Im-Politic: Why Trump Has Just Nailed it on Immigration

Tags

birth citizenship, Chuck Todd, CNN, deportation, Donald Trump, E-Verify, executive amnesty, executive order, Gallup, illegal aliens, illegal immigrants, illegal immigration, Im-Politic, Immigration, Mainstream Media, Meet the Press, Mitt Romney, NBC News, Obama, Open Borders, polls, The Wall Street Journal

If you harbored any doubts that America’s immigration policy debate has become completely devoid of common sense, and that both the nation’s politicians, pollsters, and media seem determined to outdo each other to keep befogging the real issues and options, look no further than how all of the above treat the issue of deporting immigrants already in the United States illegally. It all adds up to a huge and unnecessary tragedy for American public policy. For a series of realistic deportation-related ideas advocated by immigration restrictionists for many years has always offered the nation by far the most efficient, least costly – and, yes, most humane – solution to the illegals problem.

The big news hook here of course comes from Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s latest comments on the subject. To hear it from news organizations like The Wall Street Journal and NBC News, Trump has just come out in favor of rounding up this huge population – estimated at 11 million – and herding them back across the Rio Grande. Thus this morning’s Wall Street Journal headline, “Donald Trump Says He Would Deport Illegal Immigrants.” According to Chuck Todd, host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” who interviewed Trump for this morning’s program, the candidate’s objectives were considerably narrower – but still pretty ambitious: “[H]e plans to immediately rescind President Obama’s executive order that stopped the deportations of some younger undocumented immigrants who had entered the country as children.”

Yet even Todd lumped together several specific questions that desperately need to be unpacked. First, Trump acknowledged that “the executive order gets rescinded.” Revealingly, however, the new immigration policy plan that he’s just released, which has occasioned this latest round of coverage, didn’t even mention deportation, or even the president’s latest initiative. Trump has indeed mentioned deportation previously, but it appears that his priorities have changed. Why did Todd fail even to note this, either while talking with Trump or later in the program?

Just as important, a Trump rollback of the executive order by no means signals that he would start mass deportations on Day One of his presidency – or ever. Nor is there any reason to suppose that any of the other Republican presidential hopefuls who has opposed the Obama moves would unleash the legions of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau (ICE). But ending what critics have rightly called executive amnesty is an essential first step for any eventual illegals strategy that doesn’t (a) simply accept their mass presence and (b) in so doing, inevitably strengthen the policy magnet that’s bound to attract many more with its message of leniency. As Trump himself told Todd (who clearly was in no mood to listen), “We have to make a whole new set of standards.”

Two other critical deportation-related matters ignored by Todd and the Journal. First, even the president for years believed that the (longstanding) immigration policy status quo before his executive order was the law of the land. As such, it reflected a national political consensus on the subject. And as such, it’s curious that anyone who’s not an Open Borders ideologue would view a return to this status quo – after a brief departure – as front page news, or even especially noteworthy from a real-world perspective (as opposed to a political perspective).

Second, the president’s initial, much more cautious, view of his immigration authority could soon be re-validated by the courts. So restoring the deportation status quo ante could be not only a substantive nothing-burger, but a legal and constitutional necessity.

Not that Todd, The Wall Street Journal, or the Mainstream Media as a whole deserve all the blame for deportation’s prominence in the immigration debate. Opinion polls have repeatedly cited the round up as the only, or one of the only, alternatives to paths to legal residency or citizenship in dealing with the illegal population. Here are just two examples from CNN/ORC, and from Gallup. And as suggested above, politicians have contributed to the confusion. In addition to Trump himself, 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney called his illegals strategy “self-deportation.”

Here’s the rub, though. Romney actually got it pretty near right on the substance. As he explained (futilely, of course):

“The answer is self-deportation, which is people decide they can do better by going home because they can’t find work here because they don’t have legal documentation to allow them to work here. And so we’re not going to round people up.”

The former governor continued: “The way that we have in this society is to say, look, people who have come here legally would, under my plan, be given a transition period and the opportunity during that transition period to work here, but when that transition period was over, they would no longer have the documentation to allow them to work in this country. At that point, they can decide whether to remain or whether to return home and to apply for legal residency in the United States, get in line with everybody else. And I know people think but that’s not fair to those that have come here illegally.”

