• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

Republicans Against Legal Immigration

Immigration Capitol Dome

With the apparent blessing of the Trump White House, a Republican Senator from Arkansas is set to introduce legislation that would drastically decrease the number of people who can enter the United States legally:

Overlooked in Donald Trump’s campaign crusade against illegal immigration was his vow to crack down on legal immigration, too.

Now, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), a reliable Trump ally, is taking steps to execute that part of the president’s immigration vision — and it could provoke a showdown between two competing ends of the GOP: the working-class populists led by Trump and the establishment Chamber of Commerce wing.

The outspoken, 39-year-old Cotton has written the first in what may be a series of bills to revamp the nation’s immigration system. Cotton will start off with legislation being unveiled Tuesday that will dramatically slash the number of immigrants who can obtain green cards and other visas every year.

The conservative rising star is poised to step into the role being vacated in the chamber by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who has long preached the economic virtues of restricting legal immigration in favor of U.S. citizens — a view disputed by business-friendly Republicans who have pushed for a more expansionist immigration policy. Sessions is set to be confirmed as attorney general this week.

“Donald Trump was the only one who saw that most Americans don’t like our current immigration system,” Cotton said in an interview with POLITICO on Monday. “This is just the area of politics where I think leaders and elites are most disconnected from the people. Not just Republicans but in both parties, in business, in the media, in the academy, culture and so forth.”

The Arkansas senator has already spoken with Trump and key White House officials about his immigration proposals, and says the administration has been receptive. And Cotton dismisses research that shows the economic boon of immigrants, including low-skilled workers, by paraphrasing George Orwell: “Only an intellectual could believe something so stupid.”

The details of Cotton’s proposal are about as bad as his rhetoric would have you believe:

Cotton’s new legislation, being formally proposed Tuesday with Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.) and detailed exclusively with POLITICO in advance of its release, swings an axe at the nation’s green-card system by eliminating several avenues for U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor family members for green cards.

Right now, U.S. citizens and permanent residents can sponsor a variety of family members, including spouses, parents, siblings and married adult children. Cotton and Perdue’s plan would allow only spouses and unmarried minor children to get green cards, although they would permit a modest number of visas for aging adult parents whose American children are their caretakers.

The bill also dumps the diversity visa lottery, which allots about 50,000 visas per year for citizens of countries that traditionally have low rates of immigration to the United States. And it would limit refugees to 50,000 annually — in line with levels outlined in Trump’s controversial executive order.

“Sen. Cotton and I are taking action to fix the shortcomings in our legal immigration system,” Perdue said. “Returning to our historically normal levels of legal immigration will help improve the quality of American jobs and wages.”

All told, the number of legal immigrants allowed into the United States under the bill — named the Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act — would plummet by 40 percent in the first year and by 50 percent over a decade, according to analysis by Cotton’s aides.

Advocates of reduced immigration are delighted.

“With the introduction of this bill, Sen. Cotton has made it clear that he’s stepping not necessarily into the shoes, but onto the platform where Sessions’ shoes have been,” said Roy Beck, the president of NumbersUSA, which calls for less immigration. “This is beyond anything that Sen. Sessions ever did.”

Cotton says his legislation is the first step in revamping the current immigration system from one based on family ties toward a more skills-oriented one, a move that Republicans generally support. But the intraparty collision comes with Cotton’s push to tighten the number of low-skilled foreign workers into the country.

“For too long, our immigration policy has skewed toward the interests of the wealthy and powerful: Employers get cheaper labor, and professionals get cheaper personal services like housekeeping,” Cotton wrote in a December New York Times op-ed. “We now need an immigration policy that focuses less on the most powerful and more on everyone else.”

His arguments, however, run counter to research that show immigrants are a net boon to the economy, from the high-skilled foreigners coveted by the tech industry to employees who work at hotels, restaurants and in agriculture. The so-called Gang of Eight bill passed by the Senate in 2013 crafted a new “W” visa program that would allow up to 200,000 low-skilled guest workers in the country per year.

(…)

The Trump administration is also entertaining new orders to curb legal immigration programs such as the H-1B visa prized by the tech industry.

Cotton didn’t address employment-based green cards or related visas in his latest measure, noting that the laws governing those issues are more complicated and “touch more entrenched interests.” He also declined to say directly whether he is open to expanding the pool of 85,000 H-1B visas allotted per year.

