Why isn't Immigration a plank of the US Democratic Party?

[Meeko]

I consider my self a Democrat, but I am probably closer to Libertarian.

There is a problem with people living in the USA that are not here legally.

Democrats apparently could care less. * **

Why?


* Could / Couldn't -- both IIRC are correct.

** This is the heart of my question. I don't understand why the immigration issue gets drawn on party lines. I don't get why nothing is getting done.

[appleciders]

The Democrats have positions on immigration.

http://www.democrats.org/issues/immigration_reform

[DigitalC]

** This is the heart of my question. I don't understand why the immigration issue gets drawn on party lines. I don't get why nothing is getting done.

Nothing is getting done because corporations benefit the most from the slave labor, Republicans benefit the most from having the issue alive as part of their "brown people are scary" platform, and Democrats benefit the most out of having a solid voting block that is scared shitless of the other guys. Nobody wants to get rid of illegal immigrants. Edit: Also because the only losers in the illegal immigrant situation are the illegal immigrants.

[Boyo Jim]

Nothing is getting done because corporations benefit the most from the slave labor, Republicans benefit the most from having the issue alive as part of their "brown people are scary" platform, and Democrats benefit the most out of having a solid voting block that is scared shitless of the other guys. Nobody wants to get rid of illegal immigrants. Edit: Also because the only losers in the illegal immigrant situation are the illegal immigrants.

Show me any evidence that illegal immigrants are voting for Democrats or anybody else.

[Nametag]

Show me any evidence that he said that.

[Boyo Jim]

Nothing is getting done because corporations benefit the most from the slave labor, Republicans benefit the most from having the issue alive as part of their "brown people are scary" platform, and Democrats benefit the most out of having a solid voting block that is scared shitless of the other guys. Nobody wants to get rid of illegal immigrants. Edit: Also because the only losers in the illegal immigrant situation are the illegal immigrants.

Show me any evidence that illegal immigrants are voting for Democrats or anybody else.

Show me any evidence that he said that.

I read this post to say that Republicans want illegal immigrants as slaves, and Democrats want them as anti-Republican voters.

[SeldomSeen]

Nothing is getting done because corporations benefit the most from the slave labor, Republicans benefit the most from having the issue alive as part of their "brown people are scary" platform, and Democrats benefit the most out of having a solid voting block that is scared shitless of the other guys. Nobody wants to get rid of illegal immigrants. Edit: Also because the only losers in the illegal immigrant situation are the illegal immigrants.

Exactly right. To paraphrase Edward Abbey...."The conservatives get their cheap labor source, the liberals get their cheap cause".

Everybody (except perhaps the immigrants themselves) benefits. Everybody pays lip service to the evils of illegal immigration but nobody wants to do anything serious to end it.
SS

[Onomatopoeia]

I consider my self a Democrat, but I am probably closer to Libertarian.

There is a problem with people living in the USA that are not here legally.

Democrats apparently could care less. * **

Why?


* Could / Couldn't -- both IIRC are correct.

** This is the heart of my question. I don't understand why the immigration issue gets drawn on party lines. I don't get why nothing is getting done.Democrats care, just not enough to support attempts to demonize people, who are a demonstrable net asset to the country by the way, and chuck them across the border en masse.

Please define, with specifics, what the problem is with people living in the US illegally that giving them a reasonable path to citizenship, which most would jump at by the way, wouldn't solve.

What's the downside of the Dream Act, for example?

The problem, I contend, is not the immigrants. The problem is the xenophobes and racists, who skew predominantly Republican, who get twisted into Escher-like pretzels whenever a brown person benefits from anything, even if they work twice as hard for it.

By the way, 'could care less' and 'couldn't care less' are in no way equivalent. Couldn't care less means one is unable to care less, that is one does not care. Could care less means one has the capacity to care less, that is one, to an extent, cares.

[Onomatopoeia]

Hm. I see I went a little 'by the way' happy in my post above, by the way. :)

[An Gadaí]

I would have thought migration controls would be anathema to a libertarian.

