What’s good for Republicans is bad for Republicans

Republicans are looking to take over the House and even the possibly the Senate this election cycle, trying to capitalize on a range of issues the Democrats are seen as wrong on.  One of those issues is Immigration.

Republicans have seen a growing amount of Hispanic support in recent elections, an estimated 40% - 44% voted for President Bush in 2004, but the publicity of the Arizona law threatens to turn that around.  While as many as 55% of Americans support the Arizona law, 71% Hispanics do not.

If this perception that holds that Republicans are hostile towards immigrants, it could take as many as three generations for Hispanics to return to the Republican party in large numbers.

Stossel takes up immigration

On his most recent show, John Stossel tackled the hot topic of immigration, bringing on both the proponents of Arizona’s immigration law (Heather MacDonald and Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce) and supporters of open immigration and reform (Jason Riley, Nick Gillespie and Linda Chavez) and the economic benefits it brings:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Ten books that I recommend

Yesterday, a friend asked me to send along a list of books that I would recommend for a project. So, I figured I’d pass it along, in no particular order (please share books you recommend in the comments).

Governor Brewer: Confused on Immigration

In this clip, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer asserts that undocumented workers are beheading people in Arizona.

I imagine that Brewer was actually referencing the horrifying crimes committed by Mexican drug cartels in Mexico:

CUERNAVACA, Mexico — The preferred form of cruelty by drug cartel henchmen is to capture enemies and behead them, a once-shocking act that has now become numbingly routine.

Since March 22, authorities have come across four separate grisly scenes of beheaded bodies, in one case with several heads placed neatly in a row.

Additionally, the foreign policy journal Stratfor goes in depth on this grisly phenomenon of Mexico’s drug cartels effectively adopting the playbook of Al Qaeda.

Brewer’s comments reveal that she is confused about what is going on and that actions by Mexican criminals in Mexico appears to have achieved synergy in her mind with the actions of undocumented workers. Take that and interpret it however you want.

Immigration and free markets go hand-in-hand

“No, this isn’t about terrorism. It’s about racism and bigotry.” - Penn Jillette

The “conservatives” that are railing about immigration need to read this:

The conflict between conservatives’ principles and their stance in Arizona on immigration is particularly stark in recent legislation. Under new Arizona laws, any business caught knowingly hiring illegal immigrants can have its business license revoked. What an incredible step it is for conservatives to back such a law! While on the one hand they laud enterprise and personal responsibility and free labor markets, on the other they have focused most of the state’s enforcement efforts on making sure immigrants can’t work without government approval. At the same time that conservatives savage immigrants for coming to America to live off welfare, they are trying their best to make it impossible for immigrants to earn a productive living.

Border fence becomes a government boondoggle

You remember that  border fence aimed at keeping the brown people from entering the United States (even though they’ll still come in with it there anyway)? A report from the Government Accountability Office, the audit arm of the United States government, shows that it has become another government boondoggle (H/T: Washington Independent):

Originally expected to run about 655 miles, the troubled, multibillion-dollar project has now been reduced to a plan for 387 miles, and its designers have lowered its technical standards “to the point that … system performance will be deemed acceptable if it identifies less than 50 percent of items of interest that cross the border.”

“The result,” said the Government Accountability Office in a withering report Thursday afternoon, “is a system that is unlikely to live up to expectations.”

DHS doesn’t even have “a reliable master schedule for delivering” even the “first block of SBInet,” as the Secure Border Initiative is known.

“As a result, it is unclear when the first block will be completed, and continued delays are likely,” the GAO said.

Meanwhile, DHS doesn’t have a realistic grasp of SBINet’s future costs, investigators found.

Those of you complaining about this are the same people showing up at tea party rallies protesting ObamaCare and spending because government can’t do anything right. I agree. And guess what, government can’t do the job when it comes to controlling immigration. Need an example why? See pretty much anything government has done.

Your Daily Jefferson

“I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration.” - Thomas Jefferson

What would Reagan do on immigration?

In a great article at the Wall Street Journal, Peter Robinson reminds conservatives and Republicans that Ronald Reagan welcomed immigrants, including illegals, to the United States:

In 1986, Reagan signed legislation granting amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Instead of denouncing the undocumented, Reagan invited them to become citizens. If Reagan was right then, isn’t Sen. McCain wrong now? To attempt an answer, I’ve listed what we know for certain about my old boss and immigration. Then I’ve done my best to figure out what each item tells us about where Reagan would have stood on the issue today.

What we know for certain, item one: Ronald Reagan was no kind of nativist. In a 1977 radio talk, for instance, Reagan dismissed “the illegal alien fuss,” arguing that we need immigrant labor. “One thing is certain in this hungry world,” he said. “No regulation or law should be allowed if it results in crops rotting in the fields for lack of harvesters.”

Reagan’s attitude toward the growing Hispanic influence in American life? When announcing his bid for the White House in 1979 he asserted plainly, “I favor statehood for Puerto Rico”—scarcely the position of an Anglo chauvinist. And Reagan again and again declared that a basic, even radical, openness to immigration represents a defining aspect of our national identity. Describing America as “a shining city” in his 1989 farewell address, for example, he said, “[a]nd if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Rand Paul Is Wrong About Immigration

I’m usually pretty supportive of Rand Paul, but there are some issues where he’s wrong, and immigration is one of them:

Paul recently suggested to a Russian TV station that the U.S. should abandon its policy of granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants — even if they’re born on U.S. soil.

Paul also said he’s discussed instituting an “underground electrical fence” on the border to keep out unwanted elements, though he emphasized that he’s “not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country.”

The real problem, Paul said, is that the U.S. “shouldn’t provide an easy route to citizenship” because of “demographics.”

According to Paul, the proportion of Mexican immigrants that register as Democrats is 3-to-1, so of course “the Democrat Party is for easy citizenship.”

He added: “We’re the only country that I know that allows people to come in illegally, have a baby, and then that baby becomes a citizen. And I think that should stop also.”

Video (immigration discussion begins around 8:30 in):

There’s just one problem with Paul’s position, and it starts with Section One of the 14th Amendment:

GOP Losing Hispanic Support Since Passage Of Arizona Law

Well, this isn’t at all surprising:

There’s no doubt that the new Arizona immigration law is popular nationally, but that still doesn’t mean the issue’s going to work to the GOP’s advantage this fall.

Hispanics in the Mountain West are leaning much more strongly toward the Democrats since the Arizona law was passed. The big question then becomes whether there are white voters who are going to go Republican this fall who wouldn’t have if that bill hadn’t been passed. We don’t see any evidence of that happening yet- Bennet and Glassman are both doing better with white voters than they were before as well, although not to the same degree that they’ve improved with Hispanics.

A majority of Americans may support the bill but it could still end up working to Democrats’ benefit this fall if most of the voters who care enough about it for it be a determining factor in how they vote- or whether they vote- go in their direction.

Proposition 187 set Republicans in California back for more than a decade. This Arizona law could do the same thing in other parts of the Southwest.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.