Immigration and Voting

The central thesis of this post is a brief excerpt from Daniel Hannan’s (MEP) book, Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made The Modern World.

[I]n the 2010 Canadian election, immigrants were more likely to vote Conservative than native Canadians.  Think, for a moment, how exceptional such an outcome is.  In most of the world, newcomers vote overwhelmingly for left-of-center parties.  There are plenty of reasons why.  They are usually penniless when they arrive, and so gravitate to politicians who purport to represent the poor.  They tend to live in districts represented by leftist politicians who, at local level, are the first to help them navigate the political system of their new nation.  And, of course, left-wing parties see themselves as champions of all minorities.

The success of the Canadian Conservatives owed a great deal to their determined campaigning among ethnic minorities and new settlers.  But it was assisted by the non-racial way in which English-speaking societies define themselves. [pg 280]

This shouldn’t be surprising to any of us.  Immigrants come to the US, and to Canada, looking to make better lives for themselves and their families than was possible in their old country.  They bring with them a habit of self-reliance and a powerful work ethic.  By their immigration, they’ve shown themselves to be willing to take risks for gain and not simply to wait on handouts.  Immigrants are more likely to start (and succeed with) small businesses, too, and small businesses are the jobs generators of our economy.  These are principles of modern Conservatism in the US; we should be welcoming them with open arms.

Republican—and Conservative—candidates also should take heed of that last paragraph in the quote: “determined campaigning among ethnic minorities and new settlers.”  They should do this, not only in their own districts—which must come first, surely, as winning the election is a prerequisite to getting anything done in elective office—but also in their neighboring Democrat districts, where many more immigrants—and native minorities—live; these voters should not be dismissed by us.

It would help, also, if we, as a nation, turned to what has been demonstrated to a large degree in Canada: “the non-racial way in which” we define American society—but in practice as well nominally in law.  The Democrats and Progressives cannot let go of their racial (or gender) difference meme (recall the MSNBC bi-racial Cheerios ad kerfuffle, the cries of racism whenever a white man criticizes a black government official, the squawks of sexism when a man criticizes a woman candidate), but we Republicans and Conservatives surely can move beyond such racism and sexism.  Beginning, as alluded above, with going into immigrant and minority neighborhoods and talking directly with those folks—not as Asian or Mexican immigrants, not at Black- or Hispanic- or Asian-Americans, but as Americans and future Americans.

In the end, we shouldn’t be afraid of how immigrants might vote (we shouldn’t be shutting them out of our country over that question at all).  Immigrants in the United States generally would vote with Republicans and Conservatives, if only we would give them the chance.

Certainly, we need have no fear for the Conservative message in any contest of ideas.

Immigration, Again

Senator Jeff Sessions (R, AL) had some thoughts on this, which he passed on to the House Republicans as they left for their annual retreat.

As they consider the subject of immigration in their retreat, I expect the Republicans to focus on three things: border and interior security, legalization for some of the existing 11 million aliens, and ensuring that President Barack Obama enforces immigration law.  Within that, Republicans will consider ways to deal with the children of illegal aliens, visas for guest workers, and a legalization process that would require illegal aliens to pay fines and back taxes.

Contained in Sessions’ thoughts for the House Republicans were concerns about

…the negative impact of the House immigration proposal on US workers, taxpayers, and the rule of law.

[Sessions’] analysis said increasing the number of immigrants would hurt an already weak economy, lower wages, and increase unemployment.  He cited White House adviser Gene Sperling’s comment earlier this month that the economy has three people looking for every job opening.

…the House GOP leaders’ plan that’s taking shape would grant work permits almost immediately to those here illegally, giving them a chance to compete with unemployed Americans for any job.  He said it would lead to a surge in unskilled workers and would provide amnesty to a larger number of immigrants in the country illegally, giving them a chance to apply for citizenship through green cards.

I have some disagreement with the Republicans’ focus and with Sessions’ suggestions.

Absent from the focus is any action on easing immigration—making getting entry visas of any type easier and faster to get.  What the Republicans seem to be working on is an excellent start, and if that’s all that can get done this session, that much is worth getting done.  But they—and their Senate counterparts—must recognize that this is only a step on a long journey, and they must return next year (coincidentally, a new Congressional session) and take another step toward rationalizing our immigration system, and hopefully post 2016, finalizing that rationalization.

Unaddressed in both the House Republicans’ and Sessions’ positions is the role of immigrants in our elections.  The fear (carefully unspoken here) is that immigrants are monolithically Liberal in their attitudes and will be in their voting habits.  This is to misunderstand the willingness to take great risks, the initiative involved, the self-reliance inherent in the effort it takes for an alien to make the journey into the United States, whether that journey and entry are carried out legally or illegally (in most cases other than smuggling or terrorist entry, especially those entering illegally, perhaps).  Sessions, and Republicans and Conservatives generally, are overly pessimistic, and they lack confidence in the Conservative message as it regards immigration, immigrants, and our existing illegal aliens.

