The Koch Brothers are funding a pretty smart voter outreach initiative and it has Democrats in an uproar. Public policy, backed by the Democratic Party platform, has eliminated two generations of traditionally Democratic voters. In response, President Obama is attempting to create a whole new host of clients for the Democratic Party through a legally dubious Executive Action.
It’s the traditionally elitist approach of the Democratic Party to assume, if they can grant favors to a group of people, they can buy their loyalty for generations. It’s worked for them because Republicans have ceded votes in ethnic communities. We’ve ceded those votes because we: “hate identity politics,” don’t have time to engage in culture battles, and are plagued with short-term crisis strategies in electoral politics. Republicans are reactionaries to culture changes rather than influencers of the culture. That indifference to the culture battle is not only shrinking the Republican Party, it’s damaging the Republic. We don’t have to write off these voters to the Democratic Party.
Politics is downstream from the culture and the culture is downstream from ideas.
Let’s start with this — an idea today can become public policy next decade; legal same-sex marriage is proof. In 1999, it would be laughable to think that two men could be married. Nature, biology, and history tell us that same sex “marriage” is impossible but someone came up with the idea that “marriage is about love and nobody can control with whom they fall in love.” This idea came from a political action committee which, at its inception, was trying to get people elected who would pass laws which said: you can’t beat up gay people, pick on the kids of gay couples, nor fire them because of their choice of sexual partners. From that fight to be “left alone” sprang an idea to redefine the definition of marriage in this country. THAT idea turned into an arrogant statement by the Mayor of San Francisco, a reactionary response by the Right, and a cultural repudiation of the idea that marriage was more than just a public statement of love.
It could have been handled differently, 35 years ago, and LGBT voters could be solid Republican voters today. Had conservatives treated the AIDS epidemic with alarm rather than indifference, and worked alongside the LGBT community on issues of common agreement (disease, violence, workplace discrimination and unfair taxation), LGBT voters would be Republican voters today.
AIDS may have been one of the biggest motivations for committed gay relationships. In 1985, the Republican LA County Supervisor Mike Antonovich attributed the AIDS epidemic to promiscuity and offered monogomy as a solution to the epidemic. Antonovich’s “idea” (along with other conservatives’ similar comments at the time) may have been a catalyst for the same-sex marriage movement. I can’t help but think how, if Republicans had taken the lead for legal civil-unions, stood against violence directed at homosexuals, and passed legislation against workplace discrimination in the 1980s, we would have staved off the silly notion that the Pope is a bigot for evangelizing the message of traditional marriage today.
The marriage legal battle is lost. There are Republicans who will continue to fight thus unwinnable political fight and there are Republicans who have recognized a political loss and choose to work through the culture to advance the definition of marriage as one man, one woman, for life.
This didn’t have to happen.
Ideas are spread among like-minded people and friends.
I used the same sex marriage example for two reasons: (1) we’ve debated this issue a lot here and (2) it represents a perfect definition of how Republicans lost on this issue because of reactionary responses rather than engagement. As heated as that issue has been, I’m probably going to rattle some cages with this next statement.
In 2015, there are some 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. By 2024, at least 90% of them will be registered to vote. If you understand and accept that premise, you might ask yourself this question, “How can we get them all to vote Republican?” Today, I see the cultural Marxists winning the battle for immigration amnesty. They are framing the argument along the same lines as they did the same sex marriage argument: equality, justice, opportunity. The arguments they offer may seem like a perversion of those qualities but their arguments are gaining traction. I know this because the President passed an Executive Order, which offers a pathway to citizenship to resident foreign nationals and a Republican-controlled legislative branch just sneered.
The sneer has been the oft-used but wholly ineffective Republican response to everything the cultural Marxists have advanced. Since FDR initiated the welfare state, Republicans haven’t offered any good response to the growth of the welfare state other than the sneer. We deliver some great “I told you so” speeches but are powerless as the cultural Marxists create perpetual clients of the welfare state, more crony capitalists to service the welfare state, and a powerful constituency with financial interests aligned with the Democratic Party. That has to change and it has to change now.
The idea that 12-20 million illegal immigrants should be American citizens is gaining traction.
Right or wrong, some form of amnesty will be part of an immigration reform package. Make no mistake about it, this country needs immigration reform. Before you start calling me a RINO, ask yourself if you are happy with an immigration system which allows 12-20 million foreign nationals to live, work, and play here without recourse. If you’re unhappy with that system (I am), you support SOME sort of immigration reform.
Conservatives often say we support LEGAL immigration (we do) but we oppose rewarding people who have contempt for our laws. I’m not disagreeing with that sentiment but I can offer a better way to approach this issue — help these people become American citizens. That’s exactly what the Koch Brothers are doing through the LIBRE initiative.
I said that ideas are spread among like-minded people and friends. If conservatives understand and accept that we’re not going to deport 12-20 million people, we stand to gain tremendously if we make them our friends. Only through friends will we advance the ideas of individual liberty, good citizenship, equality of opportunity, and the notion of American Exceptionalism. By helping illegal immigrants get legal, we can share the very American ideas we cherish. I think these foreign nationals cherish those ideas, too. If we help them today. Republicans stand to gain a huge voting bloc of people for the 2024 election.
Most illegal immigrants are culturally conservative. They are religious, believe in the traditional family, want to work, own a home, and be self-reliant. A legitimate case could be made that they are “economic refugees,” refugees from a country with a corrupt government with contempt for the Rule of Law. The more conservatives can identify with these “refugees” and affirm that the country of their birth is being run by tyrants, the more we can demonstrate that the Democratic Party’s vision is closer to their home country’s than is the vision of the Republican Party.
I want to be clear — I’m not advocating blanket amnesty nor am I supporting the “comprehensive immigration reform” idea the Gang of Seven’s Plan. I’m not confident in a Republican political solution to immigration reform; those hapless souls will sneer rather than engage. I’m calling for a grass roots, cultural response to what is a serious opportunity to beat the cultural Marxists. Unless you’re willing to deport these immigrants, with your own force and on your own dime, those folks are staying here. Help them to become naturalized American citizens and you’ll change electoral politics for decades.
Politics is downstream from the culture. The culture is downstream from ideas. Ideas are spread among friends. It’s time to make some new friends.
If Republicans are willing to posit the idea that freedom is better than government dependence to people who fled a failed collectivist regimes, we can create 12-20 million good Americans…Nuevo Americanos…Nuevo Americanos deben ser Republicanos.
Comments 38
It should be harder to immigrate here illegally and easier to do so legally. That should be the basis for any reform effort.
Thoughtful piece Brian but hasn’t this been tried before with the 1986 immigration reform act? Didn’t that legislation just validate prior unlawful immigration and create perverse incentives for the illegality?
Author
I’m not advocating for amnesty, Jason but I suspect it’s going to happen no matter what you and I think, I”m suggesting that Republicans get out n front of this issue and start engaging with the foreign nationals and HELP them to get legal today. Two reasons:
1- This proactive effort helps us “walk the walk”. We can stave off amnesty is the government sees that efforts are being made to help these people.
2- I think amnesty will pass so I like the idea of engaging with these people now. If (as I suspect) they’ll be voting in the 2024 election, I’d like them to know Republicans today, before the Democrats solicit them in 2020-2022
Brian, it doesn’t seem to me you are taking a clear position. You say you “are calling for a grassroots cultural response,” yet your solution, “help them become naturalized American citizens,” is political.
You say repeatedly that you are against amnesty but also that undocumented immigrants should be citizens. Is there some nuance in your position that I’m missing? Maybe you could specify which aspect of the Gang of Seven plan you oppose.
I think you take too narrow a view by focusing your attention on how to deal with the 12-20 million undocumented that are here now. They deserve our empathy, understanding, and dignity. But we need to also think about the 100 million other potential migrants who want to come here, and what incentives are we creating for them to follow the law. We could grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants here now, just as we did in ’86, and in 2044 we’ll be having the exact same conversation.
Final point. Long odds of success are not a reason to stop fighting. The left will not be appeased.
Author
“your solution, “help them become naturalized American citizens,” is political”
No, it’s not. It’s procedural. There are a number of options for these folks to get their green card and then citizenship.
“You say repeatedly that you are against amnesty but also that undocumented immigrants should be citizens.”
I never said “should”, I said “will”. There’s a big difference. I said, back in 2007, marriage “should” be defined as one man and one woman but that that definition “will” be stripped.
“Long odds of success are not a reason to stop fighting”
I don’t suggest this. Helping people to understand our immigration system is much different than supporting amnesty.
More and more jobs are either going out of the country or being replaced by robots and yet we let millions of uneducated and unskilled people into the country. How do you intend to feed, shelter and cloth them? Printing more money helps no one. 93 million people in this country are not working. Why do you want to increase that number?
What the politicians are doing is not going to fix the problem.
I know how to fix it but it is not PC.
Brian,
I think you’ve missed the boat to building better bridges with the Latino community. Look at this selfless public servant’s bold proposal!
(Truly the stuff of satire.)
http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2015/may/01/california-diaper-bill-taxes/
Why is it that the free movement of goods between countries (free trade) is considered a good thing, but the free movement of people (immigration) is not?