Even better, Romney went on to address the need to turn off the jobs magnet:

“We’d have a card that indicates who’s here illegally. And if people are not able to have a card, and have through an E-Verify system determine that they are here illegally, then they’re going to find they can’t get work here. And if people don’t get work here, they’re going to self-deport to a place where they can get work.” And later on in the campaign, Romney specified that illegals should be denied public benefits.

That is to say, Romney in his own often-fumbling way, hit on by far the best fundamental way to handle the illegals problem – eliminating the incentives attracting them and keeping them here in the first place. And Chuck Todd and The Wall Street Journal to the contrary, that’s exactly the emerging focus of Trump’s illegals strategy.

His immigration blueprint would make the E-Verify system mentioned by Romney mandatory nation-wide, in order to prevent businesses from hiring illegals with impunity. It strangely did not specify that government benefits would be denied to illegals. But that explicit proposal probably isn’t too far down the road, as the Trump plan has noted that “The costs for the United States [of supporting illegal immigrants] have been extraordinary: U.S. taxpayers have been asked to pick up hundreds of billions in healthcare costs, housing costs, education costs, welfare costs, etc. Indeed, the annual cost of free tax credits alone paid to illegal immigrants quadrupled to $4.2 billion in 2011.”

Trump’s most controversial proposal is ending “birthright citizenship” – the longstanding practice of awarding U.S. citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born on U.S. territory – which he has described as “the biggest magnet for illegal immigration.” But ending federal aid for Sanctuary Cities and other measures to crack down harder on illegal alien criminals and even those who overstay visas – who comprise roughly 40 percent of the illegal population – are bound to attract much more support with voters on both sides of the aisle.

One other important and encouraging feature of Trump’s plan that I’m sure the Mainstream Media in particular will overlook: As I’ve recommended, it dramatically shifts the focus of blame for America’s immigration policy mess from foreign governments (which, to be sure, aren’t blameless) to the real culprit: the nation’s corporate cheap labor lobby. Leading off the plan is the charge that When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties. Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors.”

And you thought the political establishment, and the political reporters who coddle them, couldn’t be more scared of Donald Trump?

Following Up: More on Delusions of Immigrants Saving the Economy

Tags

amnesty, bubbles, executive amnesty, Following Up, Goldman Sachs, home ownership, housing, illegal immigration, Immigration, mortgages, Obama, Open Borders, The Wall Street Journal, Urban Institute

Since I’m kind of (understandably!) fast tracked and trade policy’d out, I thought I’d shift this afternoon to another way the U.S. bipartisan political establishment is shafting Main Street America: Open Borders- and amnesty-friendly immigration policies.

These policies’ leading edges – consisting of President Obama’s recent executive immigration orders – are of course presently stuck in the courts, similarly to how the offshoring-friendly trade strategies also backed by the White House and Congress’ Republican leaders are now stuck on Capitol Hill. But “stuck” is hardly the same as “dead,” and therefore ongoing vigilance is needed – especially since most of the president’s liberal Democratic critics on trade policy are wholeheartedly with him on immigration.

A stout pillar of the liberal case for boosting immigration levels and amnesty-ing the illegal population already in the country (or otherwise creating a “path to citizenship”) is the idea that the youth and energy of newcomers is crucial to American hopes to solving any number of major economic problems – from slow growth to the entitlements crisis. This post from last September presents a sample of these claims.

As I pointed out, liberals’ optimism regarding immigrants’ prospects for attaining the American Dream clashes violently with their decided pessimism that it’s within reach of anyone not to the manor born. And now The Wall Street Journal has reinforced the case for bearishness. Earlier this week, correspondent Nick Timiraos reported on this conclusion of a recent study on the likely future of American home ownership:

“Last decade’s housing crisis could give way to a new one in which many families lack the incomes or savings needed to buy homes, creating a surge of renters and a shortage of affordable housing….Demographics tell the story. Urban Institute researchers predict that more than 3 in 4 new households this decade, and 7 of 8 in the next, will be formed by minorities. These new households—nearly half of which will be Hispanic—have lower incomes, less wealth and lower homeownership rates than the U.S. average.”

