Immigration policy isn't the key issue for Hispanics,
explains Heather Macdonald at NRO. Welfare policy is. And conservatives can thank '
official and defacto immigration policy favoring low-skilled over high-skilled immigrants' for setting in motion a large wave of liberal voters seeking '
a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation'.
MacDonald warns that the call for conservatives to '
discard their opposition to immigration amnesty' to enhance their electoral prospects is very misguided. She argues that California—a state
undergoing a demographic revolution—is the wave of the future of the U.S., and it does not bode well for those who favor limited government and individual responsibility:
- U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households;
- 1/4th of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over 1/10th of non-Hispanics;
- nearly 7 in 10 poor children in the state are Hispanic;
- 1 in 3 Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than 1 in 6 non-Hispanic children; and
- the idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is a mirage. A
majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center
poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53
percent, about twice that of whites.
In
Immigration: Turning the Tide, Dr. Barry R. Chiswick explains how the demographic revolution began:
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was sold to the
American public as having two major features—amnesty which was to “wipe
the slate clean” of undocumented workers, and employer sanctions which
was to “keep the slate clean”—along with some increased border
enforcement of the immigration law. Employer sanctions were intended to
cut off the “jobs magnet” that attracted undocumented workers to the
United States. Half of the political bargain was fulfilled.
Under its
two major amnesty provisions legal status was granted to nearly 3
million undocumented individuals, nearly all of whom were low-skilled
workers, and millions more have subsequently been able to immigrate as
their relatives. It is noteworthy that while in 1986 the word “amnesty”
was used outright, in the current political debate the “A” word is
anathema to the proponents of what is euphemistically called “earned
legalization.” This by itself is testimony to public perception of the
failures of the 1986 Act.
Can the 'snowball effect' of low-skilled immigrants be reversed? Yes, but only with substantial change in immigration policy. In testimony before a previous Congress, Dr. Chiswick — a University of Illinois at Chicago economist with international expertise in researching the economics of immigration and minorities — argued that the '
current legal immigration system is not serving the best economic interests of the United States', and recommended these among several changes to legal immigration policies:
- end the "nepotism" immigration policy system that encourages low-skilled workers to bring extended family to the U.S.; and
- replace it with "skills-based" immigration policies, such as those adopted by Canada, Australia and New Zealand, that give preference to immigrants who are most likely — by their age, schooling, technical training and proficiency — to add value and strength to the U.S. economy and tax revenues (rather than drain from them).
Don't expect such economy-boosting policy changes to be made in the next four years, however.
