A Call for a change in the Immigration
Policy of the GOP
The
premise of this paper is that the current immigration policies of the United
States are not addressing the real world challenges this nation faces today or
in the future. Current policies are not going to provide the necessary
foundation to support the country’s future economic needs. Finally, party
partisans and activists have dominated the conversation of immigration and
prevent elected officials and office seekers from engaging in a productive
exploration of this vital issue. The ability of the Republican Party to provide
a viable second voice in national debates will be hindered if the party
continues to stumble over the issue of immigration. To move beyond canards and
clichés’ this discussion requires the answer to two fundamental questions:
1.
What is the function, duty of a political party, and
2.
What is the role of government?
The Political Party:
The
singular function of a political party is to win elections: the pursuit of
power. The implicit assumption is that the ends of are a moral endeavor. An
example would be, ‘good government.’ However, since the 1970’s American’s trust
of government has been declining. At the
same time voting has gone down as has party affiliation. Some argue that these
are manifestation of voter’s dissatisfaction and (postmodern) alienation.
Can
we assume that a party platform leads to better government? Or can we assume,
at the other extreme, that the platform is a cynical attempt to gather voters?
(An early example is LBJ’s ability to organize the unorganized into a viable
voting bloc. Obama accomplished a similar feat in 2008). At the very least, it
would be foolish to suggest that the party platform is not an effort to solidify
a viable voting bloc by appealing to the interests of voters. In other words,
the two primary political parties are an affiliation of special interests
cobbled together into a voting bloc that is not monolithic.
Thus,
the platform does not necessarily result in the best ideas for government –
since it must bring together voters that may, or may not, share similar
interests. (We saw this disagreement in the recent GOP, ‘Growth and Opportunity
Project’ http://goproject.gop.com/ ).
Candidates:
According
to noted political philosopher Fenno, the concern for re-election is the
primary motivation for any elected official. This is reiterated by Fiorina and
Mayhew. Thus candidates are discouraged from challenging consensus since it
incurs risk and the potential of losing the next election. However, is
consensus always what’s best for the country?
History
dictates, and Madison warned (Fed. No. 10) that ‘factions’ will cause “mischief.”
He tells the reader that the majority has an obligation to protect the rights
of the minority. In an extreme example, consensus has given us Nazi Germany; the
segregated South, the perpetuation of slavery, and disenfranchised women. In other
words, Madison tells us that the validity of the U.S. Constitution is best seen
when it is used to protect the rights of those we don’t like and those we
disagree with.
Alexis
De Tocqueville writes, “I hold it to be sufficiently demonstrated that universal
suffrage is by no means a guarantee of the wisdom of the popular choice” (202).
Consensus
if often determined, not by asking what the best course of action is, but by a
polling company. Consensus is easy and asks little of the voter or the politician.
The nature of man is fallibility: the desire to take the path of least
resistance. Does this placation to consensus rather the pursuit of conviction
contribute to the American cynicism towards their government?
A
result of consensus is legislative log-rolling and layering. As T. Lowi writes
in ‘The End of Liberalism,’ special interest politics which creates a patchwork
of nonsensical legislation by an enlarged government seeking to be all things
to all people. (One need only look at the current national debt to realize that
both major parties are buying complacency among voters by giving us what we want.
The politician tells us what government can do for us.
On
the other hand, the Statesman looks to the future and pursues what ought to be
– even if it means losing an election by confronting the will of the majority.
The Statesman will say, “Ask not what your country can do for you…”
One
speaks of consensus, the other speaks of aspiration.
A Descriptive Analysis of
the Issue of Immigration:
American’s
embrace two immigration myths:
A.) My grandfather came to
this country with the shirt on his back
and 29 cents in his pocket and look what I’ve done… and
B.) Those damn immigrants are
here to consume our milk and honey and be a burden on society.
What
history tells us is that with very few exceptions, “your grandfather” was
subjected to the same abuse and arguments then, which immigrants are subjected
to today: lazy, don’t speak the language, dumb, a burden on society, pagans.