Note in particular the timeframe: through “the next decade.” Also of interest is the attempt by some Goldman Sachs economists to find a silver lining in the numbers: “They noted in an April report that even though Hispanics, for example, have lower homeownership rates than non-Hispanic whites, those rates have been rising for the past four decades.”

This point is of interest because the reckless extension of mortgages to low-income Hispanics during the bubble decade was a major source of that period’s housing insanity. In other words, their rising home ownership rates were part of the problem with which the nation is still struggling.

The lesson remains the same. If you want to increase greatly the ranks of low-income Americans, and/or if you want new justifications (and new voters?) for more and bigger government welfare programs, you’ll keep favoring Open Borders-style immigration policies. If you want national prosperity to be built on a sustainable foundation, you’ll favor sensible restrictions.

Im-Politic: Where Obama’s Right – But not Consistent – on Executive Amnesty

Tags

Boehner, checks and balances, China, Congress, currency manipulation, discharge petition, executive amnesty, House, Im-Politic, Immigration, Reid, Senate

Despite my strong opposition to Executive Amnesty, I do find one of President Obama’s arguments on its behalf politically – though not legally – convincing. The House Republican leadership’s refusal to allow a vote on the Senate immigration bill has indeed been inexcusable.

Not that the President or his party have been models of consistency on this issue. For example, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hasn’t exactly been shy about letting House-passed bills die on his desk. Moreover, Mr. Obama himself not too long ago passed over an opportunity to pressure Speaker John Boehner to allow a vote on an issue arguably of greater economic importance: Senate-passed legislation that would strengthen American responses to currency manipulation by China and other trading powers.

True, there was no big political groundswell for such a bill, except by many domestic manufacturers and their employees. But as I wrote yesterday, there’s no big political groundswell for Executive Amnesty, either – even among illegal immigrants, let alone Hispanic voters. Moreover, America’s longtime failure to counter foreign currency manipulation has gravely damaged a manufacturing sector that comprises what’s left of the productive heart of the U.S. economy. No one can point to comparable harm done by the status quo in immigration policy, though the wage-depressing presence of the huge illegal workforce has clearly imposed a cost.

Boehner has refused to allow a vote even though a majority of House members – including a sizable group of Republicans – supported the bill. And because Congress’ leaders have nearly total control over the agendas of their respective chambers, there the matter has rested. But did President Obama urge the Speaker to respect the will of majority? Absolutely not – because his administration opposed the legislation, too, and the last thing he wanted was to be placed in a position of vetoing a measure that was easy to portray as defending valuable industrial jobs and production.

There is of course a way for House members to force votes over the leadership’s objections. A majority of lawmakers can sign a discharge petition. The problem is that leaders typically view this step as an act of open revolt, and have the means to retaliate in all kinds of painful ways for challenges to what they regard as one of their prime prerogatives. So understandably, the Republican backing needed for a currency vote never materialized.

As for the Senate, even a minority can prevent a vote on a bill with majority support thanks to the filibuster rule. So we’re left practically speaking with a situation in which each house of Congress can simply ignore a bill passed by the other – and which I believe is unacceptable.

Of course, there are valid reasons for the current rules. It’s conceivable that relaxing them could create abundant opportunities for political mischief by both sides, and clog Congress’ pipes with all sorts of trivial matters. At the same time, passing a bill still usually isn’t the easiest task in the world in either chamber.  As a result, if a measure does manage to make it through either the House or Senate, there should be a strong presumption that it deserves action from the other chamber.

I’m not sure how to solve the dilemma, but I’d certainly like to see more thinking about ideas for reducing the power of one set of Congressional leaders simply to ignore the collective will of all of their elected counterparts across Capitol Hill. I understand the need for prudence in government and am all for strong checks and balances. But the sheer arbitrariness of the current system seems deeply at odds even wth government that’s minimally effective, let alone genuinely representative.