“There are obviously abuses of the H-1B visa program. I think those abuses need to be addressed before we even consider expanding the program,” Cotton said. “That said, if the evidence demonstrates that say, software companies need PhDs with computer science degrees and they’re going to pay them a wage that’s in the top 1, top 5, top 10 percent of local wages, I’m open to that kind of evidence.”

Mark Krikorian, whose Center for Immigration Studies supports restricting the number of immigrants here, says Cotton has been a rarity among Republicans in that he consistently raised issues surrounding legal immigration in addition to the more oft-discussed debate over illegal immigration.

“He’s relatively young, he’s a rock star among lots of conservatives, combat veteran, the whole thing,” Krikorian said. “And so for him to be the one to carry the standard of immigration reduction really does give it legitimacy.”

Previously, the anti-immigration forces on the right have claimed that they are only really concerned about illegal immigration and the national security issues raised by having a border that can be as easily exploited as the one between the United States and Mexico. They claim that they want to secure the border in no small part to protect Americans from people with nefarious or criminal intentions from getting into the United States undetected. There’s always been something somewhat suspect about these arguments, of course, given the fact that our northern border with Canada is just wide open, and much longer and harder for border patrol on either side of the border to police, but has never really been the focus of the kind of concern that these forces express for the border with Mexico. Additionally, there’s been little focus by these groups on the fact that one of the largest sources of illegal immigrants in the country comes from people who arrive here legally but end up overstaying their visas, or staying in the country even though they’ve violated the terms of that visa such as someone here on a student visa who stops pursuing an education and then just blends into the community. Instead, the focus remains on the alleged menace of people who have crossed into the United States from Mexico, the vast majority of whom are gainfully employed as unskilled or even skilled workers in the construction trade, at restaurants, and in other fields.

When the subject turns to immigration a whole, though, opponents of immigration reform that would actually try to deal with the issues created by what is at least a significant population of undocumented immigration while also fixing the known defects in the legal immigration system insist that they are not opposed the legal immigration. Legislation like what Cotton and Perdue will be proposing, though, clearly puts the lie to that claim since it would have the impact of severely gutting the ability of people to come to the country legally under a variety of visa categories, including many that are clearly intended to attract high-skilled workers and top students. The changes would also have the impact of separating families and making it harder for political and other refugees from getting to the United States at a time when the worldwide refugee problem appears set to get to the United States, forcing many of them to stay at refugee encampments around the world that, while operated by the United Nations and staffed by people trained to deal with refugees, are less than ideal. All of this comes at the same time that the White House is seeking to make its own proposals regarding immigration and the President’s Senior Adviser, Steve Bannon, has been a long-time opponent of legal immigration who has favored restricting the number of people allowed into the country.

What this proposed legislation does, of course, is to put the lie to the claim by opponents of immigration reform that they aren’t aiming at halting or restricting legal immigration. This is precisely what Cotton’s proposal would do, of course, and appears to be among the priorities of one of the most influential advisers to the President of the United States. Not only does this run counter to ideas that have been an important part of this country for more than two centuries, it would be economic suicide. Countless numbers of economic studies have shown that immigration is a benefit to the economy, even when it means immigration of low-skilled workers who serve as competition for American workers at the lowest level of the economy. The economy also benefits from the number of high-skilled people who come here to work and end up contributing greatly to their adopted nation. In addition to providing employers with a wider labor pool from which to choose, it also benefits consumers by keeping prices down and American businesses at all level by increasing their potential customer base. Additionally, the United States has been able to avoid the problems associated with a declining an aging population such as that faced by nations such as Japan largely thanks to immigration from around the world. Cotton, Bannon, and others would seek to stem the flow of these people into the country. In the process, they’d be doing far more harm than good.

At the very least, I can say that Cotton is doing us a favor by putting this legislation on the table. Now, Republicans in the Senate and the House, and across the nation, will be forced to take a position, thus allowing us to separate the real anti-immigration forces from the rest of the party and forcing them to take a stand on an issue that, until now, they’ve largely been dodging.

Related Posts:

  • None Found

About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway. Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. KM says:

    It was never about “protecting the country” or “jobs”. It was always about keeping THEM out. Returning to “historical norms” by ditching the diversity piece means heavily favoring European (aka white) countries while limiting refugees cuts the number of brown people since those are the citizens fleeing countries who’s governments are going to hell.

