October 1, 2011

If the definition of insanity is ...

... to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result, the Rick Perry candidacy would be a prime exemplar. After eight years of Bush, we are now offered the guy Bush was pretending to be.

A friend writes:
To state this in partisan terms, a lot of Republican's don't get that Republican policies don't produce outcomes Republicans want. Sadly, the same can be said of all too many Democrats as well.

Rick Perry and Illegal Immigration

Plenty of folks have objected to Perry's supports for in-state tuition for illegals. However, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Perry is a full fledged Open Borders activist. He has never seen an immigration law he is willing to enforce. Perry is another mass immigration, cheap labor corporatist, no different than the Bushes (Jeb and George) or Rubio for that matter. Of course, while he loves illegals for cheap labor, he doesn't want them to vote. He pushed hard for, and passed, a Voter Id bill in 2011. A few notes on Perry and illegals.

1. Perry claims that in-state tuition is a "States Rights" issue. Actually, it is not. Federal law specifically prohibits the granting of in-statue tuition to illegals unless the citizens of all states have the same privilege. See "Rick Perry, In-State Tuition, and Federal Law" by Heather MacDonald.

Here is what the law actually says.

“An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States,” declares Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), “shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

Note that the California Supreme Court ruled otherwise. However, a more germane point is that niether Bush nor Obama has ever tried to enforce the law (by suing the states).

2. Perry has consistently opposed any type of immigration enforcement. He opposes E-verify (because it has been shown to work). He opposes fences (because they work in Israel and the U.S.). He opposes using police to catch illegals (along the lines of SB1070 in Arizona) because it works. What does Perry support? Make believe border enforcement. Perry has asked for 1000 National Guardsmen along the border. That's less than one per mile. Allowing for 3 shifts per day and weekends, that less than one Guardsman for every 5 miles. However, it gets worse. What does the border patrol actually do? It catches illegals and returns them to Mexico so they can try again. Many are caught several times in one day. "It ain't over until the illegal wins" is the Perry way.

3. Perry Perry is about as pro-Amnesty as you can get. He just doesn't have the guts to call it Amnesty. So he talks about "work permits" and waiting in line. Guess what? A work permit makes an illegal alien, a legal resident of the United States. You can use any word or words you like, but Amnesty is still Amnesty. As for "waiting in line"... People who come to this country wait in line at home. Under they Perry plan, the illegals "wait in line" right here in the USA draining our country every day of our taxes, jobs, schools, etc.

4. Perry supports the NAFTA superhighway. Enough said.

5. Don't buy the argument that people feel differently in Texas about immigration. Texas polling data shows immense opposition to illegal immigration. See "UT/TT Poll: An Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Government Mood" by Ross Ramsey over at the Texas Tribune. Texas politicians are a different matter. The cheap labor lobby is (much) stronger in Texas than elsewhere.

6. Perry's job creation record is actually rather poor. A detailed study found that Perry has created two jobs for illegals, for each Job that an American got. Another two jobs went to legal immigrants. In other words, Perry has created 4 jobs for immigrants (half illegal) for each new American job.

7. You can find a rather good video on Perry's record here

70 comments:

Wes said...

Just to point out the obvious - if the immigrants we were welcoming were average or high IQ, with good work habits, and they were compatible with traditional American culture, open borders wouldn't be such a disaster. What's needed is the willingness to state that all populations are not interchangeable - I am not sure how this will happen though, because Americans are very uncomfortable with the idea that the American dream may not be for everyone.

Fred said...

Related, check out this NY Times article about an illegal alien who has spent 19 months in an NYC hospital at a cost of $1.4 million because his family wouldn't care for him. Some of the commenters sound almost like iStevers. As the economy continues to get worse, even NY Times readers start becoming rational about immigration.

Anonymous said...

He's talking about illegal immigrants being "in the queue, waiting for their citizenship."

There is no such queue! If you're an illegal immigrant, there's no way for you to just apply for legal status. That is why illegal immigrant supporters are pushing for amnesty.

Rick Perry claims he's against amnesty, but he's talking like an amnesty already exists, and he supports it.

Sheila said...

Spot on analysis of Perry, and why I will not hold my nose and vote for him for President. I've moved into the "worse is better" camp. Let it all fall apart, the sooner the better.

Oh, and for all those here (including Steve) who think "high IQ" immigrants or workers are endlessly needed/welcomed, here's another viewpoint (from tunnelrat at Life of an I.T. Grunt): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJBYz0bzekk&feature=player_embedded

Anonymous said...

I think the real problem is Rick Perry will drive a lot of Republicans to vote for Romney, who implemented Obamacare at the state level.