Im-Politic: Hispanic Views on Executive Amnesty, Immigration Aren’t What You Think

Tags

2016 elections, executive amnesty, Hispanics, illegal immigrants, Im-Politic, immigrants, Immigration, Obama, polls, public opinion, voting

I got so much feedback on Twitter from presenting surprising polling results on how Hispanic voters in the United States view immigration-related issues that I thought it worth showing that the numbers I presented really don’t seem to be outliers.

The original data that was so unexpected came from a Kellogg Foundation survey of Latino adults conducted from mid-September to mid-October, shortly before both the mid-term elections and of course President Obama’s Executive Amnesty announcement. To recap, according to Kellogg, only 18 percent of its sample described “Immigration/Deportations” as the issue that “concerns you the most.” This issue did rank number two on a long list, but it was beaten out by “Jobs/Economy” (23 percent). The next concerns, in order of priority, were “Violence/Crime” (12 percent), “Education/Schools” (9 percent), and “Health care cost/quality” (7 percent).

Even more important, however, among Latino adults who are citizens and who therefore can actually vote, only 11 percent placed immigration issues at the top of their concerns list. And even among those adults in the United States illegally, immigration issues were the leading concern for only 32 percent.

Along with Gallup findings that, since May, the share of Americans overall classifying immigration as America’s “Most Important Problem” hasn’t topped 17 percent – and that in July, as the migrant children situation peaked – the Kellogg results powerfully undermine the President’s insistence that immigration issues are so pressing that he needed to take emergency action.

But even if you believe in the special importance of Hispanic opinion – perhaps because of these Americans’ growing political power – it’s crucial to understand that evidence for its ambivalence and/or complexity is abundant.

For example, a June survey by the Pew Research Center found that in 2012, only 34 percent of Hispanic voters tabbed immigration as an issue that’s “’extremely important’ to them personally.” Moreover, the numbers haven’t changed dramatically since 2004 (the earliest data presented). In addition, immigration significantly trailed education, employment and economic, and health care issues – all of which registered above 50 percent – on the importance scale.

In 2013, Pew asked registered Hispanic voters to name issues that are “extremely important” to the nation (a slightly different question). Only 32 percent said immigration – again, far behind the identification of economic and health care issues.

Pew released more such data just before the last mid-terms. They showed that two-thirds of Hispanic voters viewed the Congressional passage of “significant new immigration legislation” as “extremely important or very important.” That was up six percentage points since 2013.

At the same time, of the 68 percent of Hispanic voters that had heard anything at all about President Obama’s Executive Action plan, only 35 percent expressed either “disappointment” or “anger” with Mr. Obama’s delay of that decision. Twenty-six percent were either “very happy” or “pleased.”

Further, of all Hispanic adults in the country illegally, only 53 percent expressed negative feelings about the president’s delay. Twenty percent expressed positive views, and another 19 percent hadn’t heard about it.

Finally, more than half (54 percent) of all Hispanic registered voters say they would vote for an office seeker who disagrees with them on immigration issues if that candidate agreed with them on “most other issues.” More Hispanic registered Republicans (62 percent) took this position than Democrats (52 percent), but the majority figures for both indicate that this group is showing few signs of falling into a single-issue trap — and that both major parties will face big challenges in winning or maintaining its loyalties.

(What’s Left of) Our Economy: The Dubious Economics of Executive Amnesty

Tags

border security, comprehensive immigration reform, deportation, executive amnesty, illegal immigrants, Immigration, inequality, Obama, wages, {What's Left of) Our Economy

If you think looking under the hood is vital when you buy a used car, take it from me: It goes double when you’re reading reports on the economy, and the White House’s new report on the economic effects of President Obama’s Executive Amnesty plan is a vivid reminder why.

One of the most controversial claims made by the President and his supporters is that Executive Amnesty and the broader immigration reform bill passed by the Senate in 2013 would actually raise wages in America and reduce income inequality. These claims have been especially crucial for the politics of immigration reform. How else could liberals, Democrats, and others who profess to champion “the common man” support measures that both logic and economic theory strongly indicate would have the opposite effects, since they will greatly increase the supply of U.S. labor available to employers, especially for jobs requiring relatively modest education and skills?

