Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Matt Vespa

Bio

June 14, 2013 - 5:11 am

Let me start by saying that I’m not sold on the new immigration bill.  The additional costs, especially with health care, should have everyone asking whether this comprehensive reform should be divided up into separate bills.  As I wrote back in January, Philip Klein at the Washington Examiner aptly noted that:

…the CBO estimated that the law would cover an additional 11 million people on Medicaid (at a cost of $643 billion from 2013 through 2022) and 25 million through the exchanges (at a cost of just over $1 trillion over the same period). So, for every additional 1 million people on Medicaid, the federal government will be spending about $58 billion over the next decade and for every 1 million people on the exchange, taxpayers would be spending about $41 billion. Projecting this out for 8 million new beneficiaries would give a range of $328 billion to $464 billion.

So, the fact that we haven’t found way to pay for this new immigration push has me on the opposite side of Sen. Marco Rubio, but for those who feel that this will destroy the GOP, like Ann Counter, those convictions are misplaced.  Coulter has called Rubio the “Kevorkian” of the Republican Party since she believes these reforms will lead to more liberal voters, which would forever keep the GOP in a “permanent minority.”  That’s fallacious.

James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute has a rather insightful post Thursday debunking some of these myths.

Let me respond with three numbers: 775,000, 0, and 45%.

1. The first number refers to the Democratic Hispanic Bonanza Scenario and supposed deluge of 11 million illegal immigrants/undocumented workers. What if all those folks were citizens last November? Well, of that 11 million, only 10 million are adults. And of that 10 million, only 8 million are Latino. And of that 8 million, only 3.5 million would have been voting-age citizens if undocumented Hispanic immigrants became citizens at the rate equal to that of eligible Hispanic immigrants. And of that 3.5 million, only 1.7 million would actually bother to vote. And of that roughly 1.7 million, how many of these new Latino Americans would be net Democratic votes, nationally? Just 775,000 or so, according Harry Enten, polling analyst at The Guardian. So President Obama would have done about a half percentage point better vs. Mitt Romney. Some bonanza.

2. The second number refers to the Electoral College. Wouldn’t those 775,000 net Democratic voters have flipped a few more states Obama’s way? Not one, according to RealClearPolitics polling analyst Sean Trende. Zero. And key swing states would have been only marginally more difficult to win. Obama would have done, for instance, only 0.2 percentage point better in Ohio, New Hampshire, Missouri, and Minnesota.

3. The third number refers to the average share of the popular vote that GOP presidential candidates have garnered over the past six elections, a pathetic 45%. Republicans don’t need someone to help them commit political suicide. They’re managing just fine on their own. And that deterioration might accelerate if Americans think the GOP killed immigration reform mainly because the party feared reform would produce more Democratic voters. And why wouldn’t Americans think that given the comments of some conservative pundits such as Coulter.

775,000 new Hispanic voters, nationally, is hardly a number to be worried about given that the Millennial generation is becoming the most pro-Democratic generation ever.  If conservatives are worried about a surge of Democratic voters, they’re already here.

So, can we now focus on how this immigration reform will increase the burden of the state on American taxpayers? It’s a message that can resonate more successfully with voters, and if done properly – the GOP can come off looking like the party that’s trying doing immigration reform properly.  Roy Beck of Numbers USA has already stated the threats this bill has to American workers, and said this wouldn’t be the problem that it is now if Congress had honored it’s own immigration reforms in 1986, 1990, and 1996.  All three promised border security, but never delivered.  That’s Washington for you.  In the meantime, the status quo remains the cheapest option for taxpayers, but it’s an unsustainable course of action.  Heck, even Rich Trumka of the AFL-CIO has called on Congress to improve worker protections, which only highlights that no one is really happy about how this is going.

Matt Vespa is a conservative blogger who contributes to CNS News, RedState, Noodle Pundit, and was formerly with Hot Air's GreenRoom.