With a Romney nomination, the right will again necessarily have to redefine itself to be more at home with big government approaches...just so the GOP can deal with its own cognitive dissonance.

jody said...

all that and he's still one million times better than obama.

as is every single last one of the candidates.

eh said...

Perry is a full fledged Open Borders activist.

This may be an example of what people mean when they say: "It's impossible to be too cynical." But I'm not sure.

Liz said...

My problem with Perry is not so much the tuition issue (which is bad enough) but the way he tried to weasel his way out of it byt blaming the federal givernment.


http://74.84.198.233/archives/2011/09/29/perry-its-the-federal-governments-fault-i-had-to-implement-in-state-tuition/

Anonymous said...

I think the real problem is Rick Perry will drive a lot of Republicans to vote for Romney, who implemented Obamacare at the state level.

Oh, no. Not that.


With a Romney nomination, the right will again necessarily have to redefine itself to be more at home with big government approaches

Maybe you somehow failed to notice, but the right has been at home with big government for a very long time. The worst offenders in this regard are the libertarians, ironically enough.

Perry is even more of a big business/big government Republican than Romney.

As for Obamacare - the GOP nominee will have nothing to do with whether it survives or not.

JP95 said...

all that and he's still one million times better than obama.

as is every single last one of the candidates.


Conservatives need to stop this "anyone's better than Obama" stuff. We wouldn't even have Obama if W. hadn't stunk so bad. Four more years of Obama with a Republican Congress would be better than a Republican Congress together with Perry or Romney.

Anonymous said...

Can somebody explain how George W. Bush was a "Texan"?

The man was born in Connecticut, comes from an old money northeastern WASP family, attended prep schools, studied in the Ivy League, and spent a large part of his life outside Texas. Even when he was in Texas, he was living in Houston, which is full of domestic migrants from across America, including lots of northeastern big money types.

For years, the Bushes were slandered as northern carpetbaggers who moved south to make money. Not authentic sons of the soil. Remember the whole "preppy" thing?

So how does W. become some sort of redneck, gun totin Texas rancher? It baffles me that anybody can believe this stuff.

In 1999, Bush buys a ranch in Crawford and claims he'll retire there after his presidency is over. In 2008, Bush sells the ranch and moves to some rich enclave in Highland Park (in Dallas County). Hmmm.......... I wonder why?

If Bush is a cowboy, I'm a 15th century Japanese samurai.

Anonymous said...

"As the economy continues to get worse, even NY Times readers start becoming rational about immigration."

I believe that is called a "Silverado moment" by Whiskey.

Anonymous said...

I saw Perry's disgusting pro-Israel comments. I will not be voting for him.

Anonymous said...

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/08/21/us/depiction-of-bush-as-a-carpetbagger-is-as-lasting-as-his-links-to-texas.html?pagewanted=3&src=pm

And the ''real Texan'' issue is there. A recent poll of 837 registered voters in Texas by Mason-Dixon Opinion Research found that 51 percent did not consider Mr. [HW] Bush a ''real Texan,'' 39 percent did, and 10 percent were undecided. The poll has a margin of sampling error of three percentage points.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
"I think the real problem is Rick Perry will drive a lot of Republicans to vote for Romney, who implemented Obamacare at the state level."


Hi,I lived in Massachusetts in Boston near Cambridge when Romney was governor (at the time I think Romney and I were the only Republicans in the state or so it seemed... ha ha )

What people don't understand was that when Romney was elected the Massachusetts Democrat controlled legislature was hell bent on enacting a veto proof socialized health care bill. Romney did the smart thing and took the iniative and worked with them to create a bill that at least was not totally insane. Anyone who lived in Massachusetts at that time knows that trying to fight such a bill would have been a complete exercise in futility. His response was very savy and prevented a far worse bill from being enacted over his veto IMHO.

What a lot of people don't know as well is that while at Bain Capital (of which he was president) he helped to create many thousands of jobs across the country in the U.S. by providng seed capital for Staples, Inc. and many other companies that went on to sucess.

I am not sure why this aspect of his career doesn't recieve more publicity.

Anonymous said...

At this point Perry should stop wasting his time running. He's been sniffed out by the Tea Party folks and his candidacy is in the dumpster. Christie is just Perry in a fat suit, and Cain is not to be trusted.

At the end of the day I can only see myself voting for Palin, Bachmann, or Paul.

Baloo said...

This is wonderful stuff! I had no idea that there was a Federal law of that sort. This is enthusiastically linked to by Ex-Army HERE.

Mark said...

I never understood this sentiment repeated by so many conservative types that immigration is great as long as we only bring in educated, hard working high IQ types. Surely it would be better to bring in low IQ (though preferably docile) immigrants to occupy a lowly societal niche than a more capable variety that will compete with you and your children in your own socioeconomic sphere.