Despite the best efforts of The Economic Effects of Executive Action on Immigration, however, that’s still a challenge these supposed middle- and working-class advocates haven’t met. The study contends that the President’s decision would increase wages for native-born American workers by 0.1 percent on average over the next decade. In 2014 dollars, that’s $40 – not a king’s ransom, but at least not a decline.

Here’s where the problems start, though. That prediction isn’t based on original research by the White House’s own economists at the Council of Economic Advisors. It’s based largely on the results of a single academic study. And there’s more: This study doesn’t break down the wage effects by education level, as the CEA acknowledges. So the CEA offers no evidence on how evenly distributed – or not – these miniscule economy-wide wage gains might be. Given that less than a third of U.S. workers hold a B.A. or more advanced degree, and given the huge, rising wage premium produced by higher education, that’s a huge omission.

The CEA leaves the matter there. But no one with any common sense needs to, or should. Other Open Borders-friendly analysts have addressed the issue recently, and Jared Bernstein (who has done excellent work on subjects like the impact of offshoring-friendly trade deals on U.S. wages and living standards) sums up their case:

“[T]he undocumented workers who will gain temporary legal status are already here, so we’re not talking about increased supply effects. In fact, by entitling them to leave the shadows of the undocumented workforce, their own pay could get a boost, especially as they may now be more mobile across both geography and sectors of the economy. And the pay of those with whom they compete is also helped by this change. If you’re competing with someone who can be exploited by dint of their undocumented status, that hurts you too. ”

Sounds great – until you start thinking beyond the textbook. For Executive Amnesty is unlikely to leave the supply of new foreign-born labor frozen at today’s levels. First, deportation relief is not extended to all illegal immigrants, so those left out will still be able to undercut the wages both of illegal workers who are brought out of the shadows and of native-born workers who compete with them. In principle, effective enforcement measures, like harsh sanctions on the business owners that hire them, takes care of this problem.  But when has Washington ever taken this approach seriously?

Does this mean that the main shortcoming of Executive Amnesty is its failure to include all illegal immigrants? Only if you forget the magnet issue and the aims of Mr. Obama and his supporters. After all, as the President has just reminded, the Senate-backed immigration reform bill would protect most of the rest of the illegal population from deportation. Although support in the incoming Senate arguably will be weaker, over the longer-term, as so many political analysts believe, the American electorate seems to be changing in ways that boost the pro-reform vote.  Therefore, a more lenient immigration policy is at least a distinct possibility.

As a result, powerful incentives still exist for foreigners to enter the United States illegally, in full confidence that they’ll find work as well as schooling and other government benefits for their children, as well as that, sooner or later, they’ll receive amnesty whether from new executive orders or from legislation. So there’s every reason to expect that the illegal population will keep growing – unless you believe in the fairy tale that the border will become much more secure.

In fact, as the CEA inadvertently makes clear, the Congressional Budget Office has already provided evidence that the reformers’ version of immigration policy will reduce, not raise wages, at least for the next decade. According to the CBO, implementation of the Senate reform bill will depress average wages on average for newcomers and native-born workers alike through 2024, and start raising them thereafter. The nearer-term wage decline is not big – 0.1 percent – and CBO emphasizes that all the gains will accrue to the native-born.

Interestingly, although CBO doesn’t break down the effects according to educational attainment, it does provide a breakdown by skill levels. Its findings: “The legislation would particularly increase the number of workers with lower or higher skills but would have less effect on the number of workers with average skills. As a result, the wages of lower- and higher-skilled workers would tend to be pushed downward slightly (by less than ½ percent) relative to the wages of workers with average skills.”

So the foreseen effects of greater immigration inflows again are not large, but at least for America’s native-born poor, they’re harmful. But the CBO doesn’t seem to account adequately for the magnet effect, either. I could discuss additional problems with its findings, like the reliance on estimates of overall economic growth and productivity growth that entail enormous uncertainties – to put it kindly.