[Really Not All That Bright]

I read this post to say that Republicans want illegal immigrants as slaves, and Democrats want them as anti-Republican voters.
Republicans want illegal immigrants as cheap labor; Democrats want Hispanic voters, who are sympathetic to immigration generally. It's not that they want to win over the illegal immigrants themselves.

[An Arky]

I think the Democrats should use a plank to serve as the spine they seem to lack to tell the Republicans to get stuffed. They have they numbers and should be using them instead of losing them.

[Onomatopoeia]

I think the Democrats should use a plank to serve as the spine they seem to lack to tell the Republicans to get stuffed. They have they numbers and should be using them instead of losing them.Oh, to dream.

[An Arky]

Yeah; I don't know what came over me. :D

[Boyo Jim]

Republicans want illegal immigrants as cheap labor; Democrats want Hispanic voters, who are sympathetic to immigration generally. It's not that they want to win over the illegal immigrants themselves.

I agree that is one reasonable interpretation of the situation, though I don't see exactly how I am supposed to surmise that particular viewpoint from DigitC's words. There are lots of people outside of Hispanics who don't appreciate the standard Republican positions on immigration -- even George W. Bush. :p And there are a lot of reasons to be scared of Republicans besides their stance on immigration.

As a final point, I think most Democratic politicians tolerate illegal immigrants for the exact same reasons as Republicans -- cheap unskilled labor. A political stalemate suits both parties. But it riles the Republican base, so their party has to do more trash talking about immigrants.

[Saint Cad]

Because Democrats have painted themselves a corner on the issue and the best thing is to ignore it.
1. The radical side of the party (members, not politicians) have successfully characterized anti-illegal immigration as racism against Hispanics. Therefore being anti-II would alienate an important voting block for your party.
2. However, illegal immigration is still ILLEGAL. It's hard for a party as a whole to support any group of people breaking the law.
3. The arguments for immigration (labor "white" people refuse to do) or reimplementing guest migrant programs don't sound real good when unemployment is 9-11% in many states. In Phoenix, Arizona, most of the calls to INS come from legal residents (citizen and alien) because illegal immigration is competition for day labor.

As for the plank in the website given by appleciders. Notice the lip-service the Dems pay to programs that have proven not to work.
More secure borders? Did the Dems under Obama put up barbed wire fencing? landmines? have the Army patrol the border complete with drones?
Holding employers accountable? Hell, Maricopa County under Joe Arpaio couldn't enforce the law but the INS will?
And notice the third, a fancy way to say stay the course and you will have amnesty (and vote Democrat).

[DigitalC]

I read this post to say that Republicans want illegal immigrants as slaves, and Democrats want them as anti-Republican voters.

Corporations want them as slaves, Republican leaders want them as a scary boogie man, the republican base does want them all gone. The democrats want hispanics as a solid voting bloc behind them, not illegal immigrants per se. They've had since 06 to get something like the Dream Act passed (something i am fairly sure even Bush would have signed) and they did not act until right before the election when it was politically convenient and assured of defeat.

[Chronos]

3. The arguments for immigration (labor "white" people refuse to do) or reimplementing guest migrant programs don't sound real good when unemployment is 9-11% in many states.Doesn't that just strengthen the argument? If you've got that many unemployed "real Americans", and they still refuse to do the agricultural or landscaping or whatever work, then surely, there's no chance "real Americans" would ever do that kind of work.

[Simplicio]

They've had since 06 to get something like the Dream Act passed (something i am fairly sure even Bush would have signed) and they did not act until right before the election when it was politically convenient and assured of defeat.

It was filibustered (by two votes) in October of 2007. I don't really see how that's "right before the election". Its been reintroduced multiple times, and has passed the House at least once, but it never has the votes to beat the GOP filibuster, despite the support of a couple member of the GOP on several occasions.

