The liberal love affair with illegal immigration

Until the Obama presidency, liberals actually had a fairly moderate view on illegal immigration: they supported border enforcement and the enforcement of immigration laws. They also talked about how low skilled labor undermines the wages of American workers. If you go back and hear speeches by Bill Clinton and even then Senators Obama and Clinton, their position is not too different from the GOP's current position.

But now, they've gone bonkers. The Democrats realized that their long-term political strategy rests on granting amnesty and citizenship to the 12 million illegal aliens in the United States, thereby adding millions of new voters to their party. Ultimately, that is the core principle guiding their love affair with illegal aliens.

Most conservatives, myself included, are OK with granting legal status to DACA recipients and even to illegal aliens broadly speaking, but in return for several key provisions: 1) no amnesty or citizenship to illegal aliens, 2) mandatory e-verify, 3) border enforcement, 4) elimination of visa lotteries and chain migration, 5) skills based legal immigration system similar to the one used by Canada.

When I hear liberals talk about this issue, they're now saying that immigration law does not matter, that we should selectively enforce the law or ignore it altogether, and they are taking the sides of illegal aliens over Americans. They support using taxpayer dollars to provide services and benefits to illegal aliens, support sanctuary cities, and have displayed zero concern for American low-skilled workers who are most hurt by illegal immigration.

Is this the hill that Democrats are willing to die on? Is their message to voters that they are willing to shut down the federal government because they want amnesty and citizenship for millions of illegal aliens?

We are truly living in absurd times.

Anonymous Monkey, Upload Your Resume - Land a Job

Members that upload a resume get 2.3x the number of interview invites through the Talent Oasis. Learn more.

Comments (15)

Jan 17, 2018

Democrats play the incrementalism game well, and understand that as more illegals pour in, they will become part of communities, have kids with Americans, become part of American families, etc. They also understand that no widescale deportation effort for 12 million folks will ever happen-so why not go all in on amnesty? DACA is just the camel nose in the tent

Conservatives have proven to be amnesty shills themselves for the most part-how'd we not manage to make Mandatory e-verify law of the land is confounding. Guys like McCain and Rubio-even going as far back as Dubya himself, have always been wobbly on the issue, so if they won't mount an adequate defense why shouldn't Dems go all in? Blue states already offer de facto amnesty for the most part, any talk against illegal immigration gets you branded a racist, anchor babies are Constitutionally protected, and chain migration is a given whenever children are legalized. Dems can't be blamed for pressing their advantage here.

    • 4
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Jan 17, 2018
TheGrind:

Democrats play the incrementalism game well, and understand that as more illegals pour in, they will become part of communities, have kids with Americans, become part of American families, etc. They also understand that no widescale deportation effort for 12 million folks will ever happen-so why not go all in on amnesty? DACA is just the camel nose in the tent

Conservatives have proven to be amnesty shills themselves for the most part-how'd we not manage to make Mandatory e-verify law of the land is confounding. Guys like McCain and Rubio-even going as far back as Dubya himself, have always been wobbly on the issue, so if they won't mount an adequate defense why shouldn't Dems go all in? Blue states already offer de facto amnesty for the most part, any talk against illegal immigration gets you branded a racist, anchor babies are Constitutionally protected, and chain migration is a given whenever children are legalized. Dems can't be blamed for pressing their advantage here.

Very good points. Bush, McCain, Rubio, and other Republicans beholden to corporate lobbies, have balked at passing mandatory e-verify and want cheap labor for their donors. For too long, GOP leadership used working class Americans for their votes while implementing policies that hurt them. Trump's capturing of the GOP nomination was in large part the result of this disconnect between the party elite and its voters.

Democrats genuinely want to transform America into a third world country, where people are dependent on government programs, redistribution of wealth, endless affirmative action, and identity politics. Since the New Deal, the Democrats have been a coalition party of various interest groups that want something from the government while since Reagan, the GOP has largely been an ideological party based on principles.

