The Long-Term Politics of the Immigration Bill
Ever since the days of Prop. 187, Republicans have been desperate to rebut unjust Democratic charges that they are anti-immigrant (read: anti-Latino) bigots. Fair enough.
The problem is that signing on to this incredibly flawed immigration bill isn't the way to solve that problem -- even though a short-term resolution of the illegal immigration problem might cast a warm glow over a politician's heart.
A University of Maryland study reveals that passage of the current immigration bill would, in fact, precipitate a political realignment hugely favorable to the Democrats (no wonder Teddy Kennedy was supposedly willing to accept some less-than-favored provisions in the bill).
And none of this has to do with race or ethnicity. The fact is that the immigration bill as it's currently constituted would offer citizenship to a vast number of uneducated and very poor migrants. Given that the Democrats had (at least until 2006) been losing electoral market share, integrating these people into the political system has no doubt seemed, by far, like the best way to revive the welfare state's flagging fortunes.
Indeed, Republicans have long hoped that Latinos would become the 21st century equivalent of the Reagan Democrats. But in order to care about limited government and low taxes, one must have some money and property that needs protecting from the government. Importing what's essentially a reserve army of the desperately poor and unemployed from Mexico isn't only a recipe for finding new big-government clients, it also inhibits those who are already here (and already citizens) from climbing the economic ladder.
The problem is that signing on to this incredibly flawed immigration bill isn't the way to solve that problem -- even though a short-term resolution of the illegal immigration problem might cast a warm glow over a politician's heart.
A University of Maryland study reveals that passage of the current immigration bill would, in fact, precipitate a political realignment hugely favorable to the Democrats (no wonder Teddy Kennedy was supposedly willing to accept some less-than-favored provisions in the bill).
And none of this has to do with race or ethnicity. The fact is that the immigration bill as it's currently constituted would offer citizenship to a vast number of uneducated and very poor migrants. Given that the Democrats had (at least until 2006) been losing electoral market share, integrating these people into the political system has no doubt seemed, by far, like the best way to revive the welfare state's flagging fortunes.
Indeed, Republicans have long hoped that Latinos would become the 21st century equivalent of the Reagan Democrats. But in order to care about limited government and low taxes, one must have some money and property that needs protecting from the government. Importing what's essentially a reserve army of the desperately poor and unemployed from Mexico isn't only a recipe for finding new big-government clients, it also inhibits those who are already here (and already citizens) from climbing the economic ladder.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:01 AM
2 Comments:
One third of the US population are Latinos, of these less than six percent vote. It is an untapped source of votes that could decide elections.
I can't help but think Bush would like them to remember him and the Republicans as their Abe Lincoln.
"A University of Maryland study reveals that passage of the current immigration bill would, in fact, precipitate a political realignment hugely favorable to the Democrats (no wonder Teddy Kennedy was supposedly willing to accept some less-than-favored provisions in the bill)."
I've spent most of my adult life in Central America and the Caribbean. I've worked in those politics.
The trouble with that study, which I've read, is that it assumes a static political culture once the immigrants enmesh with the Democrats. I disagree and if I had the money, I could finance an equally effective study laying out precisely how deleterious such an infusion would be for the Democrats. What a shock they'd suffer!
I think the long term effects would be unknowable and should remain so. We shouldn't push any policy for political expediency, even if we thought it would help us in the short term - another achilles heel for Democrat leadership these days.
Post a Comment
<< Home