Anonymous said...

Palin is not to be trusted either. Paul, while good on a lot of issues, is pro-immigration to an unhealthy extent. It's basically Bachmann, as she's the closest thing to a restrictionist.

David Davenport said...

4. Perry supports the NAFTA superhighway. Enough said.

Hasn't Rick ( "Don't call me Richard, I'm one of the guys." ) Perry also been backing the proposal to let Mexican long haul truck drivers do their thing inside the USA?

Ron Paul said...

Maybe you somehow failed to notice, but the right has been at home with big government for a very long time. The worst offenders in this regard are the libertarians, ironically enough.

Wait, what?

Anonymous said...

At this point Perry should stop wasting his time running.
so was mccain, down to 3% but MSM rallied behind him, let him lie and volia.

Seneca said...

"At the end of the day I can only see myself voting for Palin, Bachmann or Paul"

Hi, I am the commentor who lived in Massachusetts while Romney was governor and commented (under the name anonymous) in this thread why he supported the bill (if he didn't work with the Democratic controlled legislature they would have passed a more onerous bill over his veto).

I sat out the last election and did not vote for McCain because the two litmus test issues for me are a return to immigration sanity and a return to a foreign policy sans neo con war mongering. I
am simply not enthusiastic about having spent 4 trillion dollars of tax payer money for perpetual wars for perpetual peace (not to mention the cost in human lives). Are people so economically illiterate that they don't see the cost of the wars as a source of some of our current account problems?

At the moment the only candidate that seems to be making some remarks that seem reasonably sane on those two issues among the Rebulicans to me is Romney (and he has 400 million dollars of his own money so I assume no one owns him).

All the other Republican candidates are either weak on both issues (Perry and Christie), weak on the immigration issue(Paul), or are too enthusiastically enamored of neo con war mongering (Palin and Bachman) for my tastes.


I fear I may sit out this election too unless Romney is the nominee.

Is my assessment of the candidates correct or I am missing something?

Anonymous said...

There are 307 million people in America. It's hardly like this country is underpopuulated.

Anonymous said...

Wait, what?

It was the libertarian wing of the GOP (Jack Kemp and others) which fought tooth and nail to defeat Prop 187 and ensure that illegal immigrants would be able to continue getting welfare!

That's the real face of libertarianism in action. When the desires of big business come into conflict with libertarian small government ideals, the former usually come out on top.

Anonymous said...

Four more years of Obama with a Republican Congress would be better than a Republican Congress together with Perry or Romney.


With Perry, sure. He's a Bush clone - meaning he has Rockefeller Republican DNA. He can't change even if he wanted to.

The good thing about Romney is the thing everyone sneers at him about - he does not have a lot of convictions.

No convictions are a whole lot better than liberal convictions. (People with genuinely conservative convictions don't have a prayer in the GOP Presidential sweepstakes)

NOTA said...

Mark:

The argument there is that smart, hard working people will make the pie bigger at the same time they're fighting for a bigger slice. And if they assimilate, their grandkids may well be your grandkids. Indeed, this is also the argument for low wage immigration--those Mexicans and Salvadorans and such do, indeed, work very hard, and depending on how you measure things, may make the domestic economy bigger overall. (I think this is very sensitive to what you do and dont count. In particular, if you count added costs to social services or not.)

If you think a generation or two ahead, the difference between these two gets much bigger. Importing smart people means importing their smarter-than-average descendants. If you imagine that the US economy in a couple generations will be a lousy place to look for a job with an 85 IQ, then importing lots of folks whose kids will have 85 IQs is importing a large pool of perpetually unemployed people.

Our history as a country is that we had a lot of immigration, and it mostly worked out for us. I think that was partly the set of immigrants we had (in particular, getting lots of Germans and Askenazi Jews as immigrants worked out well for us). But there were also a lot of whites whose habits and values werent so different from the Latin Americans' we're importing now. One difference was that there were still several generations of strng back/weak mind kinds of jobs available, before they all started going away. So if it took a few generations to get Irish and Italians to assimilate, that was kid of okay. We probably dont have lots of those jobs available for the next couple generations, and many of the ones available now are being done by immigrants, or have been outsourced to China.

Whiskey said...

Perry is over, Romney is hitting him hard over his enthusiasm for giving illegal aliens preference over poor people from other states, complete with congratulations from Vincente Fox.

As for worse is better, lets get real. A Supreme Court packed with Obamaites, will Wise Latina you out the ears. Carved in stone third or fourth class citizenship for Whites, a massive expansion of the Welfare-transfer State (from Whites to non-Whites via tribunes) and so on are guaranteed under an Obama victory.