FWIW, its been reintroduced once again, so here's hoping. It seems a no brainer to pass it, but its pretty hard to see how it will beat a filibuster now that the GOP has increased their minority in the Senate.

[Least Original User Name Ever]

It was filibustered (by two votes) in October of 2007. I don't really see how that's "right before the election". Its been reintroduced multiple times, and has passed the House at least once, but it never has the votes to beat the GOP filibuster, despite the support of a couple member of the GOP on several occasions.

FWIW, its been reintroduced once again, so here's hoping. It seems a no brainer to pass it, but its pretty hard to see how it will beat a filibuster now that the GOP has increased their minority in the Senate.

You may have just answered one of the questions upthread about how it gets used as a political pinball.

[Saint Cad]

Doesn't that just strengthen the argument? If you've got that many unemployed "real Americans", and they still refuse to do the agricultural or landscaping or whatever work, then surely, there's no chance "real Americans" would ever do that kind of work.

Ummmmm . . . I don't think they are refusing to do the work. I think they are not being offered the jobs because illegal immigrants are cheaper.

[DigitalC]

Bullshit, the work has always been there. NOBODY but illegal immigrant will do it.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

I don't understand why the immigration issue gets drawn on party lines.

Whatever one party supports the other party reflexively opposes. There are very few things in the United States that have such broad-based support that everybody agrees on the proper course of action. It falls on you as a voter to determine which collection of ideas best suits your ideological bent.

[Manda JO]

Bullshit, the work has always been there. NOBODY but illegal immigrant will do it.

At the wages offered: if day labor paid $100/hour, people would be dropping out of college to do it. I'm not saying it's worth $100/hour, just that "will do it" or "won't do it" is always relative to wages, never absolute.

[joebuck20]

3. The arguments for immigration (labor "white" people refuse to do) or reimplementing guest migrant programs don't sound real good when unemployment is 9-11% in many states. In Phoenix, Arizona, most of the calls to INS come from legal residents (citizen and alien) because illegal immigration is competition for day labor.



This. Sure, Obama is pushing immigration reform at the moment, but I suspect the Dems will just let it quietly die, just like they have on many occasions, and then blame the GOP for its demise.

With the economy still in the dumps, there just isn't much enthusiasm for this issue right now. Hell even in good times (like in 2005 and 2006), it's a tough issue to gain traction for. And let's face it, if the GOP put up a fight over Bush's immigration plan, you can only imagine the shitstorm they're going to raise over whatever ideas Obama puts forth.

The only group of people really pressing for immigration reform right now (at least immigration reform that doesn't involve heavily penalizing illegal immigrants) is Hispanics. And even for a lot of Hispanics, especially for this who are second or third generation and don't really have much family left in the old country, it's not really a make or break issue. If the Dems choose not to fight too hard for it, they're not going to lose any sleep over it.

[Jophiel]

In Phoenix, Arizona, most of the calls to INS come from legal residents (citizen and alien) because illegal immigration is competition for day labor.
As opposed to what? Illegal aliens calling INS?

[Chen019]

I consider my self a Democrat, but I am probably closer to Libertarian.

There is a problem with people living in the USA that are not here legally.

Democrats apparently could care less. * **

Why?

Votes (http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/04/open-borders-and-welfare-state.html).

In the United States whereas only 35% of whites prefer raising taxes and expanding government, the figure is 65% for Hispanic immigrants and 66% for second-generation Hispanics.

[Saint Cad]

As opposed to what? Illegal aliens calling INS?

That was a ridiculous statement. Clearly it was legal residents tryin to get jobs a day laborers making the calls to INS.

[Chen019]

I would have thought migration controls would be anathema to a libertarian.

Nope, because you end up with a population who vote for greater redistribution (http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/05/ethnic-diversity-and-size-of-government.html).

Open Borders and Democracy will inevitably lead to a welfare state, as non-libertarian immigrants sooner or later become the majority of the voters and vote themselves benefits...

