Answers to common assertions by immigration amnesty advocates

At the Democratic presidential candidate debate before the New Hampshire primary, none of the questions were about illegal immigration, because the mainstream media outlets that ran the debate decided that illegal immigration wasn't worth bringing up, since Democrats don't care about this issue and because all the candidates agree about what to do (grant them all amnesty except for felons except for felons guilty of identity theft I guess). I mentioned this on an immigration forum and was told by amnesty advocates on the forum that the mainstream media was right and anyway immigration was only a problem in the minds of loony racist right-wingers. Here's my response:


Re: "Immigration is a non-issue except in the border states."

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll of all registered voters last week asked what was "the most important issue to your vote for president?"
now December
Economy 34% 29%
Iraq 25% 23%
Healthcare 18% 20%
Immigration 10% 14%
Terrorism 9% 10%

However, immigration shows more variation between the parties than any other topic. It's the top issue for 20% of Republicans but only 4% of Democrats. So if all the Democratic contenders need is Democratic votes to win, they can safely ignore immigration--they can even pander to pro-illegal immigration special interest groups, as Clinton and Obama are vying with each other to do.

But Democrats can't get elected with only Democratic votes; nor can Republicans. For anyone to win he/she need independent centrist votes. And I'm pretty sure independents are nearly as concerned with illegal immigration as Republicans are.

Now of course the traditional tactic has been to pander to your party's base--the hard-liners--by telling them what they want to hear, then moderating your pitch after the convention to suck in the moderates. But that was before YouTube. Now you'd better tell any one special interest group only what you want the general electorate to hear.

The only real alternative is to pander to your side's special interests, then accuse moderates of being racist or somethingelse-ist if they challenge the pander. Both Clinton and Obama are already doing this sort of race-baiting, in the good old Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson mold.

To which I say--keep it up if you want John McCain to be our next president. YouTube brought down Senator Allen with his idiotic Macaca Moment. And the Left is just as vulnerable to this kind of exposure as the Right is.

re: "This wave of immigration will quickly assimilate just like immigrants always have."

To which I say--the Past isn't always Prologue. Things change, circumstances differ. Yes, you should know the lessons of history. In this case, immigrant waves have generally assimilated. But several things are different here. These immigrants' home country is next door. Previous waves of immigrants had to be more ambitious to get here. It's getting harder to cross the border, but it's still a lot different from traveling thousands of miles from your homeland and your culture to get here.

This means the vast numbers of Mexicans here have not had the pressure to assimilate--to learn English, to learn American culture--that any previous wave of migration has experienced. And it shows up in their children, who drop out of high school in astonishing numbers--so much so that California ranks 48th in the nation in dropout rates.

re: the blase attitude towards whoever happens to come here.

This is an area where liberals and conservatives differ profoundly. Conservatives say "Why should the government of Mexico be allowed to decide who immigrates to America?" Liberals say: "It's not the Mexicans' fault. They just want a place to live and work. We must accommodate them or we'd be inhumane racists." Conservatives answer: It's not our fault either. America should get to decide who lives here, just like every single other country on Earth believes.

And in this area I believe the vast majority of independents agree with the conservatives, even though they differ strongly with both religious fundamentalist conservatives and big business conservatives in their areas of interest.

And just because every previous wave of immigration has been accused of bringing in disease and crime and wage depression doesn't mean it's false. Actually previous large waves of immigration have depressed wages, as even liberal economist Paul Krugman has conceded. And the airy-fairy reassurance that some day wages will improve doesn't do much for Joe Lunchbox today, and it does even less for inner-city blacks.

Here's a way to bring up wages right away: check social security numbers and fire anyone who doesn't match and who, upon double-checking the facts, turns out to be a felon (remember, identity theft is a felony). Adopt a universal biometric ID, the bete noir of nearly all liberals and many conservatives. Amend the Constitution to deny birthright citizenship to any but the offspring of citizens. Deny all social services but emergency healthcare to illegal aliens.

Under those circumstances most will self-deport.

Of course liberals call all those measures cruel and unjust. But that's because they don't think much of the value of rule of law, which they regard as a meaningless abstraction. I know better because of the time I've spent in countries that don't have this. I bet most people who diss rule of law haven't had such experiences and are, consequently, talking through their hats.