For example, during the First World War, according to Senator Norris’
autobiography, we ate “freedom cabbage” rather than sauerkraut, Nebraskans burned
down Lutheran Churches, banned numerous German language newspapers, and in at
least three instances lynched German-Americans.
What
we currently see among GOP hopefuls is the modification of immigration policy
stances.
Regardless
of the individual GOP candidate, to date, nearly all have modified their
position as they came onto the national stage. An inquiring mind would ask, “Why
is this happening?”
I
suggest it is a strategic attempt to bring together a viable voting bloc by
agreeing with the consensus. [1]
Statistics indicate that ‘partisans and activists’ are more likely to vote in
primaries than the moderate middle. This is why candidates often run to the
(right/left) in the primary and back towards the middle in the general
election. In national election, inevitably, it is the swing of the ~11% in the
middle of the bell curve who choose the President. Conversely, the partisans
and activists choose the party candidate in the Primary.
This
is also why Rasmussen Polling recently released a study that indicates that 95%
of voters do NOT expect elected officials to fulfill their campaign promises.
In other words, instead of being a future indication of intended legislation,
if Rasmussen is to be believed, voters are assuming that campaign promises are
little more than rhetorical affirmation designed to signal group membership.
Thus
rhetoric, the words and phrases used, is often based upon an appeal to
consensus but seems to be more about signaling group membership than an
indication of future agendas. Hence, this is where constituents get the sense
that politicians “are liars” and an increased distrust of politicians,
Washington D.C. and political party’s (see above).
In
other words, the act of governance is quite different from the process of
campaigning.
What is the Role of
Government?
The
Preamble to our Constitution tells us that government exists to “establish justice.”
Jefferson suggests that government is a fallible entity ‘comprised of men’ and
acting upon the consent of the governed.
Locke tells us government exists to protect our rights.
Is
this what we see in our government today?
I
suggest that what we see in government is the fulfillment of Fenno’s argument,
politicians creating scenarios to perpetuate their re-election through a loose
assemblage of legislation and agency policies that seem haphazard creating a
bureaucracy that is dysfunctional at the systemic level. Partisan division is not
based upon which party has the better ideas…but division based upon
objectification of those we disagree including media rudeness, objectification
and the use of confabulated bias that appeals to rhetorical consensus.
“There is always a well-known solution to every
human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.” H.L. Menken
In other words, be
wary of simple answers to the complex issues we face in our every more complex
and pluralistic society.
That
the American people want to participate in governance is good. But our media
role models display a loose application of facts, relying upon a preference for
poorly based opinions that are delivered in a confrontational style which
encourages us to objectify those that disagree.
In
the GOP such insubordination is labeled a RINO.
Prescriptive:
All
facts indicate that the current GOP rhetoric towards immigration, legal and
illegal, is not solution seeking. It is the rhetoric of primary candidates
seeking to placate and build consensus among ‘activists and partisans.’ It is
the language that politicians use to win elections in a primary. Research also
indicates that it is this rhetoric (terms) that legal and illegal immigrants
react to negatively.
What
are the facts we need to think about when we consider a viable, solution
seeking immigration policy?
1.
The Baby Boomers are retiring at increasing rates.
a.
This will create skills/knowledge gaps in the work place
b.
It will also create massive retirement demands, affecting the
stock market, government benefits, and services (including medical and retail).
2.
The birth rates among
the four major racial groups indicate that three of the four, (Whites, Blacks
and Asians) are below the rate of replenishment. Only “Hispanics” have a birth
rate which indicates a rising population. In other words, the demographics of
the American public are changing rapidly, and most of the readers of this
article will live to see the day when no race represents a majority of the
American population.
a.
This will have an effect on how we view issues such as
equality
b.
It will also have an effect on retail and medical services as
well as
i.
The media, and
ii.
Political parties
3.
When measuring demographic traits, those considered to be
Hispanics are the most conservative group in the United States. We see this when
measuring:
a.
Regular church attendance,
b.
Family proximity and affiliation, and
c.
Small business / work ethic / entrepreneurialism.