We are losing jobs to other countries because their people are paid pennies per hour to manufacture products for sale in our country, but if those people want to move to the United States for higher wages and a better life, Harold says they will take jobs away from those who are already here. News flash: They are already taking those jobs away.
Hypocrisy – no objection from me to people coming to America in search of opportunity. The problem occurs when the welfare state forces Americans to assume the risk for those opportunity seekers. For instance this recent move by CA democrats to have taxpayers subsidize the healthcare of illegal immigrants.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/california-bill-would-extend-health-insurance-to-undocumented-immigrants-20150409
How much more strain can the welfare state bear? Reduce the burdens the social safety net places on taxpayers and my opposition to Brian’s proposal would be significantly diminished.
Basically Brian is right, but I doubt the GOP will follow his advice. Sadly, the GOP is doomed in California. It’s only going to get worse, thanks to the myopic “illegal alien” focus of the Republican electorate.
The CA demographics will only worsen. Whites — a split constituency — is now only a plurality in CA — and within a couple years will lose even that status to Latinos. And the GOP has done a bang-up job of alienating Latinos — a constituency we should split with Democrats.
In spite of Brian’s heroic efforts, this widely perceived GOP racial bias against Hispanics — real or not — will not change. It SHOULD — but it won’t.
Rationalize it all you want. “Illegals are criminals,” yada, yada, yada. This anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic mindset now DEEPLY imbued within the Republican Party. White conservative enclaves such as those found in North County and East San Diego spend a huge amount of time reinforcing each other on the magnitude of this single issue. When listed as priorities, “illegal immigration” is probably the top issue for WAAYYY too many conservative Republicans. Few are aware that our illegal immigrant population has been significantly DROPPING since 2007 — they see it as a growing catastrophic problem.
Here’s the sadly amusing part. Our anti-illegal mindset absolutely DELIGHTS the Democrats. It costs them nothing, and costs us everything. It’s their best issue, and they don’t even have to do anything to spread the word — the GOP activists do that for them. And I anticipate that in 2016 the Democrats — for all their policy failures — will regain the needed 2/3 legislative majorities to rule California completely unimpeded by Republicans.
Here’s the bottom line: If you really want to live in a GOP state, you need to leave California. It ain’t EVER gonna happen here. Not even close.
“I think you’ve missed the boat to building better bridges with the Latino community. Look at this selfless public servant’s bold proposal!
(Truly the stuff of satire.)”
Craig, the candidates you prefer to support do NOT vote to cut taxes? Good to know. By the way, how is Dianne’s campaign doing?
Jason,
I don’t disagree with your point, but I do not think healthcare is the main magnet since most immigrants are coming from countries that have basically free medical care for all of their citizens. I would however, like to see a ban on Welfare and similar forms of government assistance for five years from the date of immigration.
“Cha Cha,”
How do you know which candidates I support?
Because you’ve been whining about Joel Anderson on this message board and how much you like Dianne Jacob.
Today’s whine is that he cut taxes for mothers with babies who wear diapers. Because you support her and think Joel Anderson’s tax cut is the “Stuff of satire”, can we assume that Dianne Jacob wouldn’t cut taxes for mothers with babies? Is it all tax cuts she is against or just those involving struggling mothers?
Author
“Why is it that the free movement of goods between countries (free trade) is considered a good thing, but the free movement of people (immigration) is not? :
I asked that question to (then retired) Sen. Goldwater, in 1994. His answer is exactly how I feel today: “In a truly free market, the two shouldn’t be different but, until we rid shut down the Welfare State, open borders invite a recipe for disaster”. He offered the (defunct) bracero program as a pretty good example of a common-sense compromise.
But we have a Welfare State. It forcibly takes money for retirement and healthcare, education and highway construction. I oppose open borders for that very reason.
I oppose amnesty because I think it will create an incentive to flood this country with more foreign nationals but I think it’s going to happen no matter what I say. I see a bunch of voters coming online for the 2024 elections. I”d like to start talking to them now about why they should be Republicans.
If I’m wrong (and amnesty doesn’t happen), all I will have done is to help some foreign nationals to get green cards and build up some good will with their citizen-cousins.
Whether it is necessary or not to reach out to illegal aliens of any culture/country/background does not solve Jason’s point of incentives that cost taxpayers more, whether it is the reason or not for their illegal actions. With record numbers of Americans on some sort of government (taxpayer) subsidy, it is not fiscally sustainable to allow uneducated people to freely come to the USA and reward them when they get here with free education, food, etc.
