Friday, November 18, 2011

The Anti-Immigrant Republicans

In a recent column for, Bruce Bialosky took issue with a Wall Street Journal editorial on immigration:
They finish the editorial by stating – and here is where the WSJ editors join hands with the left – “Immigrants bring vitality and skills to the U.S. economy.” This clearly implies what liberals have alleged for years: that Republicans are anti-immigrant. I have never once seen a statement by a Republican presidential candidate against immigrants, and the editorial did not (and could not) cite one.
He makes an interesting point. We all know the default setting for a Republican candidate is extreme and uncompromising intolerance for illegal immigration, but is it really fair to call them anti-immigrant in the more general sense?

Michele Bachmann and Newt Gingrich have expressed support for establishing English as the official language, a non-solution to a non-issue that would serve primarily to reinforce the misconception that many who come here don't bother to learn English. Promoting the learning of English isn't inherently anti-immigrant, I suppose, but intentionally promulgating a false stereotype probably is, so that one's kind of a wash.

Herman Cain has been making what may or may not be jokes about lining the border with terrible death traps, but, you know, it's not like there'd be any visa-holders among the fatalities. Cain is also in favor of Alabama's new immigration law, which is a disaster in many, many ways. But, again, the law doesn't target legal immigrants—parts of it target undocumented workers, and parts of it target everyone with an accent or brown skin, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.[1]

And then there are the sins of omission. The current immigration system is woefully ineffective—many who hope to immigrate legally are forced to wait in absurdly long lines, and even more are told there's no line they're eligible to wait in—and with a few exceptions (most notably Gary Johnson), the Republican candidates have shown no signs of giving a crap. For all their talk in other contexts of market forces and supply and demand, they've been inexcusably ignorant (or willfully dismissive) of the connection between economic conditions and immigration patterns.[2]

Of course, even the candidates who use the harshest rhetoric on "illegals" are careful to avoid saying anything that can be construed as hostile toward legal immigrants—they're running for office, for Pete's sake—but they haven't said much in support of expanding the avenues for legal immigration either. Instead, they play into fears about illegal immigrants streaming across the border and having babies and taking our jobs and wallets and healthcare and whatever else isn't bolted down, offering only the occasional "first we need to get illegal immigration under control, and then we can talk about the dysfunctional visa process", as if there isn't a causal link between the two.

This is all to say that I think the Republican approach to immigration is, at best, severely misguided, and at worst, a shameful case of exploiting and exacerbating a genuine humanitarian problem for political gain.[3] But hey, that's just my opinion, and it still doesn't answer the doubly-subjective (in terms of both policy and semantics) question of whether it's fair to characterize the hard-liners as anti-immigrant.

I found my answer when I went to the candidates' websites to see what they said on legal immigration. Not a whole lot, as it turns out, other than a few vague reaffirmations of their general support for the concept, but something else caught my attention:
Rick Perry:
As part of a broader tax reform strategy, I will also ask Congress to eliminate direct subsidies and tax credits that distort the energy marketplace. My plan levels the playing field, ending Obama’s anti-growth policies and opening a competitive marketplace to benefit American citizens.
Mitt Romney:
President Obama has neglected the fundamental tasks of creating jobs and growing our economy. Instead, he’s focused his efforts on an anti-jobs, anti-growth agenda that has significantly expanded the role of the federal government.
Michele Bachmann:
Researchers, entrepreneurs and investors across America have been paralyzed by this president’s anti-business policies that have created severe uncertainty. As president, I will signal by way of leadership to innovators, that the time has come to once again unleash the genius of Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ working to create the wealth of the nation.
Newt Gingrich:
The fact is, we are not going to close the deficit and move towards a balanced budget unless we follow the policies that foster the economic growth necessary to create jobs.The first and most immediate step would be to employ the policies that encourage investment, create jobs, and reward innovation and entrepreneurship -- exactly the opposite of the Obama anti-jobs policies.
As long as the Republican candidates consider Obama anti-jobs/business/growth for favoring policies likely to be ineffective, or that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation, or that come off as thinly-veiled attempts to distract and deceive voters, I'm going to go ahead and call them anti-immigrant for exactly the same reasons.

Seems fair to me.