4.
According to the Hamilton Report (and others: Reuters here),
immigrants or first generation Americans have formed ~50% of tech companies. [2]
This is why NASDAQ companies are speaking out against Anti-Immigration
policies. [3]
Forbes magazine reports that 40% of IT companies were founded by immigrants or
first generation immigrants.[4]
In other words, when it comes to creating jobs, immigrants are playing a
significant role.
5.
Does it seem feasible that this growing population group of
conservative entrepreneurs will not coalesce to form a strong and viable
political voice?
6.
According to PEW Research, only 36% of legal Mexican
immigrants seek citizenship.[5]
7.
At the moment there are approximately 11.2 million examples
which shows that current immigration polices do not work. Due the 14th
Amendment, the children of these undocumented workers will be Americans. As the
only racial bloc with an increasing birthrate, they will represent a large bloc
of future voters.
8.
Despite rhetoric to the contrary, immigrants and illegal
immigrants pay taxes. Current estimates have placed as much as 4% of Social
Security revenues as coming from illegal immigrants.[6]
In addition, illegals can, and many do,
pay income taxes through Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITIN). [7]
In addition, consumption taxes, as well as the economic multiplier effect of
their expenditures contributed to the economy. In rural areas, this is
especially beneficial.
Taxes Paid, by State, by
Unauthorized Immigrants in 2010
In other words, couple the retirement of
Baby Boomers with declining birth rates, and there are fewer Americans to take
those jobs. Barring the advent of disruptive technology, which is a very real
possibility, a potential exists for a shrinking American economy faced with
growing Global competition. Couple this with the fact that immigrants are
having a significant effect on the growing IT industries and creating jobs in
an increasingly more important sector of our economy.
In addition, recent scholarship suggests
that the future benefit owed to retirees, as well as accrued debt by the
accumulation of annual deficits could reach as high at $100 Trillion Dollars
over an ~40 year period. Admittedly that is an alarming number and its
veracity can be questioned. However, what appears certain is that Americans are
saving less for retirement than they should be[8]:
more and more will be dependent upon Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare.[9]
Ergo, it appears, that either tax will go up, debt will go up, or a source for
potential workers to fill these vacancies needs to be found…or some combination
of these proposals needs to be explored.
Finally, it’s clear that the demographic
base that makes up both of our two primary parties changed and evolved during
the 20th Century. During that process, African-Americans became
enfranchised and have over-whelmingly aligned themselves with the Democratic
Party.
Considering the changing birthrates, what’s
clear is that the so-called, ‘Hispanic’ demographic group is going to represent
a larger section of the American population. At the same time,
European-Americans will represent a smaller percentage of the American
population: certainly fewer than 50% of the population base by ~2030.
Recent national and local elections however
indicate that Hispanics have yet to solidify their party affiliation the way
that African-Americans have. We saw this locally when now Mayor Stothert won
South Omaha. We also saw this nationally with George Bush in 2000 elections as
well as in Florida in Jeb Bush’s elections.
Solutions:
No one knows, at this time, what the
solutions are.[10]
There are facts and proposals on the table that deserve to be contextualized,
understood and debated. And I am not
suggesting that I know the answers. But I would like to see a vibrant,
respectful debate on this issue since it seems to be among the most crucial
facing the future of our nation.
What are some of the issues we, as a party,
that a debate on immigration might examine?
1. Rhetoric.
Research indicates that the current rhetorical commentary coming out of a
faction of the GOP significantly turns-off this voting bloc. Such inflammatory
rhetoric may win elections in the short term, and thus “politicians” will use
it. However, if the GOP is going to be in a leadership position in the 21st
Century, we need to determine whether we are going to rely on elected
politicians or provide leadership by electing Statesmen.
In
other words, will our eye be upon the next election cycle, or will it be upon
the world that we are going to bestow upon future generations of Americans? Think
about it, if the future does not matter, then any allusion to fiscal
responsibility is senseless. As Keynes suggested, we are all dead in the long
term.