    So nice of the GOP to confirm every bigoted thing liberals, true conservatives and generally intelligent people have ever suspected them of. The rats don’t have to scurry in the dark anymore.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. al-Alameda says:

    At the very least, I can say that Cotton is doing us a favor by putting this legislation on the table. Now, Republicans in the Senate and the House, and across the nation, will be forced to take a position, thus allowing us to separate the real anti-immigration forces from the rest of the party and forcing them to take a stand on an issue that, until now, they’ve largely been dodging.

    Good article Doug.
    It is always a good thing when you can force these people to go on the record on any important issue.

    It feels like were in a period of a very strong reactionary nativist conservative restoration, so I have to hope that liberals and Democrats have a strong case to make in order to regain control of at least one chamber of congress.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. gVOR08 says:

    You can’t mean it. Are you really saying that all those times conservatives told us they were only against illegal immigrants, that they were perfectly OK with those who followed the rules, they lied? Say it ain’t so.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Of course they’re from the South. These people and their kneejerk paranoia about the loss of white hegemony. :roll:

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. SenyorDave says:

    If there were a modern day parallel to the MS St. Louis, I have no doubt that Tom Cotton would lead the charge to not allow it to land in the US. I suspect he would urge other countries to refuse to accept the passengers. But I’m also sure that Tom Cotton calls himself a Christian.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. Slugger says:

    I would like to take this opportunity to thank the ordinary working class Americans who were so welcoming to my family and me when we came to this country. My parents had no advanced skills, very little formal education, and just about no English vocabulary. Our first home was a duplex, and the other family in the building were third generation Irish with UAW jobs. They gave us a great deal of support especially for my mother whose language acquisition skills lagged a bit. My family’s descendants include MDs, JDs, teachers, artists, firefighters, and advocates for troubled children. I do have a nephew who is slow about leaving Mom’s basement. All in all, we are a fairly typical story of immigrant life.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    it would be economic suicide.

    That’s not important because the massive tax cuts for the rich are going to spur tremendous growth, terrific growth, really. You are going to be so tired of growth you are going to beg them to stop the growth.

    Republican goal #1…white people as far as the eye can see…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  8. @HarvardLaw92:

    Cotton is looking to make a name for himself, so look for more of this in the future.

    No doubt he’ll be a candidate for President the next time that opens up for the GOP, which looks right now like it will be 2024.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. CSK says:

    @Doug Mataconis:

    Just curious: Do you think Trump will last till 2020, and be re-elected, or do you think it will be President Pence running in 2020? If the latter is the case, and Pence wins in 2020, wouldn’t that exclude Cotton for 2024, since Pence would be eligible to run again in that year?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  10. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    @CSK:
    I assumed he meant simply that Trump would run again in 2020, which means that wouldn’t be open for Cotton until 2024.
    Myself…I seriously doubt that. I think Trumps limited mental capacity will continue to become more apparent and Republican establishment will be forced to address it. My hope is that it does not take a major crisis to bring that about. When a guy stands up there and says that the press is covering up terrorism…you have to wonder what planet the man is operating on. As I read somewhere…the cheese is already off the cracker.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. michael reynolds says:

    Conservatives mean none of the things they say, as I’ve been pointing out for a long time. Their real agenda is always covert and their public statements are simply lies. The GOP is the party of white supremacy. Everything they do is consistent with maintaining the dominance of the white male. Their supposed religious beliefs are baloney – cast aside for the adulterer pig in the White House. Their alleged fiscal conservatism is a lie – they blow up more deficits than Democrats. Their patriotism is a lie, they’re embracing the traitor Trump and covering up for the Butcher of Aleppo.

    The most reliable way to understand actual as opposed to stated political positions is not by analyzing policy papers, it is by looking at character. These are overwhelmingly white men, largely from the south. They are racist and nativist and misogynist. That’s the real GOP, that’s conservatism: a lie told to conceal white, male dominance. They will support 100% of policies that enshrine white power, and oppose 100% of policies that challenge white power. It is the only thing in which they are consistent. The Republican Party is a racist and misogynist party.