Brian,
What do you think of the idea of denying government benefits, except emergency medical care, for the first five years of documented residency? Wouldn’t that be be better than denying people the opportunity of living in and contributing to this great country?
Why deny the benefits to legal immigrants, HQ? Just make sure they pay into them. I have an even better idea– cut the phony safety net for everyone and let people keep their money
All immigrants (legal or not) already fund their kids education through property taxes and sales taxes– those user fees fund education.
@Ms Right- I agree with you and Jason but it’s going to happen in spite of our arguments about the fragility of the Welfare State.
In the interest of Jason’s comment about fighting for principle (against the odds), shouldn’t conservatives focus on eliminating the Welfare State instead of protecting it from foreign nationals?
(Now I see. “Cha Cha” IS Joel Anderson.)
Brian,
“Why deny the benefits to legal immigrants?”
Anyone who wants to move here for a better life should come here prepared to support themselves. After a period of time (I chose five years because that is when a new immigreant can apply for citizenship), he/she should be provided every benefit available to any American.
If we remove the opportunity for new immigrants to live off of government assistance, wouldn’t that take away your (and others on this blog) objection to making it much easier to immigrate here legally? Or would it?
Brian,
While I agree with the main point of your article, I believe the Republican Party has a fundamental problem that the Immigration Issue is but a symptom of. There is a strong perception that Republicans care much more about business than they do about people. This thread is a good example. I asked about Free Trade vs. the free movement of people because Republicans appear to be just fine with goods being produced by people who are paid virtually slave wages as long as those people aren’t allowed to move to the United States.
Brian,
We were once a nation “dedicated to a proposition.” Real conservatives still are, thus our aversion to hyphenated Americans. However, given the collapse of this ideal and the expectations that went with it in the broader intellectual culture, isn’t it far more likely that large immigrant groups will simply recreate–demand–here the cultures and communities they left behind? This is argument of Victor Davis Hanson, and he’s based it on years of experience living in a place that’s been so transformed.
Craig,
“isn’t it far more likely that large immigrant groups will simply recreate–demand–here the cultures and communities they left behind?”
Whether it was the Germans, the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese or whoever, hasn’t that always been the case?
Over time (generations), there has always been a mixing of cultures that has caused an evolution of “American culture.”
The U.S. has always had ethnic enclaves. But, until recently, there were never any large scale policies geared to accommodate–much less celebrate, promote, protect–ethnic identity.
Success required that one assimilate, and that our immigrant forefathers did. Today’s immigrants, on the other hand, believe that the maintenance of separate status here is part of the broader, long range goal of the cultural Reconquista of the Southwest and beyond–an area, that is, according to them, by all rights theirs, and will again soon be.
This belief is reinforced by contemporary American “education” and virtually all progressive legislators.
Author
“Anyone who wants to move here for a better life should come here prepared to support themselves.”
Agreed. We’re talking past one another. The single best solution I saw offered was from former Gubernatorial candidate, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly. he suggested that foreign nationals be “sponsored” by an American citizen who would be financially and legally responsible for them.
But debating policy seem useless to me. I’m convinced that amnesty is but a year out. Congress won’t act, Obama will do it by fiat, and the Republican Leadership will cave, insisting that we “have to win the Oval”
To quote Gavin Newsom, “whether you like it or not”
They’re coming so they might as well vote Republican next decade–that’s my point and I think Koch Brother recognize that.
“isn’t it far more likely that large immigrant groups will simply recreate–demand–here”
Yes, especially if they are aligned with the Democratic Party. That’s why I want to start talking to them now.
(Wrote this earlier. Didn’t post.)
I don’t think so, Hypocrisy.
Yes, America’s always had ethnic enclaves. But, in the past, real success has, in the long run, always depended on assimilation.
No longer.
Now, large minority groups are encouraged by progressive education and legislation to retain and celebrate their cultural identities and distinctness, many elements of which are radically incompatible with American culture, economy, law and politics.
In the Southwest, these ideas have gone as far as to suggest that the defense and promotion of Latin culture are part of a long-term Reconquista–the retaking of what, by right, has always been theirs.
Craig,
“in the past, real success has, in the long run, always depended on assimilation.”
It still does, but the key phrase is “in the long run.” My grandparents pretty much stuck to “their own kind” when they first came here as do most first-generation immigrants today. It generally took two to three generations to assimilate and despite what you may think, the same is happening today.
I think you need to worry less about new cultures taking over and just keep enjoying your pizza, your egg rolls and your tacos – you know, good old American food. Happy Cinco de Mayo!
Brian,
I think we agree on the political ramifications of immigration and maybe we are talking past one another, but answer me this: Why should anyone, as Assemblyman Donnelly suggested, have to know someone who already lives here, let alone someone willing to sponsor them before said person is allowed to live in the United States?