Jan 17, 2018

Its a stupid policy, among other things. Democrats believe this will give them a permanent politcal edge. When in reality that isn't how politics works. People aren't static drones who have one political view for life. The last time Amnesty happened the democrats thought the same thing, turns out that didn't work.

Also quit calling them liberals, they aren't liberal. They are fucking lunatic left-fascists.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 2
Jan 17, 2018
heister:

Its a stupid policy, among other things. Democrats believe this will give them a permanent politcal edge. When in reality that isn't how politics works. People aren't static drones who have one political view for life. The last time Amnesty happened the democrats thought the same thing, turns out that didn't work.

Also quit calling them liberals, they aren't liberal. They are fucking lunatic left-fascists.

What are you referring to? Reagan committed an grievous mistake in 1986 by granting amnesty to 3 million illegals. Latinos have consistently voted for Democrats; even when Reagan won a 49-state landslide in 1984, he only received around 30-35% of the latino vote.

Recent immigrants lean pretty left and want more big government programs and benefits.

Jan 17, 2018

Not really, those numbers are skewed because of generational demographics. A huge percentage of the Hispanic voter base is extremely young. Which tends to trend towards democratic voting. As people age they get more conservative. This is true among all racial groups. The reasons has more to do with age demographic makeups than really racial demographic makeups. If you look at say 50+ for people of hispanic heritage they have a pretty even divide on actual policy. It also doesn't help that most of their options for racial identity voting happen to be democratic. The country works at an equalibrium, if one group grows in power too much their policies will shift until they leave people behind.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 17, 2018
heister:

Not really, those numbers are skewed because of generational demographics. A huge percentage of the Hispanic voter base is extremely young. Which tends to trend towards democratic voting. As people age they get more conservative. This is true among all racial groups. The reasons has more to do with age demographic makeups than really racial demographic makeups. If you look at say 50+ for people of hispanic heritage they have a pretty even divide on actual policy. It also doesn't help that most of their options for racial identity voting happen to be democratic. The country works at an equalibrium, if one group grows in power too much their policies will shift until they leave people behind.

I wish I were as optimistic as you. Recent immigrants are not as educated and skilled and thus need government programs more than others. Also, assimilation has slowed considerably due to technology enabling immigrants to keep in touch with their home countries and large ethnic enclaves discouraging assimilation. For instance, a Chinese or Korean immigrant can live in certain parts of L.A. and Orange County that are literally 70%+ East Asian. They can thus be on U.S. soil but for all intents and purposes, not assimilate into our country. I think the only solution to this is to drastically reduce the # of legal immigrants for say 20-30 years, so we can enable comprehensive assimilation to occur. At this rate, we are going to become a society entirely divided along racial lines, with no common history, cultural identity, or core values.

    • 1
Jan 17, 2018

I do not disagree with the assimalation problem. What I am talking about is the bad logic that amnesty will give democrats a permanent political edge. That would require muiltiple things that quite frankly aren't reality. 1) That everyone in this group will vote democrat for life. 2) That everyone who now votes democrat will continue to do so. 3) That previously politically inactive people will contine to remain so. 4) That these immigants even give a fuck about politics. I do not doubt that in the short term it will be a benefit for the democrats. However I and anyone else who analyzes this critically should agree that this will not last more than a short sprint. Besides it is a moot point because of how the house of represenatives is structured. This is not something the President alone can do.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Jan 17, 2018

The illegals are just a pawn in their game. Remember that illegal aliens are generally in support of liberals and leftist policies and obviously the liberals know this so they want give illegals amnesty so they get their vote and therefore would pretty much win every presidential election in the future and thus be able to perpetuate their leftist paradigm even further. If you think they truly care about the illegals they don't.

Jan 17, 2018
TheROI:

The illegals are just a pawn in their game. Remember that illegal aliens are generally in support of liberals and leftist policies and obviously the liberals know this so they want give illegals amnesty so they get their vote and therefore would pretty much win every presidential election in the future and thus be able to perpetuate their leftist paradigm. If you think they truly care about the illegals they don't.