    Now, with that clear, Doug, maybe we can talk about the absurdity, fact-avoidance and toddler-selfishness that are the core of libertarianism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  12. gVOR08 says:

    @Doug Mataconis: What @CSK: said. There’s impeachment, Article 4, ill health, assassination, Godly lightning, torches and pitchforks. Try to show a little optimism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. CSK says:

    @gVOR08:

    Thanks, but you forgot a stake through the heart and buried at a crossroad, a silver bullet, and/or garlic and a crucifix.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Gustopher says:

    @gVOR08: Don’t forget nature turning on him. I’m betting on groundhogs attempting to mate with his hair thing, resulting in a broken neck.

    Of course, groundhogs also love pumpkins, so they might eat his face.

    Anyway, if we are having a pool, I say death by groundhog. It’s a long shot, but imagine the glory of being able to say “I predicted it”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. gVOR08 says:

    @KM:

    It was never about “protecting the country” or “jobs”. It was always about keeping THEM out.

    Out, or down. Trump is really the Southern Strategy writ large and with the veneer ripped off. Silly Republicans, they always thought if they were too openly racist it would alienate the soccer moms. Turned out even being openly misogynistic didn’t alienate too many soccer moms.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Daryl's other brother Darryl says:

    Breaking:
    Vos is confirmed on a tie-breaking vote from Pence.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. bookdragon says:

    I doubt he needs to bother with this. This country is not going to get nearly the immigration applications it used to. Universities are already seeing fewer foreign students interested in studying here. The best and brightest that used to want a chance at becoming Americans are increasingly looking elsewhere.

    Heck, now that President Bannon has given his alt-right buddies a green light to go full brownshirt by changing the CVE program so it no longer goes after white supremacist groups, a lot of citizens are starting to think about finding safe havens elsewhere.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. James Pearce says:

    @al-Alameda:

    It feels like were in a period of a very strong reactionary nativist conservative restoration, so I have to hope that liberals and Democrats have a strong case to make in order to regain control of at least one chamber of congress.

    We do have a strong case, but there are certain dynamics in the Dem/progresso-sphere that will make it difficult to make.

    For one, this knee-jerk suspicion that racism is at the heart of Trump’s immigration policies. I have no doubt that racism is at the heart of the support for Trump’s policies, but Trump –for all his bluster– more than likely believes that restricting immigration will be good for Americans.

    He believes this not because he’s a white guy who thinks brown people are bad, but because he’s an ignorant dumbass who believes what he reads on Breitbart.

    If we want to win this fight, we’re going to have to shut up about racism and xenophobia (it will be a challenge, I know) and instead start talking about how immigration is actually the best “America First” policy we can have.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Erik says:

    eliminating several avenues for U.S. citizens and permanent residents to sponsor family members for green cards

    Because nothing helps prevent radicalization like isolating people from those they love

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. george says:

    Maybe we could just make this retroactive to before 1492? Just saying …

    The jobs element has always been a smoke screen. A lot of the biggest proponents of heavy immigration were conservative leaders, because immigration improved the economy and that’s basically all they cared about. There’s been a revolution in the GOP, and Trump beat the old GOP (and in basically the same way, with far less than a majority of GOP primary votes) and has decided that all the time conservatives were interested in cheap labor was just an illusion.

    Immigration doesn’t take away jobs. Globalization takes away a few jobs, but its minimal. Automation is taking away jobs, and is going to continue to do so, encroaching into white collar occupations like teaching, medicine, engineering, finance, and in fact most knowledge based occupations simply because expert systems will soon be better at them (and much cheaper) than humans.

    If the Dems can solve that problem (my favorite is a guaranteed income and a 20 hour work week) they’ll be set, and the country (and world for that matter) set on a track which can work. If not, we’re in for disaster no matter who’s in charge, because 90% of the work will be done by automation, and there are going to be a lot of energetic, and very frustrated young people with nothing to lose – and that never turns out well.

    Ask anyone working in CAD systems, robotics and expert systems – society is going to have to change, or face the complete disappearance of the middle class.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. Gustopher says:

    @Erik: The goal is clearly to prevent the first people from coming here at all, since they won’t be able to bring their families.

    Of course, that means that the immigration system becomes something of a sieve, letting through only those who either have no families, or have no strong connection to their families — a motley collection of stray dogs and lone wolves.

    But don’t worry, we will be cutting back on the number of brown people, so those stray dogs and lone wolves will be white. They will radicalize to the right. Probably perfect candidates for the various militia movements.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. Gustopher says:

    @george: I have faith that there will be high end service jobs, to service the very wealthy and politically connected. Five diamond positions that make several thousand dollars an hour. Also, manservents. A professional class of nannies to raise the children.

