2006 March 29 Wednesday
Broad Popular Support For Immigration Restriction Grows

While the US Senate schemes on how to drive wages lower the masses increasingly want immigration cut back.

Immigration and outsourcing American jobs, two areas of international relations identified as major concerns in the first fielding of the Foreign Policy Index last year, continued to resonate exceptionally strongly with the public in this survey.

There is marked dissatisfaction on illegal immigration. Nearly eight in 10 of those surveyed gave the United States a "C" or less in protecting our borders from illegal immigration. And this dissatisfaction is nearly universal. Of all the foreign policy issues that the public was asked to grade, immigration shows the least polarization by political party affiliation. The percentage of Americans rating the nation's efforts at protecting our borders from illegal immigration an "F" has risen (30 percent, from 24 percent) in the last six months.

Finally, the public gives its lowest grades to the government's efforts at protecting their jobs. But this is an issue where the public shows frustration about where to place ultimate responsibility. Close to eight in 10 (78 percent) said that the government could do something or a lot about protecting American jobs. But a majority (52 percent) doesn't think it is realistic to think that the U.S. government will be able to have U.S. companies keep jobs in the United States rather than outsourcing them overseas. And they don't hold American companies responsible either. Close to three-quarters (74 percent) think it is unrealistic to expect that companies will keep jobs in the United States when labor is cheaper elsewhere.

The divisions on immigration is between the elites and the masses. On the bright side the level of popular anger continues to rise and will eventually force the elites to obey public desires. But a great deal of damage will be done before that happens. Will we get another amnesty first?

In my neighborhood the Hispanic gang graffiti has gone from nothing a few years ago to frequent new graffiti. One wooden fence I walk past on dog walks got cleaned and painted over two or three times but the owners just can't keep up with the new scrawlings. A lady with a brand new white Toyota got black graffiti paint on her driver side door and she told me she'd had the car for 3 days when that happened. The mayor of Santa Barbara told me the city used to use a graffiti removal guy one day a week but had to hire the guy full time. Plus, the city bought a vehicle (which a friend tells me costs over $50,000) that sprays out high pressure hot water to clean graffiti. I saw a couple of city workers using it to clean big letter graffiti on a road I walk along daily.

Why am I supposed to welcome these people with open arms? I hate to see a society decay.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 March 29 09:28 PM  Immigration Politics


Comments
John S Bolton said at March 30, 2006 1:05 AM:

I like to think that this immigration question is closely analogous to the crime issue in the early 90's. Overwhelming percentages of the public want a return to civilization, while elites say: what if they call us fascists and run riot in the streets? In those days no one would have thought we would have millions in prison by now, nor that we would have permanently deported hundreds of thousands out of the prisons.
It would not then have been thought that you could do all this and not have scholars and Europeans crying racism and not have minorities rioting.
The minorities have been plenty upset over the crime control, and there have been no end of characterizations of such policies as motivated completely by racial disaffinities; but these responses have not stopped the ship from being turned around.
In the case of immigration, we also have a decline from the peak associated with the amnesty processing of the early 90's. The momentum is much like that which developed against crime. A decade of euphoria over immigration, from '75 to '85, similar to that of the 60's in terms of positive feeling towards criminal rehabilitation, has long since turned completely around. Public policy is in process of following, but with a decade or more later starting point.

John S Bolton said at March 30, 2006 1:19 AM:

There is also a consideration, which is indicated in the quotation in the above post. Elites regard international relations as a special preserve of their own circle, like art history. Immigration as seen as belonging to international relations; as a a subject which the ignorant masses must not be allowed to vote upon. Other examples of this might be environmental issues and zoning in rich areas.
Even though the society advertises itself as egalitarian, certain subjects are considered off-limits to input from the multitude, like whether there should be public funding of moderne anti-art.

Jorge D.C. said at March 30, 2006 2:20 AM:

The divisions on immigration is between the elites and the masses.

Yes, indeed. It is a revolt of the elites.

On the bright side the level of popular anger continues to rise and will eventually force the elites to obey public desires. But a great deal of damage will be done before that happens. Will we get another amnesty first?

Yes we will get another amnesty first. Either no bill comes out of congress and we retain the status quo (which is de facto amnesty) or they pass a new amnesty.

The reason for this is that the anti-amnesty votes are simply not there yet. We need more Tancredos in the house and a single Tancredo in the senate would be a good start. It will take at least another election cycle and probably more - like three or four.

And the reason more Tancredos aren't already in congress now is because any and all political candidates with nativist tendencies are viciously targeted by The Lobby and never make it to congress to vote on these issues. See how it works?

First, Joe Sixpack is flabbergasted that congress will not act in the people's interest on the critical immigration issue. Second, he realizes that there simply are not very many pro-borders congressmen in existence! You know, old-fashioned folks who would even consider seriously controlling the immigration chaos.

But Joe Sixpack doesn't realize that a stated desire to actually control immigration automatically disqualifies candidates for the US Senate and the US House at the primary level. It's understood by political insiders that to do so is career suicide. These candidates are blackmailed out of the primary or overwhelmed by their opponent's funding.

That is how a "representative body" completely disconnected from the desires of the public is brought to fruition.

The issue is getting hot. But the only new (if any) pro-borders candidates who ride into office on the wave of public outcry will be complete phonies. It is all a kabuki dance. The single most powerful interest group in the country does not want the borders to be controlled. If pushed far enough they will eventually allow the appearance of control but thwart any serious legislation with innumerable backdoor measures, loopholes and lawsuits.

Angry Joe Sixpack has no idea who he's dealing with.

Rick Darby said at March 30, 2006 9:09 AM:

John Bolton is hopeful that the great ship of state is slowly turning; Jorge DC believes the rules of the game are so fixed that it is structurally impossible for the will of the majority to make itself felt. I don't know which is right. But either way, I think the best opportunity to stop making the disaster worse now lies with the federalist system, not dead yet. There is still opportunity to resist The Invasion at the state and local levels, particularly in the border states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

Immigration restrictionists in those states must become politically active, and I would encourage others to move there if feasible. States and localities do have some powers that a bought-and-paid-for Congress still can't override, and state party organizations (with all respect to Jorge) are, I expect, susceptible to local pressure in choosing candidates.

susie said at March 30, 2006 11:22 AM:

Based on political realities, there may well be a need for a new party. Remember it only took a decade to form the Republican Party before the Civil War. These things can happen fast.

Jorge D.C. said at March 30, 2006 12:11 PM:

Rick Darby says:

Jorge DC believes the rules of the game are so fixed that it is structurally impossible for the will of the majority to make itself felt.

That is the modern era historical record is it not?

The most amazing aspect of the bizarro disconnect between congress and the people is the total ban on any politician voicing the idea of a legal immigration timeout. Immigration timeouts are as American as apple pie. And here we are being deluged in the largest wave of legal and illegal immigration ever. And yet all the talk is about illegal immigration.

Mass legal immigration is politically untouchable. Mass legal immigration has been made into another "third rail" of American politics by an extremely powerful 2% minority. The demographics of the nation are being transformed in their interest.

If you look around the internet you will find various quotes about how for the first time in history the majority people of a nation are pushing themselves into a demographic minority status. That is one of the great lies ever told. The majority people of this nation have not controlled immigration policy for 40 years even though we live in a "representative democracy".

Ned said at March 30, 2006 12:35 PM:

While I completely agree with the need for strict enforcement of our immigration laws, the political issues are very complex. It goes beyond the sell-out Republicans who serve the rich business interests and the bleeding heart Democrats woh feign to love the "poor and downtrodden." Consider Operation Vanguard, an INS program to deal with illegal immigrants (mostly Hispanic) in the meat-packing industry in Nebraska back in 1999. These jobs pay rather poorly and Americans just basically don't want to do them for cheap. So the INS swooped down and began rounding up the illegals in the meatpacking plants. The program was highly successful - the illegal immigrants fled Nebraska in droves - usually for similar jobs in other states. This gave an unfair competetive advantage to plants in Arkansas, Wisconsin, Texas and elsewhere. Plus, because the plants in Nebraska couldn't operate very well, the cattle backed up in the feedlots, depressing the prices that farmers received for their animals. Of course, the plant owners and the farmers all squawked to the Nebraska congressional delegation, who came down hard on the INS. No more Operation Vanguard. (http://are.berkeley.edu/APMP/pubs/i9news/inscritics31600.html).

This example shows how difficult the immigration issue is to deal with. Enforcement can't be piecemeal - it has to be nationwide and universal, not just targeting one industry or one area. But the economic consequences of the sudden removal of illegal immigrants from the US economy will be severe at first. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it - I think we should, maybe it's easy for me because my income doesn't depend on them - but the results will be hard at first for certain groups. Farmers may lose their farms, construction and maintenance companies may fold, meat packing plants may go under, hotels and motels and restaurants may close, etc. The government will need to come up with some sort of economic cushion to help the industries that have become addicted to this cheap foreign labor. If we ignore this, we will not be able to deal successfully with the illegal immigration question.

Jorge D.C. said at March 30, 2006 12:45 PM:

Here is an excerpt from an article about incoherence on immigration in general and legal immigration specifically. View From the Right website http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ regarding official kibuki dance non-action on mass legal immigration:

"Of course, if the neocons had been serious...they would have called for a moratorium on immigration until America returned to cultural health and confidence and was able once again to assimilate immigrants. But they were not serious; they were simply using any argument they could find to protect immigration. Their message, which they have continued to promote until this very moment, is that we easily have it in our power, if we can only summon the desire and will, to assimilate one million or more non-Westerners, including Muslims, into this country every year. But they never say what we should actually do to make this assimilation happen. It’s just a cheap slogan, a cliché, designed to deflect any critical thoughts about America’s open borders policies."

Rick Darby said at March 30, 2006 1:34 PM:

Jorge: You and Lawrence Auster (the source of your quote) are absolutely right that our social meltdown is as much a result of ultra-high legal immigration as of illegal immigration. (I was astonished to see ads in the London Underground pitching the official, legal, U.S. immigration "lottery." Can there be anything more absurd than selecting citizens for our country by a spin of the wheel? It's like choosing a marriage partner by opening the phone book at random.)

Nevertheless, if any progress can be made through legislation (if), the opposition is most vulnerable on illegal immigration. That, at least, now has most Americans steamed. If we can get any leverage there, we can turn to reducing legal immigration, which too few people are upset about yet.

Ned: Your addiction metaphor for businesses hooked on los illegals is bang on. Now, I have some sympathy for addicts; saying that it was stupid to become addicted in the first place doesn't change the fact that the junkie is no longer able to just refuse his drug without severe risk to his system. But in the case of businesses, the addiction at least isn't a physiological need, but a perceived economic one: they are afraid that if they don't use the bottom-wage labor provided by the system, they'll be eaten by their competitors who do.

I think a lot of the fear could be removed from the situation, and hence the attachment to parking-lot recruitment, by laws and enforcement that leave no doubt that all employers of illegals will be treated severely, and equally severely. If Company A is convinced that Companies B, C, D and so on can't undercut it on labor costs, a large part of the incentive for hiring border jumpers will disappear.

Dave said at March 30, 2006 1:37 PM:

Jorge, I know a lot of people like to blame the Jews, and I'm not saying you haven't got a point to some extent. But I think its a bit too simple an arguement because this isn't just an American issue, all over the Western world mass-immigrations are happening. In Britain illegal immigration has been out of control for years, the government admitted it has no idea how many illegal are in the country and suggested a figure of around 1 million, which means its probably over 1 million (remembering Britain is much smaller than the US so that is a large figure), and now to manipulate the figures they have massively increased 'work-permits'. Every Western European country has millions trying to enter, Australia has similar issues, Canada too.
I know all these countries have some Jewish people but they don't hold anything like the amount of power as they have achieved in the USA, and then ofcourse there are countries like Germany with hardly any Jews since WW2 and they have followed pretty much the same immigration policies of the rest of Europe if not to an even greater extent.
Something else must be going on than just a jewish conspiracy, surely?

Jorge D.C. said at March 30, 2006 4:11 PM:

Something else must be going on than just a jewish conspiracy, surely?

..."conspiracy" is a loaded term. The Jewish Lobby is one political force in a field of many. I don't deny their right to lobby as a cohesive ethnic group and I don't label that sort of lobbying as a "conspiracy". If it's a conspiracy it's in the refusal to discuss the topic out in the open. Is this because people are afraid of losing their jobs? In other words is there a prohibition against discussion of the Jewish Lobby's power in America? I would say technically the answer is "no" but it's a close call. Pat Buchanan has criticized them for decades and prospered in the media industry. And recently by the way there was a study done by two university professors out recently on the subject of The Jewish Lobby and it's huge impact on foreign policy. Steve Sailer's blog has some links and discussion.

But the "Holocaust industry" and the modern intellectual climate of relentless guilt tripping of whites (which is now moving toward demonization) has produced a teflon shield around Jewish power in America. You must be willing to be labeled a Nazi in order to simply discuss this critical aspect of the political opposition openly. Very few are willing. There is a price to pay just for mentioning the elephant in the room.

It is outrageous and disgusting that the emotional baggage of the crimes of the Nazis have been transferred to every single white gentile community on planet earth. Is this the explicit goal of the Holocaust industry? Many scholars (Jewish included) have considered the possibility and regardless of intentions the result was achieved.

This dynamic is producing a laughable kibuki dance on several critical political issues facing the country. One of them is immigration.

When you say "Something else must be going on..." I definitely agree. There are a group of powerful players in the open borders lobby. But no politician in Washington D.C. is afraid of the Catholic Church OK? And they are not afraid of the farm lobby. They are terrified of the Jewish Lobby.

Immigration is one of The Lobby's pet issues. And it is ludicrous that a 2% minority are not only having their way but that it is basically a hate crime to verbalize this state of affairs. That is anti-democratic on its face.

Examine the "debate" in congress on immigration and it's obvious that there is almost zero opposition to open borders. They are setting up straw man arguments and knocking them down. It is theatre. This is a peculiar state of affairs very similar to the near complete lack of opposition on any Israel related legislation.

As a conservative, a traditionalist and a believer in democracy I am furious about the concept of electing a new people through mass immigration against the stated will of the people. It is obviously not democracy. It is a form of dictatorship.

Jorge D.C. said at March 30, 2006 4:27 PM:

susie says:

Based on political realities, there may well be a need for a new party. Remember it only took a decade to form the Republican Party before the Civil War. These things can happen fast.

Very true. The political tide of nations can swing quickly. There is a snowball effect that usually comes at the end of a long slow hard struggle.

Another poster Rick describes my position as fatalistic. No that is not the case. I do not believe change is impossible at all. But if you do not identify your political opponent you are facing an much harder battle.

The radical left Jewish Lobby in America basically had a free pass in the USA up until the internet and cable news folks like O'Reilly came along. But still on this immigration issue the most powerful player goes unmentioned. I simply am asking that people with nationalist concerns acknowledge their strongest political opponent is the Jewish Lobby. Specifically the left wing side which is unfortunately about 90% or more.

John S Bolton said at March 31, 2006 1:52 AM:

Now I wish my comments would transfer to another post. Belief in conspiracies makes people give up. We need respectable, sober and intelligent thought on these issues.

Jorge D.C. said at March 31, 2006 2:21 PM:

We need respectable, sober and intelligent thought on these issues.

"Respectable" thought on the immigration issue has produced 40 years of mass non-white immigration, multiculturalism, Islamic mosques from coast to coast and brought us to the current level of border crisis with Mexico.

Belief in conspiracies makes people give up.

Conspiracy is a loaded term. But adults should realize that political history is essentially a record of competing conspiracies.

And as far as "giving up" well look at California and prop 187 which was a democratically voiced will of the people that was expunged by the courts. I think the record shows that people will give up. If a conspiracy is occurring that is damaging to your legitimate interests you must expose it and criticize it in order to overcome it. Ignoring it will not help.

D Flinchum said at March 31, 2006 4:19 PM:

"And as far as "giving up" well look at California and prop 187 which was a democratically voiced will of the people that was expunged by the courts."

Well, not quite. It had one set-back in the courts and then Gov. Davis didn't appeal it to a higher court. If he had, it may well have been upheld. Had there been a governor with a different view on the subject or one simply willing to execute and uphold the law as passed by the voters, Prop 187 might well have turned out differently.

Big Bill said at April 1, 2006 10:04 PM:

You must understand that our elites fear us. We are Christian. We have a lower IQ. We cannot be trusted. we suffer f ma weird disease called anti-semitism, which thay are taught from their earliest breaths rises up like some insaity and causes Jews to suffer. This is the reason we must be perpetually reeducated about the Holocaust, why we must put museums to dead European Jews on the Washington Mall. We, as gentiles, are all psychopaths under the skin. To them, we are all little Hitlers deep inside. And lest they forget, they teach each other each and every day about our eternal hatred for them and why they must eternally mistrust us.

Given that intensity of fear and paranoia, is it any wonder they love more docile, malleable peopls like blacks (until blacks got uppity in the 1960's and stopped kissing their hands) and Mexicans? They bleed for the poor, for the downtrodden, for the victimized, and the keep telling us why we must let them into OUR country. Yet ask them this: "why isn't Israel letting in millions of Mexicans to "enrich" and "diversify" Jewish culture."

The reality is that Mexiccans don't like us. They don't like our values. They don't like our nudity, our education and our Protetantism. The ysneers at our families of one perfect childd. They wil take welfare until it runs out, and then they will go back otheir Mexican ways and live on less. But what they are not going to do is start taking care of white folks out of the goodness of their hearts. Mexicans will vote for the elimination of welfare and the elimination of support for aging yuppies when it cuts into the money they have to spend for their three, four, five babies, their elderly parents, their aunts and uncles, cousins, (who they do NOT abandon as we do). They will ask yuppies like the ants asked the grasshopper, "why should we support you in retirement? What did you every give us except crappy jobs and long hours?" Yuppies are whistling in the dark when htey thin kthat loyal Mexicans are going to love them in heir old age.

Bob Badour said at April 3, 2006 9:39 AM:
"Respectable" thought on the immigration issue has produced 40 years of mass non-white immigration, multiculturalism, Islamic mosques from coast to coast and brought us to the current level of border crisis with Mexico.

What do you find respectable about the lefties, political correctness or multiculturalism?

Ned said at April 3, 2006 10:15 AM:

It always amuses me how the Republican and Democrat elites, at each others throats over so many issues, get together on the illegal immigration front to assure that the problem is never really fixed. The Republicans want a constant supply of cheap labor for their businesses, with all the indirect costs (education, health care, law enforcement, etc.) off-loaded to the taxpayers (and who ever said welfare was dead?). The Democrats want a steady stream of cooks, gardeners and nannies for their estates so they can tell their liberal buddies how morally superior they are by being friends to the "downtrodden." In the process, working-class Americans get screwed big time. This is nothing new for the Republicans, but the Democrats really ought to 'fess up about how their policies are hurting poor Americans. At least the AFL-CIO has seen the light.

By the way, on the border fence issue, from Strategy Page:

India will build a fence, and deploy more troops to the 4,000 kilometer border with Bangladesh. This is an attempt to stop the illegal migration from Bangladesh.

Jorge D.C. said at April 3, 2006 11:26 PM:

Bob says:

What do you find respectable about the lefties, political correctness or multiculturalism?

Bob, I put the word respectable in quotes meaning there is respectable and then there is "respectable". The latter being far from the genuine article.

Nice to see a post of yours that doesn't contain profanity by the way :-)

Bob Badour said at April 4, 2006 5:08 PM:

John: "We need respectable, sober and intelligent thought on these issues."

Jorge: "Nice to see a post of yours that doesn't contain profanity by the way :-)"

Jorge, in that case, I suspect you and John agree on what we need.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©