Absolutely. If the illegal aliens were conservative, the Democrats would be putting them on the next flight to their home countries.

    • 1
Jan 17, 2018

Isn't it possible that we're being just a little cynical of the Democrats' intentions here? Couldn't it be plausible that maybe, just maybe, the senators and representatives of the Democratic party don't want to deport the shit out of 12 Million people who have family members here because it's just kinda a shitty thing to do to communities, businesses that utilize their labor and the families of said deportees.

    • 5
Jan 17, 2018
LReed:

Isn't it possible that we're being just a little cynical of the Democrats' intentions here? Couldn't it be plausible that maybe, just maybe, the senators and representatives of the Democratic party don't want to deport the shit out of 12 Million people who have family members here because it's just kinda a shitty thing to do to communities, businesses that utilize their labor and the families of said deportees.

The vast majority of Republicans do not support deporting 12 million illegal aliens. A majority of them support giving legal status to DACA recipients. If the Democrats were simply telling us to not deport all of them, that wouldn't be an issue. But they are demanding that we give amnesty and path to citizenship to those who broke the law by entering illegally, want to import an endless array of low skilled immigrants through visa lotteries and chain migration, support sanctuary cities that defy federal immigration law, etc.

Moreover, are we not supposed to enforce immigration law because deporting people will hurt their feelings? A common argument I hear is that if an illegal alien is working, not hurting anyone, paying taxes, they should be totally immune from deportation. But that would require us to selectively enforce the law and carve out numerous exemptions. We are a nation of laws. Now, as I said in my OP, I'm ok with legal status for illegals who haven't caused trouble since coming here, but it would need to come with fundamental changes to our immigration system.

Finally, the Democrats' radical leftward shift on immigration is a fairly recent development. Obama realized that he had to jack up the latino vote to win re-election in 2012 and used DACA to do so. Democrats soon realized that they can transform the political landscape if the 12 million illegals became citizens.

    • 1
Jan 18, 2018

Speaking here as a moderate liberal, what I see is a series of narrow minded perspectives sprinkled with hyperbole and speculation. To start, you say liberal viewpoints were moderate on immigration UNITL Obama's administration.

Obama actually added to border security, patrols, and overall capacity on top of what was in place during the bush administration. Illegal crossings over the US/Mexico border decreased by 90% from 2005 to 2015, and during Obama's term more illegal immigrants were deported than any other president in history. Most estimate we've been at a net loss for illegal immigrant population now for the better part of a decade. On top of this, there were much wider immigration reforms that were laid on the table by democrats in 2013 that were blocked by the republican held house.

So the question begs, if it seems like democrats statistically were just as tough if not tougher on immigration throughout the Obama administration, why would liberals prefer the democrats' immigration policies? In my view, the democrats have taken a more nuanced approach to immigration that is both sensitive to the plight of these people, while also respecting the law and the interests of american workers. DACA is a prime example in that it addresses a specific demographic within the illegal immigrant population that is least at fault and would be most adversely affected. And this type of critical thinking when it comes to immigration seems a lot more attractive than the populist blanket type policies we're seeing from the right, especially now under the Trump administration.

Take the wall for example. From a practical standpoint, this is dumb. The majority of illegal immigrants now are believed to come from visa overstays, not illegal crossings over the southern border. And spending tens of billions on a wall that crosses 2,000 miles over the most rugged and rural terrain in the world seems all the more unreasonable when it can be easily crossed via tunnels & ladders, which are already used to cross the border anyways. But what is least attractive about that option, more so than the practical aspects, is its broader symbolism. From the perspective of the left, the wall is a physical manifestation of the belief that conservative immigration policies are rooted in irrational fear, scapegoating, or in many cases good ol' fashioned racism, which Trump's base seems to respond ever since "rapists and murderers". On top of that, there's the damage this causes to foreign relations and the world's view of the US as trying to separate itself from everyone else. The wall is not the only immigration policy that has been proposed that applies to this.