    That becomes our new upper middle class. The middle will then be the people who provide services for those high end servants.

    We will be categorized by how many degrees away we are from the billionaires, with money trickling down. There will be different classes of barista.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. Pch101 says:

    Pearce:

    He believes this not because he’s a white guy who thinks brown people are bad

    versus reality:

    “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

    “I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down. Thousands of people were cheering.”

    “I think Islam hates us … There’s a tremendous hatred.”

    “According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.”

    Trump is a sociopath who has no regard for the truth, or the country, or anything or anyone except for himself. Wake up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. gVOR08 says:

    @James Pearce:

    but Trump –for all his bluster– more than likely believes that restricting immigration will be good for Americans.

    If you’re going to say Trump gives a flying flip about what’s good for Americans I demand to see proof. Trump promised the rubes he’d do this so he’s going to do this to sustain their support of him.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    Wake up.

    Lemme get this right. Trump is a sociopath who has no regard for the truth, but you’re going to take at face value the bullshit he tells his supporters anyway? Wake up indeed….

    Trump’s going anti-immigration because he knows a) the racists in his base will love it and b) liberals/progressives/Dems are not quite up to the task of opposing it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    you’re going to take at face value the bullshit he tells his supporters anyway

    Er, that’s what you did before when you claimed that he was a dupe of Breitbart.

    Once that position was challenged, you’ve switched gears by claiming that he is telling his followers what they want to hear.

    Congratulations: Within 45 minutes, you’ve gone from believing that Trump is a puppet to seeing him as a cynical manipulator. This kind of about face must be some sort of interwebs record.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. James Pearce says:

    @gVOR08:

    If you’re going to say Trump gives a flying flip about what’s good for Americans I demand to see proof.

    C’mon now…This is what I mean when I say “not quite up to the task.”

    Instead of debating the benefits of immigration, you’d rather debate whether Trump gives a flying flip about America.

    Count me out on that one.

    @Pch101:

    Er, that’s what you did before when you claimed that he was a dupe of Breitbart.

    I can’t wait till you finish your undergraduate, dude…

    You don’t think it’s possible to be a master manipulator and a complete flipping tool at the very same time? How many sociopaths have you encountered anyway?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. Hal_10000 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Now, with that clear, Doug, maybe we can talk about the absurdity, fact-avoidance and toddler-selfishness that are the core of libertarianism.

    You misspelled liberalism.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    My washing machine could take spinning lessons from you.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. JohnMcC says:

    In the original post: “…Cotton’s proposal…runs counter to ideas that have been an important part of this country for more than two centuries…”

    I suppose one could stretch and discover a ‘modern’ attitude toward immigration and immigrants almost from the Revolution but it would be a YUUUGE stretch. A short glance at a history of the real facts concerning, to take one example, of Japanese immigration to California and Hawaii would show that nativists/racists have had legislative advantage and popular support every time immigration has emerged as an issue. The way immigration has been accepted for the last 25yrs or more is the historical anomaly, as Sen Cotton says, and something that should be preserved. But pretending we have always accepted foreigners is simply incorrect (or ‘alternative’).

    Interesting discussion and comments here as always. The quality of the original post, not so much.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    My washing machine could take spinning lessons from you.

    Every appliance in your house could take lessons from me, bud.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. Pch101 says:

    @James Pearce:

    A breadmaker that only half-bakes doesn’t sound ideal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. michael reynolds says:

    @Hal_10000:

    I’m sorry, you think selfishness is at the heart of liberalism? Try again, because that’s just dumb.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Just 'nutha ig'nint cracker says:

    Now, Republicans in the Senate and the House, and across the nation, will be forced to take a position, thus allowing us to separate the real anti-immigration forces from the rest of the party and forcing them to take a stand on an issue

    This statement presumes that the GOP is of two minds on immigration. Given that 91% of Republicans polled agree with Trump’s position on the Muslim Ban, there is no reason to believe that there is a “rest of the party” to counterbalance the “anti-immigration forces.”

    On the other hand, it’s probably useful to be clear on the whole there-are-no-moderate-Republicans thing.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. James Pearce says:

    @Pch101:

    A breadmaker that only half-bakes doesn’t sound ideal.

    The set-up was a bit of a stretch (a breadmaker?) but the punchline was pretty good.

