The Democrats' Immigration Strategy

My democratic friends strongly reject any policy involving expelling or punishing illegal immigrants.

But when I ask them, "So, you are in favor of open borders?" they recoil with horror: "Of course not! That is just a fringe position."

And they also strenuously object to any attempt to check legal voting status when elections are held.

I admire open-border libertarians (although I think they are wrong) much more than these conniving bastards: these people want lots of angry, easily exploitable people in the United States, and then want to make sure no one can block them from voting, because they are certain that such a population will be a continual source of votes for Democrats.

I.e., lots of garment district sweatshops or sex-slave massage parlors = lots of votes for Democrats, so those things are A-OK!


  1. Yeah, but moreover.

    Those guys want people to be able to enter illegally, without threat of being removed.

    But those guys don't want those people to have a legal civil status, such as what would happen under an open borders regime.

    It's almost like they deliberately want a clandestine, underground class of people that can be exploited for poor wages and working conditions, and prevent them from becoming legal that would improve their wages and working conditions. Almost.

    1. Prateek, Democrats believe the exact opposite of what you're describing: they want to stop people from entering illegally in future, and they want to give legal civil status and eventual citizenship to those who are already here. So they are not for exploitation of illegal immigrants at all.

  2. Gene, the vast majority of Democrats would be absolutely fine with the following: securing the border, expanding legal immigration guest-worker visas, and giving the illegal immigrants who are already here a pathway to citizenship that involves paying a fine, paying back taxes, and learning English. So they are not for either open borders or exploiting illegal immigrants.

    And regarding voter ID laws, the reason Democrats are against them is not because they want voter fraud to occur, but because it's difficult for a lot of people to obtain the requisite ID's, and because the prevalence of in-person voter impersonation fraud is vanishingly small. But if we were to adopt a national biometric ID card and gave it to all citizens in the country for free, the vast majority of Democrats would be absolutely fine with voter ID laws.

    1. Keshav, that's a really silly comment. Actually a shilly one.

      First, if you are unwilling to enforce immigration law it is untrue that you oppose open borders. It is only true you say it, and the only reason for that is to deceive people. Some of the people they hope to deceive are immigrant voters. So they do wish to exploit them. Every claim in your point 1 is wrong.

      In 2 you give the game away. It is not at all difficult for a legal immigrant or alien to get state ID. I used my passport. On what basis do you say such fraudulent voting is vanishingly rare? Have you evidence? Do you know of the elections that were overturned in the U.K. for that reason?
      Why also should a national biometric card be easier to obtain than state ID now? Or did you forget the first sentence of that paragraph?

    2. @Ken B Most Democrats would be perfectly willing to enforce our immigration laws, as long as we give a pathway to citizenship for the illegal immigrants that we already have.

      In any case, a lot of studies have been done which have established that in-person voter impersonation fraud is vanishingly small in the U.S. Now as to national ID thing, my point was just that if the government made it so that people did not have to make an effort to obtain an ID, then Democrats would be willing to have a voter ID law.

    3. Someone who supports amnesty now and enforcement later does not actually support enforcement. The most we could say for such a person is that they might start supporting enforcement in the future. It's like, if I tell you that I'm going to start going the gym, that doesn't make me "a person who goes to the gym" until I actually show up and lift some weights.

    4. Ken B,

      There was an academic study a few years ago that found that there had only been 9 fraudulent votes cast in American elections in the last 12 years. This is the total for all municipal, county, state, and federal elections.

      P.S. There was also a study last year which found that something like 55% of studies in social science areas are hogwash.

    5. Greg
      Yes. Unless there is an audit Keshav has nothing to substantiate his claim. Note he did not address my proven examples in the U.K.
      You are right about repeated amnesties of course.

    6. @Greg The vast majority of Democrats would support a bill that did amnesty now along with border security now and enforcement now for those who come after the enactment of the bill.

    7. Keshav
      That is indeed what they would SAY. It is after all what they SAID last time.
      This contradicts your earlier comment by the way, since an amnesty involves no fines.

    8. "The vast majority of Democrats would support a bill that did amnesty now along with border security now and enforcement now for those who come after the enactment of the bill."

      That perhaps may be true of the base. But that doesn't matter: the strategic leadership of the party will never go for it! They *want* this stream of disenfranchised people because they think they can turn them into reliable Democratic voters.

  3. Keshav,

    Most Democrats *support* Voter ID, and some are immigration skeptics. When Gene talks about what Democrats say, he's talking about Democrat elites, i.e. the ones who set the party's positions.

    1. Yes, exactly. We're talking about the people who actually set the agenda. And Keshav, they don't give a hoot what you or other "ordinary" Democrats think about this.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!

The biggest intellectual nothing burger of the last century?