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (11)
All Comments   (11)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
That's it? That's what you've got? The best thing you can find to say about this bill is that it's not guaranteed to help the Democrats that much? If I'm reading this right we should reward upwards of 11 million people for brazenly breaking the law just because you've done some back-of-the-envelope calculations and determined that it won't result in that many new Democratic voters.

Sorry, but that I find that logic morally repellent.

What this debate should properly be about is respect for the law, preserving our sovereignty and preserving our culture. History has shown us that the people we're talking about rewarding respect neither our laws nor our sovereignty and have no real intention of assimilating into our culture. Based on that alone this bill should be a non-starter.

And if this is the kind of thinking going on in GOP circles then I'm sorry but the party SHOULD die, so we can replace it with one that actually values citizenship and defends the Constitution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's not 'comprehensive immigration reform'; by damn, it's 'incomprehensible immigration reform'!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Ahem....what exactly happened to Republican political fortunes in California after the general amnesty that Reagan agreed to in the 1980's that was conditioned upon greater border security (the border security, of course, never actually happening)?

No matter how it's sliced, we can see empirically that this is a bad idea.

Been there, done that.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Note: it should be "So, can we *now* (not know) focus on how this immigration reform will increase the burden of the state on American taxpayers?"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Damn straight that immigration reform should be divided into separate bills. After that point Mr. Vespa's math is questionable at best. Democrats wouldn't be working so hard to pass "comprehensive" reform unless it was to their political advantage. What, you thought they cared about dignity and fairness? Suuuure!

IMHO we need immigration bills separated not only by subject, but by time. No other problem or perceived problem should be legislated upon until the gubmint can demonstrate 99% effective control of the southern border. Period.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"...of that 11 million, only 10 million are adults. And of that 10 million, only 8 million are Latino. And of that 8 million, only 3.5 million would have been voting-age."

Who does the math here, somebody who has to take their shoes and pants off to count to 21?

Look at this more closely. Only 10 million are adults, meaning only 1 million can be "children", but in the next sentence, it says that only 3.5 million out of 8 million are of voting age??????? The only possible way that makes any sense is if there's another 4.5 million (8-3.5) dead, or still in the womb. Granted, those are mostly Democrat voters anyway.

But let's say that's a numerical mistake, that still leaves 4.5 million to become eligible to vote in the next several years (since they're not children, according to the first reduction). That would certainly change the calculus for the Democrats, wouldn't it?

And what about these other 2 million excluded from the calculation because they're not "Hispanic" (whatever that is)? Wouldn't they mostly be Asians and Muslims, who come out in droves to vote for Republicans, no doubt. (/sarc)

And that doesn't include chain migration, which gives the new "citizens" relatives and gay partners first chance to move here and become new citizens very quickly, by the tens of millions.

The whole "11 million" estimate is a joke to begin with, too. That's by far the low end of any estimate I've ever seen. Given that this is the "consensus" of those pushing this bill, you can bet it's far lower than reality.

Try this number on for size. It's been calculated by others that if Romney had gotten 77% of the Hispanic vote, he still would have lost. So given that no Republican ever got more than 45% of them, every new "citizen" is just another nail in the totalitarian coffin that we'll all soon be in.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Pethokoukis puts a lot of eggs in the veracity of that 11 million figure, our ability to prevent a deluge crossing the border to claim an earlier arrival, and in the Dem voter registration machine.

All of which is irrelevant, anyways -- the key issue is the rule of law.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Mr. Vespa, you must own or lobby for a landscaping company, a food processing plant, or a large truck farm. The ONLY people who'll benefit from this so-called immigration reform are those who like cheap unskilled and semi-skilled labor and Democrats who run their Blue state and cities voter fraud programs. All the Democrats need is the name of a registered voter; they can make sure that name casts a Democrat vote and not even bother that "voter" with all that voting hassle.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In times like these, trying to sell the claim that "it won't be that bad" is truly idiotic marketing.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
But the numbers would be there if ever the Democrat Party would need them. This article is another "Oh, don't worry, it's not as bad as it seems." It is as bad as it seems. Oh, those dreadful foreseen 'unforeseen consequences'!
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All