For example, instead of
castigating illegal immigrants and thereby turning off legal immigrants, why
not praise legal immigrants? Let’s take note of those that followed the rules,
who became employers by beginning small businesses, and who attend to faith and
family. Isn’t this what the first American mythology of immigration praises
(above)? This is not to suggest that securing the border be ignored: it does
mean using language with forethought.
2. The
solution to illegal immigration is legal immigration. This does not mean
abandoning immigration laws and regulations. It does mean addressing
shortcomings in legislation. For example, we know that significant numbers of
illegals are here for work. Someone is providing
these folks jobs. According to The Wall Street Journal, when Alabama passed
legislation similar to Arizona, Alabama farmers that objected.[11]
Their industry was dependent upon low-skilled, low cost labor to harvest their
products. Nationally, the ag industry, whose employees are ~70% illegal
immigrants, claims losses of more than one billion dollars due to immigration
laws. [12]
For example, currently about 64%
of legal immigrants are family members. This ‘chain immigration’ does not
consider the skill levels. Instead, why not pursue a policy where there is a
preference to issue visas to high-skill workers? In a recent discussion, a significant
Omaha employer bemoaned the expense and difficulty of hiring high-skilled immigrant
workers. Isn’t the high-skilled, legal worker going to pay more taxes and
stimulate the economy? As has been demonstrated above, they also create jobs.
While national security is a very real concern today, shouldn’t the bureaucracy
make it easier for domestic employers to find workers, create jobs and create
wealth? A concern is that jobs and/or companies NOT be sent overseas. Another legitimate
concern with this tact is that wages for America workers not be lowered.
3. The
facts indicate that a significant share of legal Mexican immigrants are not
interested in citizenship.[13] They
do not ‘naturalize.’ [14] Can
one extrapolate that across illegals as well? If so, as was demonstrated in the
Bracero Program[15],
workers were content to come into the United States in order to work during the
season, and then return home during the off-season. This addressed the concern
of the employers, the concerns of the workers, accounted for security concerns,
and contributed to tax coffers. In other words, if workers can flow freely, in
a regulated fashion, across the borders, what are the positive effects that
this de-escalation could cause for the economy? (And retirees?)
4. Finally,
all Americans are immigrants. With few exceptions, all immigrants have been
subjected to the same pejorative arguments. This includes your family. History
demonstrates that the arguments have not changed; only the victims of this
rhetoric have changed. And to what end?
Instead of objectifying people, perhaps the time has come to challenge
the untruths and the rhetoric which prevent otherwise well intended Americans
from having a solution-seeking debate on the future of this nation, its
economy, the role that immigrants have, and the role they will continue to
have?
In other words, as Madison warned and Jefferson advised, it is incumbent upon
us to change the conversation.
Students of history know that the Republican Party was founded upon
abolition: ending slavery. [16] It
is a party that has historically been at the forefront of these issues. Isn’t
it time to do what is right for America’s future rather than engaging in
rhetoric which is not only often wrong but also prevents candidates, (many of
whom have changed their positions in order to seek higher office), elected
officials, and voters from engaging in such an important issue?
The time has come to remove the handcuffs that have been limiting this
discussion and allow governance to seek solutions that are in the best, long
term, interest of our nation without ignoring legitimate short-term concerns
such as security.
It is time for to ask for Statesmanship rather than lining up behind
politics as usual.
[1]
One might wonder why, since the current GOP platform is ~25 years old, the
current slate of Republicans hopefuls need to change their policy stance in
order to run for national office.
[6]
“For the year 2010,1 we estimate that the excess of tax revenue paid to the
Trust Funds over benefits paid from these funds based on earnings of
unauthorized workers is about $12 billion.” http://www.socialsecurity.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note151.pdf
[10]
Heritage Foundation on Immigration http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/03/the-real-problem-with-immigration-and-the-real-solution “The
biggest challenge for policymakers is distinguishing illusory immigration
problems from real problems. One thing is quite clear: The favored approach of
recent years-a policy of benign neglect-is no longer tenable.”
No comments:
Post a Comment