1. The provision requiring law enforcement officers to check a detainee's immigration status applies only "where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States", and officers aren't allowed to consider race, color, or national origin "except to the extent permitted by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of Alabama". This is in no way the same as saying officers aren't allowed to consider race, color, or national origin.
2. And yet, they seem to think there is a connection between the ability of people to move to where economic conditions are better and the height of the physical obstacles we put in the way.
3. Politicians love issues that (a) people are ill-informed about, (b) arouse strong emotions, and (c) allow them to blame problems on groups lacking political power, and immigration is all three. If only there were some way to depict that graphically.


  1. Don't parse things too much. The anti-immigrant rhetoric of conservative America is what George Wallace used to call "keepin' tha' niggers in line" politics. And that's all it is.

    The reason practically every utterance by every GOP candidate who bangs this particular drum is so absurd and detached from reality (you're right to mock Cain's death-traps, but the others are just as bad) is because they exist solely to create and exploit animosity and resentment between white voters and brown-looking people with funny accents.

    You mentioned that English-as-the-official-language nonsense, and that's just one example of what these candidates do--fabricate "problems" with all these brown people that don't exist in the real world.

    Look at Jan "Papers, Please" Brewer's bullshit claims about illegal immigrants beheading people in the Arizona desert. She just made it up--pulled it right out of her orifice. More broadly, conservatives have, for years, carefully crafted and nurtured the myth of the violent border. Rick Perry, in one of the early Republican debates, beat this drum, and called Obama an "abject liar" for saying El Paso was a relatively safe city when it came to crime. Big applause from the assembled, but in reality, El Paso is, indeed, one of the safest cities in the U.S. There's the old saw about illegal immigrants being a drain on public resources. Illegal brown people on welfare! Except, of course, pretty much every reputable study on the issue has found that illegal immigrants actually pay far more in taxes than they ever collect in services. During the health care debate, Republicans told the public the bill provided health care for "illegals," and Joe Wilson put on his infamous "YOU LIE!" display when Obama spoke to congress. Again, in reality, Wilson--and the rest who had spread this manure--were the liars. Nothing draws Republican fury like any proposal that can even be remotely construed as "amnesty," and the implication of this is that no course of action short of deporting 13 million people--which, even if possible (it isn't) would cause an economic collapse the likes of which the U.S. has never seen--is judged acceptable.

    And that's the point, really. Nothing that comes from the GOP on this matter is either thoughtful or reasonable because it isn't intended to be thoughtful or reasonable; it's simply intended to stir up racist, tribalist animosities for the purpose of getting votes. And that's all.

  2. An interesting comparison, but there's a key distinction between what those GOP candidates said and what Bialosky was complaining about in his critique of the Wall Street Journal Article. That is the distinction between person and plan. In other words, calling somebody's POLICIES anti-____ is very different from calling that PERSON anti-_____. If you read each of the Republican excerpts you quoted, they speak of "anti-business/jobs/growth POLICIES": that is, the bills and legislation endorsed and signed by Obama have been anti-jobs, anti-business, and anti-growth. That's different from saying he, himself, is literally opposed to jobs. I'm not saying the GOP is above saying such things, because they're certainly not, but at the least they didn't on their official websites. Whereas your post here is asking the question "Are Republicans Anti-Immigrant?", as opposed to the question "Are the policies proposed by Republicans damaging to immigrants?". The distinction matters because one is a matter of principle, and the other is a matter of tactics. All politicians are pro-jobs: the dispute over which policies are likely to engender job creation is a dispute over tactics. Similarly, almost all politicians are pro-immigration: the dispute is over which policies are likely to engender healthy, safe, prosperous immigration and which are not.

  3. Really amazed! It is all totally very, specific, wide open is really a explanation from the difficulty. It includes the information. Buying Runescape Gold RS GP

  4. Spot on, sir! The sins of omission you mention are huge: why does their support for less government intervention in supply and demand stop at Labor? There are certainly issues to be considered - e.g. impact on welfare state - but at the very least their presumption as free-marketers (I don't believe they are, btw) should be in favor of less government intervention at the borders and for the free exchange of goods, services, and labor.

    One of my favorite papers questioning the presumptions we hold re Immigration: