6)

Exactly. The Dem coalition of US born Hispanics, unemployed blacks, and unions go along like sheep with the DNC/businesses importing more and cheaper workers. Some Hispanics are waking up to that, but not enough.

Posted by: stace at May 16, 2015 11:08 AM (CoX6k)

82 I like what I'm hearing from Walker (lately), but I genuinely think none of the candidates are real border hawks, it's just at the edges. I even think figures like Ted Cruz are more open to an Amnesty deal than they are letting on.


I understand the problem with not coming off as racist, it's really something we could have better dealt with 20-30 years ago. The problem is many Republicans liked illegal immigration because it undermined Unions. It's the same with free trade.

Right now I'm leaning towards Rubio despite his comprehensive deal. If I was Hillary, he would be who I most fear and I like the idea of First latino President being a Republican.

Posted by: Kal at May 16, 2015 11:11 AM (AjVoL)

83 I like the idea of First latino President being a Republican.

If historic firsts are an actual factor in you calculus, ur doing it rong.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 11:13 AM (rwI+c)

84 Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Wow, what a pretty statue! Let's get more of them!

- Liberal America

Posted by: That guy whos says "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" at May 16, 2015 11:13 AM (6E2VN)

85 The native Hispanic population is just a screwed by
this lawless immigration as anyone else. Their kids' schools are
crowded, their jobs are harder to get and pay less when they get them,
their government programs are being burdened to the point of breaking.
Their kids are going to have to live with the social and economic mess
being created here.



They don't win. As usual, its power-hungry people who win - business and political interests.


Posted by: Lily


I agree, if the ones that were here were smart, they would support tougher border security moving forward.

Here's the thing though, I don't think immigrants love affair with Democrats has much to do with their stance on immigration, I think it has more to do with "free shit"

If Democrats suddenly became border hawks, I think their voting habits would remain unchanged.

When Reagan signed into law the Amnesty deal, many Democrats opposed it. Mondale ran against it because Unions knew it was a race to the bottom. But the very next election, Dukakis got something like 70% of the Hispanic vote despite Republicans giving them Amnesty.

Posted by: Kal at May 16, 2015 11:17 AM (AjVoL)

86 If historic firsts are an actual factor in you calculus, ur doing it rong.
Posted by: Grump928(C)


Explain

Posted by: Kal at May 16, 2015 11:18 AM (AjVoL)

87 "Then there will be nothing to stop it."

45ACP, 9mm, etc

Posted by: Feh at May 16, 2015 11:34 AM (pOSLv)

88 Explain

Historic Firstness is irrelevant to electing a president that is best for our nation. Elect the person who will do the job for us. The President should rightly be genderless and free of ethnicity. It should not even be a consideration but rather, at bestm something to appreciate after the fact as an aspect of The American Way.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 11:35 AM (rwI+c)

89 IMO, of course.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 11:42 AM (rwI+c)

90
Historic Firstness is irrelevant to electing a
president that is best for our nation. Elect the person who will do the
job for us. The President should rightly be genderless and free of
ethnicity. It should not even be a consideration but rather, at bestm
something to appreciate after the fact as an aspect of The American Way.


Posted by: Grump928(C)

I would love it if we lived in a nation of voters that were intelligent enough to see things that way, but we don't.

The fact is, the GOP has been type cast as the Old White Man's Party. Optics and symbols are important and I think a Latino President would pay dividends for conservatism down the road and open up a new demographic.

Here's the thing though, I genuinely think Rubio is a solid conservative that can win. He's not perfect, but please show me the perfect candidate.

Posted by: Kal at May 16, 2015 11:43 AM (AjVoL)

91 I would disagree that a Hispanic President, as Hispanic, will pay any benefits to conservatism as such, if his actual positions are not conservative and reliable. Granting amnesty is not a conservative position.

Your point is well made that conservatives are fucked anyway considering the makeup of the parties and the electorate. I just think if we are going to burn, and we are, we should clearly lay out the road not taken.

Posted by: Grump928(C) at May 16, 2015 11:47 AM (rwI+c)

92 Foreigners here on visas used to have to register every January. Run down to the local post office and fill out a card attesting to some particulars. What ever happened to that?

Posted by: LCMS Rulz! at May 16, 2015 12:47 PM (TqyFL)

93 The issue is very much rural vs. urban, but not primarily in the way you guys have been saying.
I live in a very rural area, and illegal immigration is a cancer destroying our communities.

First, if you give a comparative advantage to businesses that skirt the law, all businesses will soon be skirting the law. When the most upright men are forced into bankruptcy and knaves prosper at their expense, it does something to a community's spirit.
Second, there's a shortage of opportunity to begin with. Importing a bunch of cheap illegal labor doesn't help matters. Especially if they have ties to the drug trade.
As a result, those of our young who can escape, do. Others will find skilled trades that don't have to compete with unskilled labor. Many will find a way to be content in a dead end job that doesn't pay much. But a not insignificant percentage will turn to drugs, which sets off a cascade of its own.
In the meantime, cost of living goes up. (As more people are competing for the available resources.)
Crime goes up, both from hopeless youth on drugs and the natural tendencies of migrant workers.
Capital is degraded. Houses aren't meant to house 5 families, and it isn't like illegal aliens pay taxes to support the infrastructure they use.
School districts are overwhelmed by students who don't speak the language, and who have never experienced formal education. This negatively impacts the native youth as resources formerly dedicated to advanced classes are shifted to remedial classes, further constraining avenues for escape.