What confuses me most though is the timing of your post. You said yourself that you'd likely support DACA, or some form of it. But now, with it being the main point of negotiations for immigration policy, liberals have a "love affair" with illegal immigrants? I saw this posted on fivethirtyeight this morning which I thought gave an insightful perspective https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-been-a.... While people talk about political groups becoming more extreme, perhaps it's not the policies actually changing as much as it is the center of conversations drifting right or left that skews our perspective on what is moderate. This appears to be one of them.

    • 6
Jan 18, 2018
MiserlyGrandpa:

Speaking here as a moderate liberal, what I see is a series of narrow minded perspectives sprinkled with hyperbole and speculation. To start, you say liberal viewpoints were moderate on immigration UNITL Obama's administration.

Obama actually added to border security, patrols, and overall capacity on top of what was in place during the bush administration. Illegal crossings over the US/Mexico border decreased by 90% from 2005 to 2015, and during Obama's term more illegal immigrants were deported than any other president in history. Most estimate we've been at a net loss for illegal immigrant population now for the better part of a decade. On top of this, there were much wider immigration reforms that were laid on the table by democrats in 2013 that were blocked by the republican held house.

So the question begs, if it seems like democrats statistically were just as tough if not tougher on immigration throughout the Obama administration, why would liberals prefer the democrats' immigration policies? In my view, the democrats have taken a more nuanced approach to immigration that is both sensitive to the plight of these people, while also respecting the law and the interests of american workers. DACA is a prime example in that it addresses a specific demographic within the illegal immigrant population that is least at fault and would be most adversely affected. And this type of critical thinking when it comes to immigration seems a lot more attractive than the populist blanket type policies we're seeing from the right, especially now under the Trump administration.

Take the wall for example. From a practical standpoint, this is dumb. The majority of illegal immigrants now are believed to come from visa overstays, not illegal crossings over the southern border. And spending tens of billions on a wall that crosses 2,000 miles over the most rugged and rural terrain in the world seems all the more unreasonable when it can be easily crossed via tunnels & ladders, which are already used to cross the border anyways. But what is least attractive about that option, more so than the practical aspects, is its broader symbolism. From the perspective of the left, the wall is a physical manifestation of the belief that conservative immigration policies are rooted in irrational fear, scapegoating, or in many cases good ol' fashioned racism, which Trump's base seems to respond ever since "rapists and murderers". On top of that, there's the damage this causes to foreign relations and the world's view of the US as trying to separate itself from everyone else. The wall is not the only immigration policy that has been proposed that applies to this.

What confuses me most though is the timing of your post. You said yourself that you'd likely support DACA, or some form of it. But now, with it being the main point of negotiations for immigration policy, liberals have a "love affair" with illegal immigrants? I saw this posted on fivethirtyeight this morning which I thought gave an insightful perspective https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-been-a.... While people talk about political groups becoming more extreme, perhaps it's not the policies actually changing as much as it is the center of conversations drifting right or left that skews our perspective on what is moderate. This appears to be one of them.

This is a well thought out post, although I disagree. I will address some of your points.

  1. The argument that Obama deported the most number of illegal aliens is highly misleading. Here's why. That statistic conflates removals and returns, which are 2 separate categories as defined by DHS. A removal refers to those who are arrested while attempting to illegally enter the United States or very shortly thereafter. Removals are handled by ICE. In contrast, a return is deportation in the true sense of the word because it refers to those who successfully entered our country through illegal means or illegally overstayed their visas and then were subsequently deported. During the Obama presidency, approximately two-thirds of the deportation statistic were removals, not returns. Moreover, Obama selectively enforced existing immigration law by enforcing the "catch and release" program, which instructed border agents to only arrest illegals who satisfy certain criteria. The Obama administration also allowed for arrested illegals to simply be released, at which point many of them would re-enter. Kate Steinle's killer is a prime example of this.
  2. DACA is unconstitutional, period. In 2012, while trying to pump up the latino vote in order to win re-election, Obama unilaterally refused to enforce the removal provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, thus ordering 2 million illegal aliens to not be deported. Congress rejected the DREAM Act since it would have provided blanket amnesty without any substantive reforms to immigration. Obama thus used his executive power to implement DACA, circumventing Congress' purview of creating federal immigration law. Although DACA is supposed to be implemented via "prosecutorial discretion," in practice, anyone who meets the criteria and applies, will be granted deferred status, which confers benefits such as work permits, social security number, drivers licenses.