Yet one final reason for skepticism is even stronger: The same kinds of models and other methodologies that are generating only modest wage effects from greater immigration flows also long showed few if any wage effects from the kinds of trade expansion policies pursued by Washington for the past twenty years. Now this conventional wisdom, which of course helped fuel and legitimate these policies is changing substantially – though arguably too late to undo the decisive damage. Benign projections of conventional immigration reform’s economic impact serve powerful agendas, too – both on the Left and on the Right. The difference is that there’s still a chance to save the economy from its effects.

Im-Politic: Will Obama’s Executive Amnesty Squander a Big Political Opportunity?

Tags

2016 elections, Democrats, executive amnesty, Im-Politic, Immigration, immigration reform, Latinos, Obama, Republicans

Some final thoughts on immigration policy just before President Obama officially unveils his executive action at 8 EST tonight:

The wide-ranging deportation protections the President is expected to announce are often described as politically motivated – an audacious gambit aimed at cementing support for Democrats among the nation’s large, rapidly growing Latino population, both by granting a popular request and by highlighting Republican opposition.

I have no doubt that politics explains much about executive amnesty and the Democrats’ broader lurch toward illegal immigrant-friendly policies over the last decade in particular. But I do doubt that unilateral presidential action is the best way for the Democrats to strengthen their image as immigration reform champions.

I’m not thinking here of polls that show general public opposition to Mr. Obama’s intentions. I’m thinking instead of the main message contained in this new post on CNN.com. In it, national political reporter Peter Hamby describes how major Republican White House hopefuls have been reacting to the impending Obama decision. Most of them have emphatically criticized executive amnesty, but their opposition has focused on process questions. In so doing, they’ve made clear that they – and the list includes (outgoing) Texas Governor Rick Perry, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, Wisconsin Governor Rick Walker, Indiana Governor Mike Pence, Ohio Governor John Kasich, and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie – would really rather not talk about the substance of immigration policy.

The reasons for this discomfort – I don’t think that’s too strong a word – should be obvious, too. Any successful Republican presidential candidacy is going to need solid backing (and financing) from American business, which is chomping at the bit for immigration reform that will flood the nation with new workers and thus generate powerful new downward pressure on wages. This support will be crucial both during the primaries and during the fall campaign. Signaling opposition to the idea of loosening immigration restrictions would brand these office-seekers as anti-business on a front-line issue.

As a result, the Machiavellian in me thinks President Obama and the Democrats would be better off depriving Republicans of this procedural dodge, and maintaining and increasing the pressure on their leaders to reveal whether they’re basically for or basically against more Open Borders. What could be likelier to ensure, through election day, 2016, continuation and even intensification of the immigration divide between the Republican establishment and its more populist wing?

Instead, executive amnesty will enable Republicans to paper over these differences. Indeed, the dynamics of Washington gridlock, which practically ensure that some form of executive amnesty will remain in place for the next two years, could well mean that immigration becomes a unifying issue for Republicans.

It’s true that further delaying executive amnesty could further frustrate Latinos and other supporters, and wind up depressing their turnout in 2016. But it’s also true, as I wrote recently, that having won this victory, such voters and their leaders could decide to thank the Democrats and then keep upping the ante and asking what they’ve done for the cause lately. (It’s entirely likely, even probable, that they’ll keep expanding their demands anyway.)

All these possibilities are purely hypothetical, and the politics of immigration could take entirely different courses among both Democrats and Republicans. But I feel more confident in believing that, because the President seems about to squander an opportunity to split his opposition wide open, the payoffs he and other Democrats evidently expect from executive amnesty had better be massive.

Im-Politic: Executive Amnesty Case Undermined from Least Likely Source

Tags

Democrats, executive amnesty, illegal immigration, Im-Politic, Immigration, middle class, Obama, progressives, recession, wages, working class

Quick quiz: Which prominent American politician wrote this?

“The number of immigrants added to the labor force every year is of a magnitude not seen in this country for over a century.  If this huge influx of mostly low-skill workers provides some benefits to the economy as a whole — especially by keeping our workforce young, in contrast to an increasingly geriatric Europe and Japan — it also threatens to depress further the wages of blue-collar Americans and put strains on an already overburdened safety net.”