I have nothing against the average illegal alien. They're just seeking a better life for themselves and their kids. I can respect that.
But I can't help note that it is coming at the expense of my family and community.
With the active encouragement of a government that is supposed to be protecting the interests of its citizens.
And this is driven home on every trip to the grocery store, as they're all on food stamps and eat considerably better than I do, at my expense.

Posted by: Luke at May 16, 2015 01:52 PM (5zf+s)

94 We need another 40-60 years of extremely limited legal immigration to allow for assimilation, the way we did it from the 20s to the 60s. What we're getting is not only too many people at a time to assimilate, but a Democrat party that encourages Balkanization and glorification of foreigners' cultures over our own. America isn't allowed to have a culture because by their definition it's white and privileged, and unacceptable due to being tarnished by past sins.

Posted by: Muskwa at May 16, 2015 02:09 PM (n40Jg)

95 Here's the thing though, I don't think immigrants love affair with Democrats has much to do with their stance on immigration, I think it has more to do with "free shit"

I agree. You might see a bit less of this attitude where good-paying jobs are abundant, as in the EagleFord, but jobs are not abundant in this country overall.

Posted by: stace at May 16, 2015 03:10 PM (CoX6k)

96 We could get them to self-deport if we enforced E-Verify, but only if we also stopped giving them free shit. What are our chances of both those things happening? Not while we're fighting our own damn party on this, we won't.

Posted by: Muskwa at May 16, 2015 03:41 PM (n40Jg)

97 1. Secure the border.
2. Extremely limited legal immigration for a significant future until "assimilation". (Muskwa above)
3. Return every criminal/islamist/Marxist/fascist.
4. Be very friendly to well behaving, productive "aliens" who are already here
5. Realize that crony corporations especially, but all corps, want cheap labor and will compete in vigorous capitalistic fashion to get it.
6. International competition will not be stopped.
7. This situation is part of transformation of economies -- abundance of workers; many who come from abroad much more willing to work than (spoiled/self-esteemed) "Americans"; robots/technological replacement of workers; whose job is going next?
7. The issue(s) needs a visionary as leader who has some idea of where we are going and can respond to Americans as well as to/about scared and fed-up (illegal) immigrants from failed countries/governments/economies abroad.
8. The solution is not to become like the "them" that Obama is trying to devolve the U.S.A. into -- another third-world country. (Revenge motive)
9. We need optimism, vision, inventiveness and a kind of light-heartedness in a time of crisis because of all the promise/prosperity/know-how that remains in this country (in spite of Obozo's attempts).

Posted by: pyromancer76 at May 16, 2015 03:47 PM (zvcr8)

98 Is this an invade the world /invite the world blogger we have here?


If you are too damn stupid to realize that the demographic invasion/occupation by 30 million left leaning low information people will end this country then you don't need to be posting information on the internet.

Posted by: WJ at May 16, 2015 06:29 PM (cW2xP)

99 >>Posted by: WJ at May 16, 2015 06:29 PM (cW2xP)

Obvious troll, trolls obviously. Interestingly on this thread and CBD's thread.

Posted by: Y-not at May 16, 2015 08:29 PM (RWGcK)

100 BTW, Y-not:

Thanks for the history on how we got into this mess.

Posted by: KT at May 16, 2015 08:56 PM (qahv/)

101 25 Americans are killed everyday by illegal aliens in U.S. Not to mention the multitudes of other violent crimes committed by this scourge. Eisenhower deports millions in "operation wetback" it worked and it will work again but even easier then in the early 1950s. I have not talked to one conservative or moderate Democrat that doesn't agree that every single negative issue the American people are facing to day leads straight back to the illegal alien invasion. Give that some thought. I think to date, Scott Walker is the closest possible candidate to stand firmly with the average American citizen and say, no more! Deport them all, secure our border, and stop birthright citizenship. They can get in line with the people who have actually followed our laws and applied etc as required. They are a huge drain on every aspect of life for the American people. I can't even phantom who anyone could possibly think otherwise.

Posted by: Pam Enns at May 16, 2015 10:39 PM (z+lbD)

102 Haw haw haw, "unauthorized" immigrants.

These leftish pieces of shit advocacy groups are a real riot.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at May 17, 2015 12:38 AM (hj76B)

103 Currently the only candidate who is opposed to amnesty is Cruz. The rest are trying to either justify their position (Jebby the Hut" or either lie about their reversal (Walker).


As for the 1965 amnesty, it failed because they ignored the "close the borders part" just as they have done every time they pass a "reform" bill.

Posted by: Vic We Have No Party at May 18, 2015 05:22 AM (GpgJl)

104 I will go to Belize.
Posted by: Cato the Rebel
--------------

Make sure you are well armed, and forget about feeling secure. Crime-torn Belize had a murder rate of 44.7 per 100,000 in 2012, the third highest in the world.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at May 23, 2015 09:32 AM (QyBQv)

105 25 Americans are killed everyday by illegal aliens in U.S....
Posted by: Pam Enns
-----------------

A verifying link, please.

Posted by: Mike Hammer, etc., etc. at May 23, 2015 09:44 AM (QyBQv)

(Jump to top of page)

Name: *

Email: *

URL:

Comments:

Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0251 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0079 seconds, 113 records returned.
Page size 88 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.