Trump was right to reverse DACA, as it should have never happened in the first place. The ball is in Congress' court, as it is their job to create actual immigration law while the President signs (if he chooses to sign rather than veto) and then execute that said law.

I never said I support DACA. What I said was I'm ok with granting legal status to a fairly large group of illegal aliens in return for the proposals I outlined in my OP. That would be the result of Congressional law, not an executive order, so it would not be DACA but rather a new comprehensive immigration law.

  1. You make a decent point with the wall. I personally don't care too much about this, since if we impose mandatory e-verify and other measures, it will deter illegals from coming here. After all, they only come here for the jobs. Crush the job supply, and one would imagine that far fewer illegals will try to come here. There are also logistical concerns such as building a wall across rugged terrain and the government using eminent domain to seize private lands to build it. I disagree though that the wall is a symbol of racism and hate. That's hysteria. We are a sovereign nation and have the right to defend our border. Unfortunately, the vast majority of illegals enter through the southern border while very few enter through our northern border. The wall would simply be a measure to make it that much harder for illegals to get through. It also goes without saying that if you are a LEGAL immigrant, you can enter our country, wall or no wall. The mere existence of the wall in no way affects those who make it through our process in a legal fashion.
    • 2
Best Response
Jan 23, 2018

I suppose Dances with Newfoundland and Dances with Dachshunds have sexual relations with one another while draped in Don't Tread on Me flags using Karo syrup as lube and using hickory wood as paddles. I think your arguments are flawed and based in a combination of xenophobia and racism.

When you argue immigration, don't argue the constitution. That's a false appeal to authority. Few reading this forum have read the US Constitution, so you're either more informed than your audience (in which case you're seeking to outsmart them, hoping they won't check your references) or you're less informed that you imagine. In this case, it's the latter. I'd bet both my testicles against your one testicle that you've never read the Constitution cover to cover, and that your argument is (at best) nuanced.

I'm inebriated right now, but I write and argue better than you do at your best. What you mean to say is not just that the wall is foolish and a waste of taxpayers' money, but that it's insufficient for border security and unnecessary given our countries net flow of migrants. But that doesn't seem to matter to you. You argue minutia while missing the main point--we need immigration.

We might have the wrong sort of immigration at the moment, but I'm not even sure that's true. An immigration system similar to the UK's or Canada's won't work for the US precisely because we don't have the same employment challenges. It turns out, we need a great deal more migrant farm laborers than people like you might ideally like. We also need a great deal more H1-B visa workers, we need to let their spouses work while here, we need to end the visa lottery, and phase out chain migration. But our economy requires a growing population, and without immigration (including illegal immigration), we'd have a negligible population growth rate since the late 1970s.

Perhaps you're better than I imagine, but I suspect you're a withering little shit whose dick shrivels at the mere mention of Jews or Asians. And I read your posts with contempt because your mind always tends toward the small and weary, you Lilliputian, lackluster lemon of a man.

    • 11
    • 9
Jan 23, 2018

1-Click to Unlock All Comments - 100% FREE

Why do I need to be signed in?
WSO is a knowledge-sharing community that depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something.
+ Bonus: 6 Free Financial Modeling Lessons with 1-Click Signup ($199 value)
    • 11
    • 1