Though ignored by proponents of the ethnic-diversity-and-redistribution, minorities also get to vote, and they vote overwhelmingly for the left. This effect is dominant when we are discussing free migration, because with open borders in a world where 700 million people have told Gallup they would like to migrate right now, sooner or later the immigrants will become the majority of voters and make the political preferences of the natives irrelevant.

Pew recently conducted a large survey with lots of questions on economic and social issues. It shows as all other polls that African Americans and Hispanics minorities are far to the left of whites. While 12% of Non-Hispanic whites in America have views that Pew classifies as Libertarian, only 3% of American minorities are libertarian. As America becomes increasingly minority, it will become less libertarian.

[Boyo Jim]

That was a ridiculous statement. Clearly it was legal residents tryin to get jobs a day laborers making the calls to INS.

Really? I would think it's far more likely that local residents would be calling to complain about gangs of grubby looking people congregating at parking lots or street corners while waiting for work. Or employers reporting competing employers to stop them from having an unfair advantage.

Do you have a cite for what is so "clear"?

[Really Not All That Bright]

Votes (http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/04/open-borders-and-welfare-state.html).
Nice cite. :rolleyes:

[Boyo Jim]

Oh yes, another type of complaint that I would imagine is far more common than those from displaced day laborers -- people complaining about illegals receiving undeserved government benefits like health care, schooling and the like.

[Chronos]

Quoth Saint Cad:
Ummmmm . . . I don't think they are refusing to do the work. I think they are not being offered the jobs because illegal immigrants are cheaper. How is there any difference between "illegal immigrants are cheaper" and "natives won't do the work"? Anyone at all could agree to work for the same wages that the immigrants agree to. They could, but they don't, because to almost all natives, that amount of pay isn't enough compensation for the work. In other words, they don't want the job.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

So the Democrats can "herd" the Hispanic vote toward their columns by always pulling the immigration card. Fortunately Hispanic voters increasingly (excepting the 2008 aberration) have become more concerned with other issues.
As for me I'm pragmatic on illegal immigration. Those will skilled jobs, who are fairly Americanized, are college-educated, and otherwise useful can stay along with their immediate families.

[fumster]

Quoth Saint Cad:How is there any difference between "illegal immigrants are cheaper" and "natives won't do the work"? Anyone at all could agree to work for the same wages that the immigrants agree to. They could, but they don't, because to almost all natives, that amount of pay isn't enough compensation for the work. In other words, they don't want the job.I guess supply and demand doesn't work in this case, huh? If there are jobs too shitty for people to take for the amount of money paid then the wages are too low. Immigrants will work for less for a number of reasons: they have fewer opportunities, the wage compared to home is high, their expectation for a standard of living is lower, and they often mail back a portion of their earnings to family in their home country where the dollar goes further. Sometimes immigrants will share a house with a large number of other workers to save money, knowing that when they return home they will live better with the dollars they earned.

The minimum wage in this country is very low right now in constant dollars, and pretty much across the board low end jobs pay too little to allow one to support ones' self, never mind a family.

[Chen019]

Nice cite. :rolleyes:

Why the snark? Are you disputing Sanandaji's figures?

[Boyo Jim]

So the Democrats can "herd" the Hispanic vote toward their columns by always pulling the immigration card. Fortunately Hispanic voters increasingly (excepting the 2008 aberration) have become more concerned with other issues.
As for me I'm pragmatic on illegal immigration. Those will skilled jobs, who are fairly Americanized, are college-educated, and otherwise useful can stay along with their immediate families.

I lack adequate words to respond to the ridiculous assumptions in this post. I'll try later.

[Chen019]

I lack adequate words to respond to the ridiculous assumptions in this post. I'll try later.

It seemed like a reasonable post to me.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Why the snark? Are you disputing Sanandaji's figures?
I can't confirm or dispute them; they're completely unsubstantiated.

[Chen019]

I can't confirm or dispute them; they're completely unsubstantiated.

So the Pew Hispanic Center isn't a reliable source? Look at page 74 of their report which is linked in Sanandaji's post.