Sessions misunderstands the relationship between immigrants and jobs.  It’s immigrants who start, and succeed with, small businesses at a vast rate, and it’s small businesses that are the jobs creators in our economy.  Sessions’ jobs concerns are misplaced here.  The job applicant to job ratio claimed by Sperling would be greatly reduced by those immigrants and their new businesses.

Finally, the conflation of legalization or a path to citizenship with amnesty is simply a mendaciously offered red herring.  The plans on offer for legalizing existing illegal aliens all involve penalties of some sort, ranging from self-deportation (which could be satisfied by visiting the nearest consulate or embassy, these facilities being foreign soil) to paying a fine and back taxes (which carry their own penalties).  Amnesty simply isn’t present in any of the plans.

A Thought on Immigration and Amnesty

The immigration debate in Washington boils down to a debate over how to handle the country’s 11 million or so illegal residents.  A Washington Post editorial over the weekend suggested a compromise: let them stay but don’t give them citizenship.

No.  Either we believe in redemption and rehabilitation, or we don’t.  We do believe in it, at least tacitly, for other criminal behavior—capital murder and sex offenses nearly the only things that are excepted.  And sex offenses get heinous acts.  Nearly all other offenses against us or our society have endpoints to the penalty exacted, and then the offender pretty much is allowed to go on his way with a clean slate.

A man enters our country illegally, though, and after that single and singular crime, he makes himself a productive member of his community.  On what basis do we insist that this crime is so heinous that he must pay for it for the rest of his life—the he must be denied any opportunity to earn citizenship in our country?  On what basis do we say his illegal entry—his sole crime (and it is a crime, no doubt)—is of a piece with capital murder or molesting a child?

Pay a price for having entered illegally?  Pay a price for having violated a traffic law?  Certainly.  And that means there’s no amnesty, either for the illegal entry or the traffic violation.  But there’s also more to this than just the utilitarianism of punishment for a crime and calling it square.  There’s the morality of it—redemption and rehabilitation.  We give that much to our felons, why not also to a man whose only crime is that he came illegally into our country to make a better life for himself and his family?  No.  Allowing a path along which to earn citizenship, a path that includes a price for illegal entry, isn’t amnesty.

The man who comes here and makes his way, who becomes a contributing member of our society—that’s the kind of man we want to immigrate.  That’s the kind of initiative, of drive, of work ethic, of desire to make a better life that brings creativity to our economy and to our nation.

Massive Overhauls

Obamacare (and its microcosm, Cover Oregon) are textbook examples—case studies, even—of the utter failure of any attempt to execute a massive change of anything in one fell swoop.  The attempt is born of good intentions heavily informed with arrogance, with a good measure of impatience added: we don’t need to see how things are going, our plan is sound because our hearts are pure.

No.  Every change needs interim evaluation steps with which to determine whether the golden plan is, in fact, still on track and if not what changes are necessary—even to the point of changing course or canceling the program rather than mindlessly tweaking the present stage due to glitches.  The ubiquitousness of unintended consequences alone dictates that.

And the program doesn’t have to be done right now.  It just has to be done (always assuming we’re agreed on the program, an agreement notably absent with Obamacare, but that lack is for another time).

Now President Barack Obamacare wants to do another massive, all in one step, change of another enormous system: our collection of immigration laws.

President Obama and his top Democrats on Capitol Hill appear to have reset their sights on the Republican-controlled House passing comprehensive immigration reform, instead of a step-by-step process.

The president on Friday appeared to urge the House to back the comprehensive, bipartisan immigration bill the Senate passed this summer….

What was that bit about repeating a thing and expecting different results?

Broken Immigration

This is how twisted things can get with a Byzantine legal system, here concerning our immigration laws, combined with an Obama administration that enforces or disregards the laws at political convenience.

Chris Crane, National ICE Council President, says

That’s what we do now, we babysit kids.

The very people patting themselves on the back as humanitarians are putting these children at more risk than they’ve ever been before.

What Crane is talking about is a ruling and public statement issued by Federal Judge Andrew Hanen in US v Nava-Martinez, a case concerning the defendant’s attempt to smuggle a 10-year-old child to her illegal alien parents.

Hanen says that immigration officials arrest human traffickers smuggling children and then

deliver the minors to the custody of the parent illegally living in the United States.

And

The DHS has simply chosen not to enforce the United States’ border security laws[.]

And

Time and again this court has been told by representatives of the government and the defense that [drug] cartels control the entire smuggling process. … the government is not only allowing [illegal immigrants in the US] to fund the illegal and evil activities of these cartels, but is also inspiring them to do so.

And

To put this in another context, the DHS policy is as logical as taking illegal drugs or weapons that it has seized from smugglers and delivering them to the criminals who initially solicited their illegal importation/exportation.  Legally, this situation is no different.

And morally, too.  Except that the guns aren’t at risk of being harmed en route, like the children are.

So: DHS breaks the law to unite children with their parents, while those parents are here illegally.  It’s a truly broken immigration system that allows illegal aliens to be here with impunity, that puts children at risk in smuggling operations ostensibly aimed at reuniting those children with their parents, all while funding drug dealers.  The system needs to be fixed.

Hanen’s ruling can be seen here.