Wouldn’t it be simpler and fairer to let anyone looking for a better life to live here as long as they were willing to be responsible for supporting themselves?
I guess another way of asking the question is, why should your place of birth exclude you from living where you want?
Author
Craig,
I don’t disagree with that observation on assimilation (although it did take a half a century for the Irish, Germans, and Italians to assimilate.)
Ultimately, who should be blamed for letting the Marxists hijack our schools and immigration legislation?
I really mean this. The arguments against immigrants are:
1- they will collapse the Welfare State
2- the Marxists will tell them to be divisive
3- they might take our jobs
Craig, I read Hanson’s “Mexifornia” about 10 years ago and it was one big sneer, something Republicans have mastered. We sneer at the Welfare State (but don’t take MY free stuff)). We sneer at the Marxists infesting the culture (but watch movies instead of teaching immigrants about American Exceptionalism). We sneer at centralized planners (but support them when our jobs might be lost).
You want assimilation? Assimilate them. It’s going to be hard to do when you’re sneering at them though.
Yes, I would like them to assimilate, Brian.
But that’s not my job. It’s theirs.
This is the point: they don’t want to.
Why don’t we do to them what they do to us (in Mexico).
Want to become a Mexican citizen? Too bad. You can’t.
Want to overstay the time allotted on your visa? Too bad. You’ll be deported.
Where there’s a will there’s a way. And we don’t even have the will to uphold our own laws. Many of us, it seems, are willing–even eager–to break them for the sake of getting votes. How ironic.
Hanson sneering? What free stuff is he getting? Is he watching TV instead of battling radicals? Where for private advantage has he secretly sided with those he publicly scorns?
Sneering? I have a copy on the shelf. Show me where.
Author
“But that’s not my job. It’s theirs.”
You made my point, Craig. This is why most naturalized Americans vote Democratic.
How about we focus on that which is really ruining the Republic? The Welfare State.
HQ,
I don’t want to get dragged down into policy ideas which will be ignored by the Marxists. I just want to convince the next generation of Nuevo Americanos to vote Republican
On the contrary, Brian. You made mine. Political parties don’t make people–any people–successful. But they are able to hurt them. You’ll never beat the Dems at their own game; i.e. at being the party that everyone needs.
Brian,
There are very few Marxists so they should be ignored when trying to craft good policy. But sticking to your point of trying to expand the base of Republican voters, I will leave you with one final thought: America loves an underdog but the perception of the Republican Party is that it only cares about those who are already winning the game. Change that and you will change the political map even in California.
Author
“the perception of the Republican Party is that it only cares about those who are already winning the game.”
I don’t disagree with that statement. A good friend (he inspired this article), who eschews politics made this statement:
“There’s something about Republicans that wants to be better than the other guy.”
I don’t disagree with that statement, either. .
“Change that and you will change the political map even in California.”
We don’t disagree. It won’t take much but “not much” seems like a daunting task
I am all for giving out working permits and having immigrants pay taxes. As far as Citizenship, I don’t think it should be automatic. I was a legal resident of the US for 35 years and I worked here, and paid taxes and was productive and could be arrested if I committed a crime, I could get a driver’s license, etc etc. The only thing I could not do is vote. Personally, I think illegal immigrants care more about having opportunities than actually being able to vote. I know many people are worried about benefits….but if we help these immigrants prosper, they won’t need any “freebies”.
One example I gave to Brian was a handyman we know. I have never asked but it is my strong suspicion that he is not legal. He is an small business owner, meaning that he works for himself and likes it that way. He is excellent so he is never out of work. People fight over him. If he was able to have full privileges of being legal in this country, he would probably make more money, therefore not needing the “free” lunches his kids get at school. He would also most likely not be eligible. As now, I am sure what he claims he makes is way below what he actually does….which makes him “poor” in the eyes of the government.
Like this man’s example…there are a many. It saddens me that in some ways, asking for handouts from the government has become a way of life for many minorities. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
We can all prosper if given the opportunity.
As an old friend used to say….THE SUN SHINES FOR EVERYBODY.
How do you intend to feed, shelter and cloth them?”
“Why do we have to do anything. If they are prosperous…they can feed, shelter and cloth themselves just like you and I do.
As a legal immigrant….I did that for 35 years. And as a citizen of 5 years, I have kept on doing it.
Perhaps we should examine why we are so scared of letting the poor in….
“A free country has nothing to fear from anyone coming in or going out – while a welfare state is scared to death of poor people coming in and rich people getting out.”
Harry Browne