[Really Not All That Bright]

So the Pew Hispanic Center isn't a reliable source? Look at page 74 of their report which is linked in Sanandaji's post.
It gives the quoted figures for Hispanic voters. The figure for white voters appears to have been made up, but is at any rate unattributed, because it's not in the linked report.

[Chen019]

It gives the quoted figures for Hispanic voters. The figure for white voters appears to have been made up, but is at any rate unattributed, because it's not in the linked report.

I'll have to email the author to find out the source of that figure.

In any case, I still consider that voter support and general ideological fear of appearing racist, is why the Democrats turn a blind eye to immigration. Even though, in terms of looking out for the working class voter, it should be a major issue for them.

[Really Not All That Bright]

In any case, I still consider that voter support and general ideological fear of appearing racist, is why the Democrats turn a blind eye to immigration. Even though, in terms of looking out for the working class voter, it should be a major issue for them.
I wouldn't say they turn a blind eye to it. Democrats are generally behind the enforcement efforts which target employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It's only Republicans who still think the idea of shipping them all home is viable- a policy that amounts to sticking one's fingers in one's ears.

Anyway, voters - even working class ones - aren't stupid. Plenty of them recognize that eliminating illegal immigration is just going to leave a lot of dishes unwashed and a lot of fruit unpicked.

[Chen019]

I wouldn't say they turn a blind eye to it. Democrats are generally behind the enforcement efforts which target employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It's only Republicans who still think the idea of shipping them all home is viable- a policy that amounts to sticking one's fingers in one's ears.

Anyway, voters - even working class ones - aren't stupid. Plenty of them recognize that eliminating illegal immigration is just going to leave a lot of dishes unwashed and a lot of fruit unpicked.

No, they are stupid as they fail to see the long run costs (http://www.frumforum.com/the-future-costs-of-todays-cheap-labor). Of course, if there was a policy that allowed temporary visas for people to come and do those jobs and then return at the end of the season that would be another thing. They actually use that approach in Australia and NZ with polynesian workers coming in to pick fruit, then returning home.

[Chronos]

Even though, in terms of looking out for the working class voter, it should be a major issue for them. "Looking out for the workers" includes those workers who happen to have slightly darker skin. OK, they're not citizens... If that's the problem, then let's go ahead and give them citizenship.

[Onomatopoeia]

"Looking out for the workers" includes those workers who happen to have slightly darker skin. OK, they're not citizens... If that's the problem, then let's go ahead and give them citizenship.Heaven forfend! We can't allow that to happen, because, because...well, just because, alright?

[Peremensoe]

Quoth Saint Cad:How is there any difference between "illegal immigrants are cheaper" and "natives won't do the work"? Anyone at all could agree to work for the same wages that the immigrants agree to. They could, but they don't, because to almost all natives, that amount of pay isn't enough compensation for the work. In other words, they don't want the job.

But all these jobs were done by citizens previously, and still are in some areas where illegal labor isn't widely available. If rigorous employment enforcement meant that cheap illegal labor wasn't widely available anywhere, then citizens would assuredly be doing all those jobs again, for better wages.

Also, it is a fact that, wages aside, in some areas and industries companies aren't interested in hiring anyone who doesn't speak Spanish, because that would complicate the management of the crews.

Anyway, voters - even working class ones - aren't stupid. Plenty of them recognize that eliminating illegal immigration is just going to leave a lot of dishes unwashed and a lot of fruit unpicked.

Come on. Eliminating illegal immigrant labor would make washed dishes and picked fruit more expensive. And our economy would be the better for it, with those better-paid citizen workers spending all their money here rather than sending much of it elsewhere.

OK, they're not citizens... If that's the problem, then let's go ahead and give them citizenship.

If accompanied by serious and ongoing enforcement against employers, that would work.

[Chen019]

"Looking out for the workers" includes those workers who happen to have slightly darker skin. OK, they're not citizens... If that's the problem, then let's go ahead and give them citizenship.