Remember, the President can do whatever he wants without Congress via the executive order process, and an Obama Victory would have cowed Republicans rolling over. There is no substitute for victory, even someone squishy is better than Obama in the White House.

Because Obama is that bad.

Fred said...

The Romney approach to health care makes sense, no? The government pays for health care for the poor anyway, so why not charge everyone who doesn't have health insurance, to eliminate free riders? I'm not sure why conservatives are against eliminating free riders.

I can see why the are worried about single payer leading to rationing and stifling of innovation, but Romney is the perfect president to hammer Obamacare into something rational (since, in reality, it has as much chance of getting repealed as Medicare or Social Security do).

If we're stuck with big government anyway, let's at least have it run by a guy who has plenty of experience successfully running large organizations, and who is numerate.

G Joubert said...

This is all a bit specious. According to the Constitution, federal statutes, and Supreme Court interpretations, immigration and the control thereof is a matter exclusively within the power and domain of the federal government. It's a job totally up to the feds to do -states really have no say in the matter-- and the feds have utterly abdicated from that responsibility. We haven't had a president in memory who had and enforced border control policies. Before Reagan the problem of illegal immigration was nowhere near the magnitude of what it is now. Reagan granted amnesty, after all, an act that made the situation infinitely worse because it encouraged the migration of future illegals, in the hopes of future amnesty grants. Without a concerted federal effort to secure the border with a fence, state-of-the-art surveillance technologies, and adequate manpower deployed along the border, border control and control of illegal immigration is not going to happen. So, with illegals clogging the welfare rolls, the public schools, the emergency rooms, the court system, and the prisons, what are states --particularly border states-- and their governors to do? They are stuck with this influx of illegals, with no real tools to stop them or to get rid of them, because that's up to the feds to do. The argument can be made that from the states' perspective, the best strategy for these states in the meanwhile is to address it on the poverty level. As long as the illegals are here, and with the feds being so inert on the problem it looks like they're going to be here for awhile, about the only thing states can do to alleviate the pressure is to try to raise these people a step or two out of the abject poverty level, education being a critical part of that equation.

Thusly, the apt inquiry is not into what were Perry's policies vis-a-vis illegal immigration and immigrants when he was governor, but rather what will be his policies as president. Two very different perspectives. Someone needs ask Perry this at the next debate as a followup to his "no heart" statement, are you in favor of a strict border policy, a fence, and all of the other things necessary to secure the border? If Republicans make as many gains in the House and the Senate as now appears possible, and if a Republican wins the White House, this is critical. Everything will be in place to finally secure the border once and for all, and we need a president who will do it. I don't have enough information about Perry right now to say categorically that he won't.

Tscottme said...

Heard a knowledgeable caller to the Mark Levin Show call from CA about in-state tuition for illegals. Did you know there is a federal law that dictates any state giving in-state tuition rates to non-citizens must also give the same in-state tuition rate to citizens from others states.

I believe caller mentioned CA charges 10 times higher for out of state tuition. If CA was forced to charge in-state rates to students from all 56 other states we could Cloward-Piven CA.

It's 8 US Code 1623 passed in early 2000s

Truth said...

"Anonymous jody said...

all that and he's still one million times better than obama.

as is every single last one of the candidates."

Brilliant, well-thought-out argument there, Jody.

gcochran said...

"If the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result"

It's not.

Maya said...

" if the immigrants we were welcoming were average or high IQ, with good work habits, and they were compatible with traditional American culture, open borders wouldn't be such a disaster."

Thanks. You make me feel loved, wanted and welcome. But do we really need more of me around here? I don't know... There's plenty of my kind (both American and foreign-born) fanning themselves with their liberal arts degrees while on a break at their waitressing jobs. Times are tough, and a lot of educated, law abiding people are underemployed or worse. How about restricting immigration to rich entrepreneurs and scientific geniuses, for a little while?

Maya said...

"Can somebody explain how George W. Bush was a "Texan"? "

Same way Obama is black. You can be anything you want if you put your mind to it in this here land of opportunity. I'm thinking of becoming Hispanic myself, as I eye more grad school. All you need is some sort of a vague connection and then just build up on it like crazy.

Anonymous said...

Same way Obama is black. You can be anything you want if you put your mind to it in this here land of opportunity. I'm thinking of becoming Hispanic myself, as I eye more grad school. All you need is some sort of a vague connection and then just build up on it like crazy.

Obama has some Irish ancestry. He should dress up like the Fighting Irish Leprachaun and promise to sock it to the Republicans. It'd be cool.

Sword said...

My tentative wish list for a GOP candidate:
1. Not openly religious, so that he is less likely to shape US. foreign policy so that it is all about supporting the promised land.
2. From east asia, so that he can express truths about various population groups that the media would never let a white candidate get away with.
3. Independently wealthy, so that lobbying groups will by him wholesale.
4. Willing to enforce the border

Any idea on anybody who fits the bill. There is only one asian-american GOP in the congress, a 1/4-filipino.

Svigor said...

Spot on analysis of Perry, and why I will not hold my nose and vote for him for President. I've moved into the "worse is better" camp. Let it all fall apart, the sooner the better.

"Worse is better" can be a very bad idea if taken too literally. It only works if used case by case. For me, so far, only immigration fails the "worse is better" test, and most everything else passes; we can play out a slow, fighting retreat against the leftoids on pretty much everything but the demographic transformation of America, and slowly gain support along the way and eventually retake the territory we've ceded to our enemies.

Since both parties seem treacherous on immigration, gridlock might be the best way to fight amnesty.

The reality is, Bush tried to push through amnesty. Tried hard. Obama hasn't lifted a finger. Not even while he had Congress.

Conservatives need to stop this "anyone's better than Obama" stuff. We wouldn't even have Obama if W. hadn't stunk so bad. Four more years of Obama with a Republican Congress would be better than a Republican Congress together with Perry or Romney.

My thinking exactly.

The man was born in Connecticut, comes from an old money northeastern WASP family

"WASP" goes around its ass to get to its elbow in order to be racist and insulting (calling Anglo-Saxons "White" and "Protestant" is redundant and an obvious play to pad the acronym out into a demeaning word).

Should we refer to Ashkenazis as "SAPs"? Semitic Ashkenazi Pseudoreligionists?

Anglo-Saxon is sufficient.

I saw Perry's disgusting pro-Israel comments. I will not be voting for him.

I'm basically a one-issue guy. The candidate most opposed to open borders gets my vote. This issue trumps support for Israel and foreign adventurism for me. I oppose both, but both pale in comparison to my single issue.

It was the libertarian wing of the GOP (Jack Kemp and others) which fought tooth and nail to defeat Prop 187 and ensure that illegal immigrants would be able to continue getting welfare!

That's the real face of libertarianism in action.


It's that kind of shit that makes me hate libertardians.

As for worse is better, lets get real. A Supreme Court packed with Obamaites, will Wise Latina you out the ears.

For once, Whiskey makes sense. Supremes are important. But I can just roll that into my single issue: I'll trust the most anti-open-borders candidate to make the appointments.

Carved in stone third or fourth class citizenship for Whites, a massive expansion of the Welfare-transfer State (from Whites to non-Whites via tribunes) and so on are guaranteed under an Obama victory.

I'll take fourth class citizenship for Whites and a massive expansion of the Welfare State and transfer of wealth from Whites to non-Whites, over handing the Presidency to an open-borders Rhino. At least a Republican Congress will oppose Obama; they'll roll right over for a Perry.

Bush pushed amnesty; Obama has not.

Rohan Swee said...

What a lot of people don't know as well is that while at Bain Capital (of which he was president) he helped to create many thousands of jobs across the country in the U.S. by providng seed capital for Staples, Inc. and many other companies that went on to sucess.

I am not sure why this aspect of his career doesn't recieve more publicity.

I'm sure this line will be in all the PR releases in the campaign days to come. The question is, is it true? Is there a net positive job creation number that can be attributed to Bain's ministrations, or is it just another joint mostly pursuing the popular "bust-out" model of increasing shareholder value? (Quote: "His web site says he has, 'an intimate knowledge of how our economy works.' You bet he does. His use of that intimate knowledge is why he's wealthy and a lot of manufacturers are in shambles.")

I don't know if the blog linked is accurate and fair in its assessment - they obviously think the guy is scum and Bain Capital "a sort of minor league farm team for the big time crooks". I do know that Republican voters can be magically reduced to mindless pull-the-lever obedience by hushed, reverential intonations of "successful businessman", among other shibboleths.

Rohan Swee said...

Sorry - forget to add the link to my previous comment: Here.

Anonymous said...

The guy who should now be running for president is Patrick Buchanan. This guy was right on both immigration and trade, and has been so for twenty years. When he ran for office in 1992, Americans were still too fat, dumb and happy to be concerned about trade and immigration. Even as late as 2000, with the rise in the stock market bubble, most did not notice what 'free trade' and open borders were doing. They could simply use their homes as ATMs and move to greener pastures.

Pat would definitely be competitive today. Unlike Paul he can actually speak articulately and stay on topic. Pat's biggest opponents would be the neocons. But after a decade of failure one would hope their complaints would be ignored. It's too bad this guy won't run now.

Anonymous said...

Politics is a form of controlled insanity since politicians must appeal to all sorts of competing interests. Look at Obama the 'socialist' and Wall Street.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous

"There is no such queue!"