    I’ll allow it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  36. R.Dave says:

    gVOR08 Wrote:: There’s impeachment, Article 4, ill health, assassination, Godly lightning, torches and pitchforks. Try to show a little optimism.

    More seriously, I think the single most effective way to ensure Trump is a one-term President would be for Congress to pass a law requiring that Presidents divest their assets upon taking office. No way Trump would even run again.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  37. Hal_10000 says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Seflishness we could argue, keeping in mind that opposing solving social problems through largesse is not necessarily selfish.

    But fact-avoiding and toddler-like are irrefutable. I could talk about how the movement thinks we can get all kind of free stuff and pay for it by only raising taxes on the rich. I could point out the quasi-religious belief that Keynesian economics and gun control irrefutably work despite evidence that is mixed at best. I could point out the behavior since the election, which included some rioting, lots of denial, all kinds of blame-throwing and massive conspiracy mongering that culminated in giving millions to that crackpot Jill Stein. I could point out how even the most minor setbacks at SCOTUS cause rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. I could point to the recent riots and chaos in Berkeley that gave that idiotic troll Yiannopoulos all the attention he could ever want.

    Or I could just point to this very thread.

    News: “some Republicans oppose some forms of legal immigration.”

    Response: “THIS JUST PROVES ALL CONSERVATIVES ARE HYPOCRITICAL RACIST BIGOTS!”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. Hal_10000 says:

    Note: right before he left office, Barack Obama ended the wet-foot-dry-foot policy toward Cuban refugees we have had for two decades. A number of Republicans spoke out against it but the pro-immigrant Left has been very quiet about it. Does this prove that liberals hate Cubans and love communist dictators?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. rachel says:

    @Hal_10000: Why should the Cubans, at this point in history, still be excepted from jumping through the hoops that everybody else has to?

    ETA: These are hoops that liberals also helped put in place, BTW.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  40. JohnMcC says:

    @Hal_10000: Just to be completely clear, the welcome given to anti-castro Cubans had very little to do with love of Cubans, enthusiasm for immigrants or hatred of communist leaders. It had a great deal to do with the R-party ensuring itself of the 29 electors Florida sends to Tallahassee every four years.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  41. James Pearce says:

    @JohnMcC:

    It had a great deal to do with the R-party ensuring itself of the 29 electors Florida sends to Tallahassee every four years.

    You mean people will vote for you if you work for them?

    Maybe Democrats should try it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  42. Jake says:
  43. grumpy realist says:

    @Jake: and you quote, without any hesitation, something from a site that calls itself ‘theconservativetreehouse” and don’t have any sense that they might be cherry-picking their figures/using a push-pull survey?

    Okaaaay…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  44. grumpy realist says:

    P.S. If Mr. Cotton had been running the US during WWII I have no doubt but that the US would have lost the huge influx of European scientists that had such an effect both on the war and on the steaming ahead of U.S. technology.

    That’s right, guys. Stop making the U.S. a place where the best and the brightest want to come, and what happens?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  45. mike shupp says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Nah. I once lived in a rural area, where the better classes of society were much perturbed by the aliens who crept across our borders, many of them unable to speak proper English, but in search of a comfortable living thanks to our generous welfare system. I speak, of course, of Vermont, in the late 1950’s, and the despicable intruders were French Quebecois.

    There are sentiments of the heart that bind us Americans together, North and South, in stunning patriotic unity, despite our apparent differences. Never let it be forgot!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. JohnMcC says:

    @James Pearce: Oh geez, say something pretty obvious and get my ears boxed.

    The anti-Castro Cuban-Americans make an interesting political science topic. Their most significant issue was to have the US be their proxy in what was really an internal Cuban conflict that they had lost at home. The R’s promise that they would fight Fidel tooth and claw was more believable than the Dem’s promise to do much the same. So a relatively small group with a strong agenda positioned themselves as the deciding factor in Florida’s elections and the R’s benefitted from the tilt. Fair enough.

    The Irish did much the same back in the late 19th century when they took a strong anti-English agenda and made it a condition of getting elected from Boston, NYC and similar concentrated Irish-American communities. In the 1870’s the US Navy and the Royal Navy considered each other to be ‘most likely enemies’ in their plans and acquisitions.

    It’s YOUR history, dude. And it’s how politics works. Yes, of course Democrats should be working to get votes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0