National Review: Welfare-Sucking Hispanics Are Politically Hopeless Anyway

b9camaybe not so puede after all 450x400 National Review: Welfare Sucking Hispanics Are Politically Hopeless Anyway

The cynical take on President Barack Obama
suddenly making an issue out of comprehensive immigration reform is
that, passage or no passage, the president and his party will find
it politically advantageous to touch off a Republican-on-Republican
fight, preferably one that will expose a particularly off-putting
strain within the GOP.That’s not just my cynical take–Obama-sympathetic commentators
such as
Slate’s John Dickerson have endorsed this as a
basic governing strategy going forward. It may rankle those of us
who have dared notice that president is
constantly setting
new records for family-wrecking deportations, but then, such

symbolic opportunism wouldn’t work nearly as well without an
opposition willing to underperform even the soft bigotry of low
liberal expectations.Cue the
National Review:
[I]f we are to take Hispanics at their word, conservative
attitudes toward illegal immigration are a minor reason for their
voting preferences. While many are in business for themselves, they
express hostile attitudes toward free enterprise in polls. They are
disproportionately low-income and disproportionately likely to
receive some form of government support. More than half of Hispanic
births are out of wedlock. Take away the Spanish surname and Latino
voters look a great deal like many other Democratic constituencies.
Low-income households headed by single mothers and dependent upon
some form of welfare are not looking for an excuse to join forces
with Paul Ryan and Pat Toomey. Given the growing size of the
Hispanic vote, it would help Republicans significantly to lose it
by smaller margins than they have recently. But the idea that an
amnesty is going to put Latinos squarely in the GOP tent is a
Apart from calling them
hostile, anti-capitalist, welfare-sucking poors, NR’s editorial
really insults Americans of Spanish-speaking descent by
denying them the basic agency of independent political action. This

Romneyesque method of applying Marxist-style economic
determinism to entire voting populations is not just wrong, it’s
self-defeating. Advantage, Obama.The shame here for actual policy (and the millions of
lives such policy impacts), is that National Review is
otherwise right (and Obama wrong) that “piecemeal reform” is
preferable to “comprehensive” legislative goliaths on such a
difficult and politicaclly charged issue. Any comprehensive package
would likely speed us further toward national ID cards, even bigger
deportation numbers, even more law enforcement on the border, and
even more Washington-managed bureaucracies for human movement and
employment. Few if any of these measures would be net positives for
either freedom or basic rationality. And all would be bitterly
contested.But while those fights soak up the oxygen, there is a piecemeal
reform politicians on both sides could and should get behind
easily: Dramatically increase the number of legal visas. As Jeb
Bush and Clint Bolick recently
pointed out, “The best way to prevent illegal immigration is to
make sure that we have a fair and workable system of legal
immigration.” Liberalize the law, and you create fewer
lawbreakers.There is zero reason to hold this good policy hostage to other
immigration-related agruments, whether about “amnesty” or border
security or workplace raids or drivers licenses or English-only
rules. Those who insist on using shaming exercises to advance
pro-immigration policies could produce much more clarity by asking
their opponents–and themselves–the same question: What are you
doing, concretely and discretely, to significantly increase the
number of visas for legal immigrants?

Read More: 

National Review: Welfare-Sucking Hispanics Are Politically Hopeless Anyway

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply


Recent Posts


%d bloggers like this: