Can the Trump phenomenon change the GOP rethoric about immigration?

[Peeperkorn]

...in an European Populist way, making it the main issue for some candidates (not the pseudo hispanics) and opposing it in a radical way?

Explain with maps.

[Green Line]

Yes, but I think Trump could drive the candidates to the left on immigration.  This press he has received over his comments has been so negative I think it will scare away any more candidates from saying anything radical on the subject.  Ever since this whole thing blew up we haven't really heard any other candidates say anything inflammatory about it

[Famous Mortimer]

No. The business interests that control the Republican Party in favor of immigration/cheap labor.

[Donald Trump 2016 !]

No. The business interests that control the Republican Party in favor of immigration/cheap labor.

This.


Also Hispanic Americans are much more easily assimilated in the United States compared to Muslims in European countries.

[ag]

...in a European Populist way, making it the main issue for some candidates (not the pseudo hispanics) and opposing it in a radical way?

Explain with maps.

And it has not happened long before Trump? I thought it had.

Now, of course, to the extent Trump makes it even more associated with the Republican party, it is a great gift for the Dems. Remember, US has FPTP a two-party system. Getting 40% of the vote is not enough to win elections. Both parties have to be grand coalitions, which means radicalism - in any dimension - is damaging. Limiting partisan base to just whites and desperately losing cities has already been a problem for the Republicans. The more openly anti-migrant speech will force minorities and urbanites even further into the Dem column.

[ag]

Yes, but I think Trump could drive the candidates to the left on immigration.  This press he has received over his comments has been so negative I think it will scare away any more candidates from saying anything radical on the subject.  Ever since this whole thing blew up we haven't really heard any other candidates say anything inflammatory about it

Inflammatory stuff - on any issue - is not what wins elections in a two-party system. Radical anti-migrant parties in Europe would be extremely happy about getting, say, 35% of the vote - 35% would be a horrid landslide loss in the US. That is, basically, the difference.

[Retrumplican]

And it has not happened long before Trump? I thought it had.

Now, of course, to the extent Trump makes it even more associated with the Republican party, it is a great gift for the Dems. Remember, US has FPTP a two-party system. Getting 40% of the vote is not enough to win elections. Both parties have to be grand coalitions, which means radicalism - in any dimension - is damaging. Limiting partisan base to just whites and desperately losing cities has already been a problem for the Republicans. The more openly anti-migrant speech will force minorities and urbanites even further into the Dem column.

I don't think it is as simple as FPTP determining it, although that is an important factor.

The way that American politics worked ever since Nixon's southern strategy through Obama was that Republicans would deliberately try to be as racist as possible and to receive as few votes as possible from blacks. The idea was that it was better to get fewer votes from blacks, because then all of the white racists would flock to you. And that is exactly how it worked. That yielded the Nixon/Reagan landslides, and more or less worked to keep Republicans competitive in Presidential elections up until 2008. And it still works in midterms, when turnout is lower.

The problem with that strategy was that it eventually backfired. The problem is that education increased among white voters, and so the share of white racists dropped. At the same time, the minority population started to go up, and so did minority voter turnout.

But the southern strategy was premised on there being only one minority group (blacks), and upon there being enough white racists so that whichever party the white racists voted for (Republicans) would beat whichever party the African Americans voted for (Democrats). If the only minority group were blacks, then that would still even work. But the problem for the GOP is that then we started to have immigration from non-black minorities (chiefly Hispanics). And the problem is, you can't really be racist against ONLY blacks but not against other minorities, like Hispanics.

So what happened in 2008 is that those two trends of increasing minority vote share and increasing education among whites hit a critical point. White racists (plus business support and money) was no longer enough to overpower the combination of non-racist white liberals and minorities.

So the point is - this strategy did work in FPTP, it's just that it doesn't work any more.

Now, where Trump comes in on this is as follows. He is basically trying to do the same thing to Hispanics that Nixon did for blacks. Turn them into a monolithically Democratic voting group, in order to raise perception of racial threat among whites. If the only minority group were Hispanics, that would probably work. The problem is that there are also blacks, and they are solidly Democratic thanks to Nixon.

Anyway, the final conclusion from all of this is that it can work in FPTP systems, under some conditions. However, it won't work under the current conditions. The only way it could possibly work would be if you could somehow separate racism from anti-immigrant sentiment. That way, you could attract blacks into the Republican party on an anti-immigrant platform. That would be a large reversal from current voting trends, but that is the only way that this strategy is really viable, even in theory.

Absent that, the only path forward for the GOP is to stop being racist, and win over minority voters. The problem with that, though, is that even if you could get all the racists to stop caring about racism, then voting would become only about economic issues. And then the political coalitions would become 1 party representing the rich vs one party representing the poor. You would be back to New Deal coalition type politics, and that would be a disaster for the party of the rich (Republicans).

So to prevent that from happening for as long as possible, business interests are trying to foment as much racism as possible.

[dudeabides]

The fact of the matter is, we do have an immigration system that needs to be reformed. We have to continue to ensure border security, as we have thanks to President George W. Bush doubling border patrol agents. We also have to have an employment verification system and to prosecute those who hire people here illegally knowingly. But let's also keep in mind that the cost of deporting illegals is $12,500 per person. If we have 11 million people here, that's a cost of $135 billion. While we should not grant amnesty to anyone, deporting 11-20 million people is fiscally irresponsible and logistically impossible, and we wouldn't end illegal immigration by doing so. What we need to do is have a pathway to legal status. In my opinion, that means folks here illegally should pay a penalty, learn english, and not be on government assistance in exchange for legalized status. After a period of time when they are on the right side of the law, then they should have the chance to earn citizenship. I also believe we need a guest worker program.

At the same time, I agree with the notion that we should limit family unification and instead get folks to come here legally that can work here. Immigrants are twice as likely as native born citizens to start a business and thus, create jobs.

What Donald Trump has done is hurt the level of dialogue. He has made this about hispanics. The truth is, hispanics are humans, some are good some are bad, just like anybody else. Trump's bigotry is an embarrassment to the nation.

Additionally, Trump doesn't understand that while there are still issues at the border, we are moving in the right direction. Illegal border crossings are at record lows right now.

[Famous Mortimer]

At the same time, I agree with the notion that we should limit family unification and instead get folks to come here legally that can work here. Immigrants are twice as likely as native born citizens to start a business and thus, create jobs.

The businesses that immigrants start typically create very few jobs and usually only for other immigrants and very low paying/under the table.

[ag]

At the same time, I agree with the notion that we should limit family unification and instead get folks to come here legally that can work here. Immigrants are twice as likely as native born citizens to start a business and thus, create jobs.

The businesses that immigrants start typically create very few jobs and usually only for other immigrants and very low paying/under the table.

Like this one

www.google.com

[Sbane]

At the same time, I agree with the notion that we should limit family unification and instead get folks to come here legally that can work here. Immigrants are twice as likely as native born citizens to start a business and thus, create jobs.

The businesses that immigrants start typically create very few jobs and usually only for other immigrants and very low paying/under the table.

A majority of Silicon Valley startups are started by immigrants. Moron.

[Famous Mortimer]

You really think that constitutes a majority? You think web start ups outnumber Chinese restaurants?

[Sbane]

You really think that constitutes a majority? You think web start ups outnumber Chinese restaurants?

Most businesses in this country are small businesses. So of course there will be more chinese restaurants than google's started by immigrants. Just as is the case for citizens.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

sbane has arisen!!!


Only the Donald could have made this happen!

[Mr. Morden]

sbane has arisen!!!


Only the Donald could have made this happen!

I am still trying to work out how to pronounce "sbane".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

sbane has arisen!!!


Only the Donald could have made this happen!

I am still trying to work out how to pronounce "sbane".

I still have a nasty habit of using the lower case username because of all the Senate vote counts in Atlasia, where I normally differed to usernames, especially since you had some wild display names by certain folks.

[Sbane]

sbane has arisen!!!


Only the Donald could have made this happen!

Haha I should be back more as the elections heat up. Interesting times on this forum too it seems.....

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

sbane has arisen!!!


Only the Donald could have made this happen!

Haha I should be back more as the elections heat up. Interesting times on this forum too it seems.....

That is the understatement of the year.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

The fact of the matter is, we do have an immigration system that needs to be reformed. We have to continue to ensure border security, as we have thanks to President George W. Bush doubling border patrol agents. We also have to have an employment verification system and to prosecute those who hire people here illegally knowingly. But let's also keep in mind that the cost of deporting illegals is $12,500 per person. If we have 11 million people here, that's a cost of $135 billion. While we should not grant amnesty to anyone, deporting 11-20 million people is fiscally irresponsible and logistically impossible, and we wouldn't end illegal immigration by doing so. What we need to do is have a pathway to legal status. In my opinion, that means folks here illegally should pay a penalty, learn english, and not be on government assistance in exchange for legalized status. After a period of time when they are on the right side of the law, then they should have the chance to earn citizenship. I also believe we need a guest worker program.

At the same time, I agree with the notion that we should limit family unification and instead get folks to come here legally that can work here. Immigrants are twice as likely as native born citizens to start a business and thus, create jobs.

What Donald Trump has done is hurt the level of dialogue. He has made this about hispanics. The truth is, hispanics are humans, some are good some are bad, just like anybody else. Trump's bigotry is an embarrassment to the nation.

Additionally, Trump doesn't understand that while there are still issues at the border, we are moving in the right direction. Illegal border crossings are at record lows right now.

There it is, folks. Everything wrong with the GOP summed up in a single sentence fragment.

[dudeabides]

The fact of the matter is, we do have an immigration system that needs to be reformed. We have to continue to ensure border security, as we have thanks to President George W. Bush doubling border patrol agents. We also have to have an employment verification system and to prosecute those who hire people here illegally knowingly. But let's also keep in mind that the cost of deporting illegals is $12,500 per person. If we have 11 million people here, that's a cost of $135 billion. While we should not grant amnesty to anyone, deporting 11-20 million people is fiscally irresponsible and logistically impossible, and we wouldn't end illegal immigration by doing so. What we need to do is have a pathway to legal status. In my opinion, that means folks here illegally should pay a penalty, learn english, and not be on government assistance in exchange for legalized status. After a period of time when they are on the right side of the law, then they should have the chance to earn citizenship. I also believe we need a guest worker program.

At the same time, I agree with the notion that we should limit family unification and instead get folks to come here legally that can work here. Immigrants are twice as likely as native born citizens to start a business and thus, create jobs.

What Donald Trump has done is hurt the level of dialogue. He has made this about hispanics. The truth is, hispanics are humans, some are good some are bad, just like anybody else. Trump's bigotry is an embarrassment to the nation.

Additionally, Trump doesn't understand that while there are still issues at the border, we are moving in the right direction. Illegal border crossings are at record lows right now.

There it is, folks. Everything wrong with the GOP summed up in a single sentence fragment.

So you believe that deporting 11-20 million at a cost of $12,500 per person is fiscally responsible? We have $18 trillion in debt. Also, not all of these folks are dangerous criminals. In fact, the vast majority of them are not. We need to deal with this issue in a humane way also recognizing the rule of law. A path to legal status doesn't give anyone special treatment, but it wouldn't cost $135 billion at a minimum.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The fact of the matter is, we do have an immigration system that needs to be reformed. We have to continue to ensure border security, as we have thanks to President George W. Bush doubling border patrol agents. We also have to have an employment verification system and to prosecute those who hire people here illegally knowingly. But let's also keep in mind that the cost of deporting illegals is $12,500 per person. If we have 11 million people here, that's a cost of $135 billion. While we should not grant amnesty to anyone, deporting 11-20 million people is fiscally irresponsible and logistically impossible, and we wouldn't end illegal immigration by doing so. What we need to do is have a pathway to legal status. In my opinion, that means folks here illegally should pay a penalty, learn english, and not be on government assistance in exchange for legalized status. After a period of time when they are on the right side of the law, then they should have the chance to earn citizenship. I also believe we need a guest worker program.

At the same time, I agree with the notion that we should limit family unification and instead get folks to come here legally that can work here. Immigrants are twice as likely as native born citizens to start a business and thus, create jobs.

What Donald Trump has done is hurt the level of dialogue. He has made this about hispanics. The truth is, hispanics are humans, some are good some are bad, just like anybody else. Trump's bigotry is an embarrassment to the nation.

Additionally, Trump doesn't understand that while there are still issues at the border, we are moving in the right direction. Illegal border crossings are at record lows right now.

There it is, folks. Everything wrong with the GOP summed up in a single sentence fragment.

So you believe that deporting 11-20 million at a cost of $12,500 per person is fiscally responsible? We have $18 trillion in debt. Also, not all of these folks are dangerous criminals. In fact, the vast majority of them are not. We need to deal with this issue in a humane way also recognizing the rule of law. A path to legal status doesn't give anyone special treatment, but it wouldn't cost $135 billion at a minimum.

I think that the problem is ILLEGAL immigration, and illegal immigration from Mexico in particular.  And it's a problem because of who, in particular, has been coming.

Although the problem has eased somewhat lately, a stream of illegal immigrants were coming into the United States THROUGH Mexico, but FROM not just Mexico, but a number of Central American countries, making their way through Mexico to America.  And many of these folks WERE associated with organized criminal gangs.  All of them were illegally in the United States, and "off-the-books" farm labor and restaurant work aren't the only occupations such folks seek out.  Many of these folks are drug runners and engaged in illegal activities, and while they can be deported once they have been apprehended and pay for their crimes, they can do quite a bit of havoc before they are caught.

And they do this, in part, because they know that there are such things as "Sanctuary Cities" where, essentially, immigration laws won't be enforced.  They do this because there are places where they can be hide, and their hiding will be condoned by local officials.  Females will have "anchor babies" who will enjoy birthright citizenship and entitlement benefits, even though their mothers are here illegally.  This is a real drain on Medicaid and (in California) Medi-Cal. 

Is it so outrageous that the folks who foot the bill for all of this and whose public safety is lessened because of this desire our government to do something about all of this that will cause it to reduce and to deter others from illegally entering the United States?  I'm not someone who views this as my top priority, but I don't view my point of view as racist or xenophobic, and I don't see why people shouldn't be up in arms over cities that provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants, when government requires the rest of us to follow the rest of the laws.  For myself, I would prefer to give amnesty and pardon to Americans who have criminal records for mere Drug Possession before we give amnesty, pardon, and citizenship to those who came here illegally.

[dmmidmi]

Yes, but I think Trump could drive the candidates to the left on immigration.  This press he has received over his comments has been so negative I think it will scare away any more candidates from saying anything radical on the subject.  Ever since this whole thing blew up we haven't really heard any other candidates say anything inflammatory about it

Inflammatory stuff - on any issue - is not what wins elections in a two-party system. Radical anti-migrant parties in Europe would be extremely happy about getting, say, 35% of the vote - 35% would be a horrid landslide loss in the US. That is, basically, the difference.

Okay.

[Famous Mortimer]

$12,500 per person isn't actually that much compared to the cost of Medicaid, food stamps (which almost all illegal immigrants from Latin America would qualify for if made legal) and schooling (since immigrants tend to have more children).

I know everyone always says "illegal immigrants don't use entitlements!" but that's disingenuous. They don't use them because they're illegal. If they were legal, they would use them and it would cost a huge amount.

[dudeabides]

The fact of the matter is, we do have an immigration system that needs to be reformed. We have to continue to ensure border security, as we have thanks to President George W. Bush doubling border patrol agents. We also have to have an employment verification system and to prosecute those who hire people here illegally knowingly. But let's also keep in mind that the cost of deporting illegals is $12,500 per person. If we have 11 million people here, that's a cost of $135 billion. While we should not grant amnesty to anyone, deporting 11-20 million people is fiscally irresponsible and logistically impossible, and we wouldn't end illegal immigration by doing so. What we need to do is have a pathway to legal status. In my opinion, that means folks here illegally should pay a penalty, learn english, and not be on government assistance in exchange for legalized status. After a period of time when they are on the right side of the law, then they should have the chance to earn citizenship. I also believe we need a guest worker program.

At the same time, I agree with the notion that we should limit family unification and instead get folks to come here legally that can work here. Immigrants are twice as likely as native born citizens to start a business and thus, create jobs.

What Donald Trump has done is hurt the level of dialogue. He has made this about hispanics. The truth is, hispanics are humans, some are good some are bad, just like anybody else. Trump's bigotry is an embarrassment to the nation.

Additionally, Trump doesn't understand that while there are still issues at the border, we are moving in the right direction. Illegal border crossings are at record lows right now.

There it is, folks. Everything wrong with the GOP summed up in a single sentence fragment.

So you believe that deporting 11-20 million at a cost of $12,500 per person is fiscally responsible? We have $18 trillion in debt. Also, not all of these folks are dangerous criminals. In fact, the vast majority of them are not. We need to deal with this issue in a humane way also recognizing the rule of law. A path to legal status doesn't give anyone special treatment, but it wouldn't cost $135 billion at a minimum.

I think that the problem is ILLEGAL immigration, and illegal immigration from Mexico in particular.  And it's a problem because of who, in particular, has been coming.

Although the problem has eased somewhat lately, a stream of illegal immigrants were coming into the United States THROUGH Mexico, but FROM not just Mexico, but a number of Central American countries, making their way through Mexico to America.  And many of these folks WERE associated with organized criminal gangs.  All of them were illegally in the United States, and "off-the-books" farm labor and restaurant work aren't the only occupations such folks seek out.  Many of these folks are drug runners and engaged in illegal activities, and while they can be deported once they have been apprehended and pay for their crimes, they can do quite a bit of havoc before they are caught.

And they do this, in part, because they know that there are such things as "Sanctuary Cities" where, essentially, immigration laws won't be enforced.  They do this because there are places where they can be hide, and their hiding will be condoned by local officials.  Females will have "anchor babies" who will enjoy birthright citizenship and entitlement benefits, even though their mothers are here illegally.  This is a real drain on Medicaid and (in California) Medi-Cal. 

Is it so outrageous that the folks who foot the bill for all of this and whose public safety is lessened because of this desire our government to do something about all of this that will cause it to reduce and to deter others from illegally entering the United States?  I'm not someone who views this as my top priority, but I don't view my point of view as racist or xenophobic, and I don't see why people shouldn't be up in arms over cities that provide sanctuary to illegal immigrants, when government requires the rest of us to follow the rest of the laws.  For myself, I would prefer to give amnesty and pardon to Americans who have criminal records for mere Drug Possession before we give amnesty, pardon, and citizenship to those who came here illegally.

For the record, I do not support special benefits going to illegal aliens. I am opposed to the Dream Act, and I oppose the idea of sanctuary cities. But, ultimately, both issues are state issues and should be left to states.

I support the decriminalization of marijuana for the same reason I oppose deporting people. It costs too much money.

Most of the people who come here illegally are doing so for jobs on farms and restaurants. That's why I think we should have a guest worker program to bring people out of the shadows, to know who is in the country, and to stop giving tax benefits in some cases. If someone enters our country illegally and commits a second crime in addition to being here illegally, then I think we should deport them or throw them in jail. But the cost of sending home 11-20 million illegals is $135 billion at a minimum.

[andrew_c]

No. Republicans wouldn't give Democrats any potentially lethal ammunition.