Republican Short-term Thinking On Immigration
Print Friendly and PDF

Talk show host Laura Ingraham today did a great job covering the amnesty which the usual suspects are trying to force on the nation. She covered many of the arguments you usually only get reading and emphasized that the Gang of Eight proposal would hurt middle class incomes. She also offered a note of hope that a public outcry could kill this monstrosity.

But some of the most interesting comments came from her guest Byron York. For example, York said that in spite of the efforts to make fun of a border fence—such as if we build a 20 foot fence they will bring a 21 foot ladder—border fences actually do a very good job at stopping illegal aliens. Money is wasted deploying high-tech border "security" without fences by those who really do not want to stop the invasion.

The most interesting opinion in the interview was York's idea of what the Republicans are after—and it exposes a major flaw in the American mind: short-term thinking.

Years ago my father was the head of a research lab for a major American manufacturer. He used to complain about short-term thinking in American business. For example, instead of pursuing quality, a guy who found a way to make a part a half cent cheaper was a big hero to the bosses. Similarly, executives worried only about how to have a successful next quarter. They often would take their success and move on to a better job. In contrast, the Japanese steadily built quality and captured market share for the long term.

Many of us have long wondered why Republicans cannot see that amnesty and failing to stop Hispanic and Third World immigration dooms them. I wondered even more after Paul Nachman recommended Larry Auster's excellent comprehensive article covering almost all the arguments against Third World immigration HUDDLED CLICHÉS Exposing the Fraudulent Arguments That Have Opened America’s Borders to the World[PDF]. Auster gives an example of why Republican pandering is a losing strategy.

In Auster's example, Hispanics make up 12% of the population in 2000, but Republican inaction (or worse, amnesty) causes the Hispanic population to rise to 25% of the population by 2050.

Hispanics reward Republican compliance with their invasion by giving them 33% of the Hispanic vote—but of course that means Democrats win 67%. So 67% times the 25% of the population which is Hispanic means Hispanics give Democrats 16.7% of the total national vote.

On the other hand, suppose immigration is stopped cold and Republicans lose 100% of the 12% of the population which is Hispanic. It is obvious to anyone but a Republican that losing 12% of the national vote is better than losing 16.7%.

(Note: this example demonstrates a concept only—in reality being for amnesty does not necessarily win more Hispanic votes and Hispanics do not necessarily vote against those restricting immigration. It also does not succumb to the Republican fantasy that once amnesty is out of the way Hispanics will show themselves to be "natural Republicans." No, Hispanics want big government and the wealth transfers Democrats offer. Hispanics—and indeed most immigrants—are natural Democrats.)

But York indicates that the pandering example is exactly the mistake that Republicans are making: he says Republicans are not thinking about the future Hispanic population but instead merely hope that voting for amnesty will get them a few more percentage points (but still far less than half) from the present Hispanic population.

So how can Republicans be this stupid? York's answer shows that Republicans are really thinking about the next few elections and the future be damned. This kind of thinking from politicians is not surprising when you consider the unsustainable national debt which they never get around to fixing. Politicians want to win now for themselves rather than do what is good for the country. Foolish and selfish short-term thinking—it is what our politicians do.

Print Friendly and PDF