Yeah, but again you're overlooking the long run costs (http://www.frumforum.com/the-future-costs-of-todays-cheap-labor). If you give them citizenship you'll get more coming and more of these problems. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112167023)

[Chronos]

Just like all those problems we got a century ago from all those damned dirty Irish, right?

[Chen019]

Just like all those problems we got a century ago from all those damned dirty Irish, right?

Yeah, except you'll see from the article linked above those problems aren't abating over the generations. That might be because the overall numbers are so high to prevent assimilation, I don't know. But they're different cases (http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=).

They’re not just like the Irish — or the Italians or the Poles, for that matter. The large influx of Hispanic immigrants after 1965 represents a unique assimilation challenge for the United States. Many optimistic observers have assumed — incorrectly, it turns out — that Hispanic immigrants will follow the same economic trajectory European immigrants did in the early part of the last century. Many of those Europeans came to America with no money and few skills, but their status steadily improved. Their children outperformed them, and their children’s children were often indistinguishable from the “founding stock.” The speed of economic assimilation varied somewhat by ethnic group, but three generations were typically enough to turn “ethnics” into plain old Americans.

This would be the preferred outcome for the tens of millions of Hispanic Americans, who are significantly poorer and less educated on average than native whites. When immigration skeptics question the wisdom of importing so many unskilled people into our nation at one time, the most common response cites the remarkable progress of Europeans a century ago. “People used to say the Irish or the Poles would always be poor, but look at them today!” For Hispanics, we are led to believe, the same thing will happen.

But that claim isn’t true. Though about three-quarters of Hispanics living in the U.S. today are either immigrants or the children of immigrants, a significant number have roots here going back many generations. We have several ways to measure their intergenerational progress, and the results leave little room for optimism about their prospects for assimilation.

[Airman Doors, USAF]

Just like all those problems we got a century ago from all those damned dirty Irish, right?

We DID have problems with the damn dirty Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires), and they WERE discriminated against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment#19th_century).

Why you chose to work the racial angle is beyond me, unless you consider it low-hanging fruit. Of course, it would help if you used an example that actually made your point rather than refuting it.

[lcasal]

The statement that illegal aliens are the losers in the situation is silly as any thinking person understands iIllegal aliens benefit by finding jobs paying more than they can get in their country of origin that's why they came. If they did not benefit they would leave just the way they came. Except of course for the ones in jail. With the exception of the descendents that haters call the "Dirty Irish" they have probably been here too long.

[Chen019]

We DID have problems with the damn dirty Irish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molly_Maguires), and they WERE discriminated against (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_sentiment#19th_century).

Why you chose to work the racial angle is beyond me, unless you consider it low-hanging fruit. Of course, it would help if you used an example that actually made your point rather than refuting it.

I think you've missed the point of that comment. It was in response to me pointing out that low skill immigration from Mexico has a high long term cost because of intergenerational lags in academic achievement. So you're creating an underclass.

Chronos was trying to compare my comment to old views about the Irish. I then responded by pointing out that they are different because the assimilation process is not happening to the same extent (http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YjQ4N2EyMTQ4NzZjZmNlOWQwN2RiNTZjMWZiZDY4YzQ=).

A possible answer in the meantime would be a moratorium on low skill immigration from Mexico until things improve.

[Boyo Jim]

... A possible answer in the meantime would be a moratorium on low skill immigration from Mexico until things improve.

Yes, everyone will honor that.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Eliminating illegal immigrant labor would make washed dishes and picked fruit more expensive. And our economy would be the better for it, with those better-paid citizen workers spending all their money here rather than sending much of it elsewhere.
Total annual remittances by foreign workers in the US (documented and undocumented) amount to less than $70 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittance#Latin_America_and_the_Caribbean). It's a drop in the ocean as far as the US economy is concerned (although it's a significant percentage of GDP for many of the recipient countries).

[Chen019]

Yes, everyone will honor that.

Get Netanyahu to show them how to build a security fence.