Elite vs. popular opinion on massive immigration: an analysis
Posted Mon, May 22, 2006 at 9:17 pm
From 2003 comes this long analysis from a former aide to Mexico's National Action Party (PAN). In that capacity he spoke with 80 putatively American legislators, mostly federal:
...In these talks with the congressmen, this author encountered an unexpectedly large amount of sympathy for the proposal to extend amnesty to existing undocumented immigrants, and to even increase immigration from Mexico. Interestingly, several of them were proposing amnesty with us even before it became Fox's official policy (this was duly reported back to the campaign)...He goes on to divide those "congressmen" (that is, the 80 legislators with whom he spoke) into four quadrants similar to those in the political compass, analyzing the possible reasons those in each of those quadrants would support massive immigration. The following is not indicative of the rest of the article, but it does show how many legislators think when they think they're talking to a comprade:
...Only five congressmen expressed an unequivocal concern (four of them politely) with immigration in general, and opposition to illegal immigration in particular. The rest who expressed concern about immigration touched on the issue in passing, but did not emphasize it, preferring to touch on other matters...
...The traditional division between "conservatives" and "liberals," and then between Republicans and Democrats, is not a good way to explain this behavior...
...several congressmen mentioned how happy they were with their Hispanic constituents. The more usual compliments included: "They are grateful for whatever you give them;" "they never give me problems, I love going to their barrio;" "they are loyal;" "they are a gentle people;" and "they make ideal constituents." Referring to the mostly white population of his district, one congressman apologized for his "redneck" constituents who "don't understand" the importance of increased immigration. Another congressman spoke of the consequences immigration would eventually have for his competing party, in that it would "disappear, once and for all."
Comments
Bartolome M Cajas (not verified)
Sun, 07/23/2006 - 19:29
Permalink
There are two kinds of immigration, legal and illegal. It is the illegal that giving us some problem because these illegal immigrants are not following the legal way of coming here. They do not respect our laws and therefore, no matter how good they are, they should be punished for breaking the immigation law. Violate a traffic regulation and you will be cited.
Chris Lutz (not verified)
Tue, 05/23/2006 - 02:38
Permalink
Isn't it ironic that politicians and the press always cry that the American people are divided, yet when the American people are united in opposing illegal immigration, they are ignored.
John S Bolton (not verified)
Mon, 05/22/2006 - 22:38
Permalink
if there is something that people 'don't understand' on the 'importance of increased immigration', and from Mexico of all places, how come no attempt is made to explain it? If all they can say is 'rednecks' or whatever ad hominem piece of unreason is resorted to, why shouldn't it be assumed that there is no rational argument for mass immigration, in today's circumstance? If there were an argument that made sense, it would be used.
If the politicians were candid, they'd say, well, Mexicans get insulted if you restrict their immigration, because it means you're saying there people are no good. The same is true of any border defense, though; someone will get insulted regardless.