Actually... Illegals routinely apply for legal status while they are still in the U.S. You would think they would be detained if they appeared at a USCIS (part of the old INS) office and tried this. In fact, they are welcomed. Of course, the probability of one of these applications succeeding isn't that high. However, it does allow the illegal to claim that he has "pending legal status". BS to be sure, but common and useful BS.

jody,

Obama is doing poorly to be sure. Partially because he was dealt a poor hand and also as a consequence of his policies. However, Bush inherited a much stronger economy and took America over a cliff. That's some accomplishment. Bush failed because his ideas didn't work. They are, with minor exceptions, Perry's ideas as well.

eh,

If you think you are too cynical, you are probably wrong.

Liz,

Perry blames it on the Feds... and strongly opposes any Federal solutions other than Amnesty.

JP95,

"Four more years of Obama with a Republican Congress would be better than a Republican Congress together with Perry or Romney."

I guess you must remember a president by the name of "Bush".

Anonymous said...

Mark,

"Surely it would be better to bring in low IQ (though preferably docile) immigrants to occupy a lowly societal niche than a more capable variety that will compete with you and your children in your own socioeconomic sphere."

Slavery was such a success story. Let's bring it back. How well do you think your ideas are going to work in a welfare state democracy? Health care and schools for the poor are far from cheap... However, there is evidence that this is the Bush/Perry/Obama plan. A Mexican intellectual by the name of Fredo Arias-King has written extensively on immigration issues. See "Immigration and Usurpation Elites, Power, and the People’s Will". I quote

"While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and “dependable” in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and “teaching,” they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states."

Anonymous said...

David Davenport,

"Hasn't Rick ( "Don't call me Richard, I'm one of the guys." ) Perry also been backing the proposal to let Mexican long haul truck drivers do their thing inside the USA?"

Yes, Perry never misses a chance to "Mess with America" if he can provide handouts to Mexico.

Anonymous,

"so was mccain, down to 3% but MSM rallied behind him, let him lie and volia."

Very true. However, McCain was the darling of the press (until Obama came along). Perry doesn't get the love.

G Joubert,

"It's a job totally up to the feds to do -states really have no say in the matter"

Actually, no. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that states are allowed to enforce (but not make) immigration law. For example, state level E-Verify mandates have been accepted by the Supreme Court. Using state and local resources to identify illegals for Federal removal is clearly Consitutional. For example, no one questions the legality of the Secure Communities program or the 287(g) program.

"what are states --particularly border states-- and their governors to do?"

Arizona and several other states (notably Alabama) have passed state laws that have worked quite well. A perfect and/or complete solution? No.

"Someone needs ask Perry this at the next debate as a followup to his "no heart" statement, are you in favor of a strict border policy, a fence, and all of the other things necessary to secure the border?"

Perry has repeatedly made it clear that he opposes any immigration enforcement that might actually work.

gcochran,

The technical definition of insanity is different. The quote attributed to Albert Einstein.

Maya,

"if the immigrants we were welcoming were average or high IQ, with good work habits, and they were compatible with traditional American culture, open borders wouldn't be such a disaster."

is true. Your plan is better.

Svigor,

"The reality is, Bush tried to push through amnesty. Tried hard. Obama hasn't lifted a finger. Not even while he had Congress."

Bush worshiped illegals. See the quotes above from Fredo Arias-King as to why. Obama favors Amnesty, but it is not an obessesion.

Svigor,

WASP is not an insult. American is great because WASPs made it that way. To America's vast credit, later waves of immigrants adopted WASP values (even if they don't realize it).

For the record, no one will ever mistake me for a WASP. However, that has made me all the more aware of the WASP role in creating and sustaining this nation.

Fred said...

Svigor,

"I'm basically a one-issue guy. The candidate most opposed to open borders gets my vote."

Check the Numbers USA ratings of the candidates. The only candidate who scores higher than Romney on immigration is Bachmann. Unless you think she has a shot (which you probably don't), then Romney is your man this time around. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

- Your SAP friend.

Buchanan Brigades said...

Go Pat Go!

Baloo said...

Svigor is absolutely right about the single issue, and anonymous is right about Pat Buchanan. And most of the libertarian-bashing here is perfectly correct. That's why I call myself a Libertarian Nationalist.

ELVISNIXON.com said...

Bachmann tells the truth about the 1965 Immigration Act.Consequentially she is best of the bunch.

You may hate her religion- so what?

Do you prefer Obama's islamo-atheism?

I repeat-She DARED to mention the 1965 Immigration Act.

Anonymous said...