Hint: He’s the prominent American politician who added this: “[T]here’s no denying that many blacks share the same anxieties as many whites about the wave of illegal immigration flooding our Southern border — a sense that what’s happening now is fundamentally different from what has gone on before.”

If you answered “John Boehner” or “Ted Cruz” or “Mitt Romney,” you’d be wrong. In fact, if you answered any Republican past or present office holder or office seeker, you’d be wrong. And since my question specified politicians, you can’t answer “Rush Limbaugh” or “Pat Buchanan” or any other popular targets of the Open Borders lobby.

The answer? Barack Obama.

And here’s the kicker. The President penned these thoughts in his autobiography, which came out in 2006. That’s an important date. It was the last full year before the American economy officially entered its worst recession since the 1930s. More specifically, it was the last full year before the economy entered a recession (and terrifying financial crisis) triggered by Washington’s strategy of buoying middle and working class Americans’ consumption by enabling them to borrow recklessly to compensate for incomes depressed largely by free trade and open immigration policies.

Eight years later, these incomes keep stagnating or shrinking in real terms. In fact, more than five years after the recovery officially began, polls repeatedly tell us that most Americans believe the last recession never ended. And goading most consumers to load up on more debt is no longer a viable option for juicing growth.

Yet President Obama is willing to risk more divisive political warfare in Washington with an executive amnesty that can only flood the U.S. labor market with ever greater numbers of mainly poorly educated and skilled newcomers – both through mass de facto legalization of illegal aliens already here, and through the open invitation this action will inevitably extend to perhaps of tens of millions of other foreigners counting on the same lenient treatment. And the bigger any executive amnesty will be, the louder the President’s party, and other avowed American progressives, apparently will cheer.

Since Jefferson’s day, Democrats have styled themselves “the party of the common man.” It seems it’s now time to add the clarification “someplace else.”

Im-Politic: Of Loyalty and Executive Amnesty

Tags

2016 elections, African Americans, executive amnesty, Hispanics, Im-Politic, Immigration, Latinos, Obama, voters

Just some quick thoughts about the politics of President Obama’s reported plans to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens via executive order: It will be fascinating and revealing to see how the Latino/Hispanic community in America reacts over the medium-term, especially at the leadership level.

The conventional wisdom of course is that by circumventing a balky group of Republicans in Congress, the president will cement the loyalty of Latino Americans to the Democrats for generations, and thereby ensure a long string of Democratic presidents going forward because Hispanics are such a fast-growing voting bloc.

The conventional wisdom isn’t always wrong, and Hispanic leaders in particular may indeed follow this course. But recalling the experience of African Americans raises the question of how smart this decision would be.

After all, one of the problems that’s faced African American voters and their leaders for decades now is that they’ve backed Democrats so reliably that Democrats understandably feel free to take them for granted. And so black voter loyalty arguably has led to considerable black political marginalization – especially between elections, when Democrats aren’t focused on mobilizing African American turnout to swing tight races.

Logic, at least, indicates that Hispanic voters could face the same fate if they completely turn their backs on Republican politicians after any executive amnesty. The rank and file may react in diverse ways – reflecting Hispanic America’s great diversity. But their leaders, at least the ones who dominate the news, are much less diverse.

So the smart tack for Latinos, and especially their leaders, to take politically after an executive amnesty – even a big one – would be to thank Democrats and then, as the next election approaches, ask what the party has done for them lately. Of course, the more effectively Republicans persuade Hispanics that they’re a plausible alternative – a challenge they haven’t met vis-a-vis African Americans – the easier it will be for them to play hard to get.

Of course, it’s also conceivable that Democrats might fear just such an Latino reaction to even a big amnesty – or even simply declining interest in Hispanics’ interest in politics and thus voting once this high priority goal has been achieved. These concerns could lead Democrats to string Latino voters along further – to ensure their support and turnout in 2016 – by either postponing executive action, or going small for now with the implicit or explicit promise of more to come.

It seems like we’ll get at least some answers soon, in the form of the (reportedly) approaching amnesty decision. But the new questions raised by any such move could prove more interesting still.