Since 1970, the number of “Hispanics of Mexican origin” in the U.S. has jumped from fewer than 1 million to more than 33 million. If all these Mexicans were a state, it would be the second largest in population in the country, trailing only California.
Did you vote to approve that immigration policy? Did anyone?
A Rhetorical Question
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Let's phrase the question another way: how many voters actively voted for a candidate who would have closed the borders?
If the majority of voters don't vote for the fix...
See, whereas I take the opposite view. The laws were in place, and still are. The government chose to turn a blind eye to it. It is not for the people to continually vote to enforce our laws. It is for our representatives to do their damned jobs.
I voted for candidates who promised border security as often as they appeared on the ballot.
I understand your point, Grim. And if EVERYONE (or even a majority of voters) did that, would we be in our current situation?
I doubt it. You asked, "Did anyone"? My point is that you can support a policy actively or passively (by not choosing to support candidates who make reform/enforcement a priority).
It is not for the people to continually vote to enforce our laws. It is for our representatives to do their damned jobs.
I don't agree, Mike. The way people get into public office is by being voted in. And they *stay* in public office by being repeatedly voted in by a majority of voters.
If a critical mass of candidates who *truly* support strict immigration enforcement are elected because voters care deeply about that issue...
You fill in the rest of the sentence. Polls are full of issues voters support in the abstract. The real test is when the question is asked, "Do you support [the remedy]", and they still say "Yes".
AND vote accordingly. A minority won't do. That's not your fault, or Grim's but it is reality.
One more point: laws expire, are repealed, or simply go unenforced all the time because people aren't willing to spend what it takes to enforce them or no longer believe the harm the law was intended to address is that big a deal.
I think immigration enforcement suffers from both these problems: taxpayers aren't willing to spend what it would take to enforce the current laws. And many voters aren't willing to see families split up due to aggressive deportation. They see the problem, but aren't that worked up about it yet.
In many parts of the US, illegal immigration is still a largely invisible problem. Unless/until it starts causing people in these parts of the country major problems (or costing them major amounts of money), they won't care about it that much.
In a world where morals, values, and priorities are constantly changing (or if you're Obama, "evolving"), I DO think it's up to voters to make themselves heard. Congresscritters will generally do whatever gets them elected, and unfortunately elections do have consequences (like the passage of Obamacare and the DREAM act). Those laws reflect a mix of voter preferences, voter apathy, and downright voter ignorance.
We can't let previous generations pass laws, then refuse to make a big deal if those laws are not enforced (and I'm *not* talking about you or Grim) and trust to divine providence for a miracle. That's kind of what representative government is all about: it reflects the center of mass in voter preferences (where most of the voters are) and that's all too often a moving target .
I think the author's point is that this is a pretty monumental decision about the fate of the Republic, one with an almost infinite set of second order effects, third order effects, etc. One would have thought, in a healthy republic, we would have considered the policy in open debate and voted for (or against) it.
What's happened instead is that the laws we did vote for go unenforced.
I can speak to my locality. We have the abysmal Senator Lindsey Graham as one of our two votes in the US Senate. He went from a firebrand Representative in the Clinton era to a "go-along get-along" Senator who seemed more interested in reaching out to the other side than listening to his constituents. Two election cycles ago, he make a big fuss about "making the bigots who oppose immigration shut up", and spoke to groups like La Raza. I was officially done with him at that point, and now pretty much vote for anyone but him. A man may lie to me and I can deal with him knowing he is a liar. But to slander me then ask for my support... well let's just say my response is not fit for the Hall.
Tellingly, in this last election cycle, he was absolutely silent on immigration. Whether he realized that his pandering paid no dividends, or cost him too many votes, I do not know. But he still got re-elected. Mostly, I suspect, because he has that (R) behind his name, and he talks tough on the military front (the one side of him I could never find much fault with until his recent foray into "I'll drone you without a trial" nonsense). That plays well in South Carolina. And facts are facts, SC is more likely to vote for a blind dog than a Democrat Senator at this point.
I was officially done with him at that point, and now pretty much vote for anyone but him.
This is really my point, Mike: you are voting in a matter consistent with your principles. *If* the majority did that, and *if* the majority wanted strict immigration enforcement, your state would be sending Senators and Reps to Congress with a strong, clear mandate. Multiply that by 50 states, and we'd have a permanent majority in Congress.
The problem I'm trying to point out is what Grim alludes to, here:
... this is a pretty monumental decision about the fate of the Republic, one with an almost infinite set of second order effects, third order effects, etc. One would have thought, in a healthy republic, we would have considered the policy in open debate and voted for (or against) it.
I'm not sure the majority of voters (or Americans) are paying attention. Most don't even know the name of their Representatives, the justices on SCOTUS, etc. I don't they most people care about this issue because - in their view - it's not causing them personal pain.
You can say that about lots of issues: national security, defense spending, entitlements creep... the list goes on and on.
I suspect that if Lindsey Graham couldn't get elected unless he promised strict immigration reform, he'd start fighting for it (especially if he sensed a groundswell of national support that made success seem likely). Immigration is very similar to Social Security: kind of a 3rd rail issue that's easy to demagogue.
It's not hopeless, but I suspect that unless/until a critical mass of voters' personal experience leads them to see illegal immigration as a serious problem that affects their lives on a daily basis, we won't see much change. I'm sure there's a tipping point, but don't think we're there, yet.
Post a Comment