"5. Don't buy the argument that people feel differently in Texas about immigration. Texas polling data shows immense opposition to illegal immigration. See "UT/TT Poll: An Anti-Immigrant, Anti-Government Mood" by Ross Ramsey over at the Texas Tribune. Texas politicians are a different matter. The cheap labor lobby is (much) stronger in Texas than elsewhere."

We were pretty disgusted at his immediate flip to the open borders position.

Anonymous said...

That said, wasn't McCain in much the same position in 2007? I won't count Perry out, as much as I want him to be gone.

Freddy Rumson said...

PAT BUCHANAN would never have invaded Iraq and would have closed the borders- A far better world for Americans

THAT is why he was painted-even after winning in New Hampshire- as "extremist" and "unelectable"

The ONLY groups in the USA better off in 2011 then they were then are homosexuals and illegal aliens (and muslims- who often qualify as all of the above)

Go,Pat Go!!!!!

beowulf said...

I fear I may sit out this election too unless Romney is the nominee.
Is my assessment of the candidates correct or I am missing something?


Nahh, you're absolutely right. Some people haven't caught on yet that a vote for anyone else in the primaries is really a vote for Obama.

Carol said...

"The guy who should now be running for president is Patrick Buchanan."

Proudest vote I ever cast, when he ran in the primary in my state.

light rinse would've been sufficient said...

Pat Buchanan for prez--that's the ticket. Not only does Sailer's readership have "the means, the knowledge, and the discerning taste to appreciate modern culture and the finer things in life" but everywhere I see further evidence of their crackerjack political instincts which will surely hand righteous victory to the Real Conservatives after about 60 years of losing badly. What about Tancredo, isn't he in the conversation? (unlike 100% of paleophonies him at least with some experience of reality) ANYONE BUT RUBIO--that "corporatist"

As for Shtick Perry he *did* create about 3 or so jobs recently for those academics emigrating from the harsh, Hobbesian third-world environs of La Jolla. More jobs Texans won't do

S.Anonyia said...

"Arizona and several other states (notably Alabama) have passed state laws that have worked quite well. A perfect and/or complete solution? No."

Just another reason why I love my home state. I am already seeing construction crews which consist of whites and blacks again. A sight which had been rare for a good 5 years at the least. And the illegals have stopped occupying the local park. A lot are still here, but it has definitely made a a substantial difference since even the beginning of this summer! The legislation is insanely popular here in AL too, even among some liberals. Soon enough I bet the surrounding states will pass similar bills, then maybe it will catch on to the entire country. The bad economy has forced everyone to wake up to the reality of illegal immigration.

ben tillman said...

The Romney approach to health care makes sense, no? The government pays for health care for the poor anyway, so why not charge everyone who doesn't have health insurance, to eliminate free riders? I'm not sure why conservatives are against eliminating free riders.

???

Poor people will just be exempted or use money from the government to pay.

Middle-class people without insurance are not free riders because they don't get any free health care.

So, under your proposal, the free riders will continue to be free riders, while certain non-free-riders will become forced subsidizers.

Screw you.

ben tillman said...

This is all a bit specious. According to the Constitution, federal statutes, and Supreme Court interpretations, immigration and the control thereof is a matter exclusively within the power and domain of the federal government.

That's a myth. The Constitution says nothing about immigration, although it does talk about naturalization. By the way, the Constitution provides that "[t]he United States ... shall protect each of [the States] against invasion".

beowulf said...

The way to prevent freeriding on the healthcare system is the same way society prevents freeriding on fire protection or national defense, the tax code. It may be politically less popular than an individual mandate to buy private health insurance (though that's debatable) but it has the minor advantage of actually being constitutional.

Skeptical Economist said...

ben tillman,

"That's a myth. The Constitution says nothing about immigration, although it does talk about naturalization."

That's a real point of Constitutional law. When Congress first started passing immigration laws in the 19th century, they were challenged on precisely those grounds. Some folks asserted that in the absence of Constitutional power to regulate immigration, the Federal government could not do so.

However, the Supreme Court held that regulation of immigration was an inherent power of a sovereign nation, even if the Constitution failed to mention it.

No subsequent Supreme Court has ever held otherwise.

Fred said...

"Middle-class people without insurance are not free riders because they don't get any free health care."

Middle class people without health insurance get free health care all the time when they can't afford to pay their bills and are nevertheless not denied care. There are also entitlements that cover middle class people (SCHIP, for example, in some states).

"The way to prevent freeriding on the healthcare system is the same way society prevents freeriding on fire protection or national defense, the tax code. It may be politically less popular than an individual mandate to buy private health insurance (though that's debatable) but it has the minor advantage of actually being constitutional."

True. And it would also be constitutional to provide a 100% tax credit for those who have health insurance, which, for all intents & purposes, would have the same effect as no tax + a fine for not having health insurance.

Anonymous said...

"That's a myth. The Constitution says nothing about immigration, although it does talk about naturalization."


However, the Supreme Court held that regulation of immigration was an inherent power of a sovereign nation, even if the Constitution failed to mention it.



There's no contradiction there. The Constitution says one thing, the Supreme Court says something else. It happens all the time, sadly.

"Constitutional law" is a rather cynical way of describing "law made by the Supreme Court which has no basis in the Constitution".

Anonymous said...

Middle class people without health insurance get free health care all the time when they can't afford to pay their bills and are nevertheless not denied care.



All the time? Do "middle class people without health insurance" (which is itself a tiny category) actually make up a significant proportion of the people in hospital emergency rooms?

No, they do not. But the fiction that they do is an essential selling point for Obamacare.

Anonymous said...

According to the Constitution, federal statutes, and Supreme Court interpretations, immigration and the control thereof is a matter exclusively within the power and domain of the federal government. It's a job totally up to the feds to do -states really have no say in the matter




I'd just like to say, fuck the Supreme Court of the United States and the horses it rode in on.

For some reason the President and the Congress get all the attention/criticism, when the most subversive force in the country is the judicial branch.

All you need to know about the cynical dishonesty of the courts is demonstrated by their refusal to strike down the "sanctuary" laws put in place by many cities and states - because, after all, these laws apparently do not infringe on the "exclusive power and domain of the federal government"!

It would make no difference if Tom Tancredo were elected POTUS because the bottom line is that US immigration policy is made by and for the worst elements of the corporate right and racist left, and enforced on their behalf by the courts.

Anonymous said...

I knew that that the federal government was ignoring federal laws about immigration, but this is remarkable. States are enacting laws in direct defiance of an act of Congress? How does the California Supreme Court have any say in the matter?

Have the pro-immigrationists become states' rights advocates?

Svigor said...

Svigor,

WASP is not an insult. American is great because WASPs made it that way. To America's vast credit, later waves of immigrants adopted WASP values (even if they don't realize it).

For the record, no one will ever mistake me for a WASP. However, that has made me all the more aware of the WASP role in creating and sustaining this nation.


Your response doesn't engage my point. What if the common word for "WASP" was "shitbag" instead? Your response would be just as germane. Sure, you can admire "shitbags" while calling them "shitbags." Doesn't mean it isn't a deliberately insulting term.

But thanks for the nod to the Anglo-Saxons. :)

- Your SAP friend.

;)

You know, I could make "SACK" work for you if you like. :D

And most of the libertarian-bashing here is perfectly correct. That's why I call myself a Libertarian Nationalist.

I could start calling myself a Libertarian Ethnopatriot without missing a beat. I find myself in agreement with libertarians on most issues. But when it comes right down to it, the ethnopatriot part trumps everything. I'd jump into bed with commies, nazis, libertarians, monarchists, minarchists, theocrats or most anyone else if it meant surviving.

I haven't looked into it, but I've heard many times here and elswhere that my #1 choice is Bachmann, and #2 is Romney. And I'd take Buchanan over either, too.

That's a real point of Constitutional law. When Congress first started passing immigration laws in the 19th century, they were challenged on precisely those grounds. Some folks asserted that in the absence of Constitutional power to regulate immigration, the Federal government could not do so.

Taking back the Judicial branch would be a tremendous blow to our enemies. Funny thing is, we can define "our" very broadly here; I suspect a lot of people could get behind it if they thought it through. States' rights works for everyone but the centralization nuts (globalist centrists). California could go all granola & sandals, New Hampshire could go all libertarian, Arizona could toss out the illegals, Wyoming could go all cowboy, Bible Belt states could go all Religious Right, etc.

Fred said...

"You know, I could make "SACK" work for you if you like. :D"

What would that stand for?

More importantly, what's your response to my point about Romney as the strongest on immigration save Bachmann (the strongest electable candidate on immigration)?

Truth said...

"I find myself in agreement with libertarians on most issues."

Not if you're employed by someone else you don't; just trust me on this one.

ben tillman said...

Middle class people without health insurance get free health care all the time when they can't afford to pay their bills and are nevertheless not denied care.

When I was a kid and used to get sick, the sign in the waiting room said, "It is customary to pay for professional services when rendered." Now, I'm pretty sure, it's required. I don't know how in the hell you go into a doctor's office and get out without paying.

Do tell.

David said...

Business controls the GOP, and greedy businesses want massive immigration. They would sell this country, and you, for a nickel.

As one exalted "small businessman" put this point to me once:

"I don't see black or white or whatever. The only color I see is green."

A short-term profit, subsidized by usufructs, and to hell with the long-term and the people who trustingly created those usufructs. Perry flies with the Locust Class.