Friday, September 07, 2018

Democrats running on immigration restriction of any kind?

Are there any in the country who are doing so in gubernatorial, House, or Senate elections in November? In Kansas, Kris Kobach's opponent Laura Kelly offers not a word about immigration in the "issues" section of her campaign website. And Sharice Davis, who is running against the useless Kevin Yoder, has this to say:
Do the hard work necessary to finally achieve comprehensive immigration reform. 
Work across the aisle to develop common sense policy that supports our nation’s role as a beacon of hope for people around the world.
Fight to protect DACA recipients and create a pathway to citizenship for those undocumented immigrants -- our friends, teachers, neighbors -- who have known no other home.
In 2015, Bernie Sanders famously called open borders a "Koch brothers' policy". Had he not immediately course-corrected, never to volunteer another word in opposition to unfettered immigration, he would not have been able to challenge Hillary for the nomination and to have become the spiritual leader of the party that he is today. As strongly in favor of open borders as Democrat politicians are, their grassroots activists are even more zealously demanding of them.

What I'm looking for is anything even a baby-step beyond "comprehensive immigration reform".

I'm currently working on a project with a well known cultural dissident--much better known than I am--and would like to assert that there is not a single Democrat across the country running on enforcement of our existing immigration laws, let alone calls for tougher ones.

For that assertion to be made, though, it needs to be valid. If you're aware of any information to the contrary, please share in the comments.

20 comments:

snorlax said...

There are a few who pretend to be in favor of some token measures in order to get elected. Like Rep. Kyrsten Sinema who's running for Senate in Arizona was one of the tiny number of Democrats who voted for "Kate's Law" which would defund sanctuary cities.

As far as genuine restrictionists go, I'm having a hard time thinking of any. There's John Morganelli who lost (in an upset) the primary for a PA congressional district.

Voting for any Democrat, for any reason, or advocating the same, is equivalent to turkeys voting for Christmas. Period.

Audacious Epigone said...

snorlax,

Thank you very much, that's exactly the kind of "exception that proves the rule" I was after.

Jrm said...

Peter defazio used to be the best Democrat on immigration in Congress. But apparently, no more.

216 said...

Henry Cuellar, Blue Dog incumbent Texas, if not for Hispanic apathy he'd have been turfed out years ago. The prototypical "Bush Democrat". The following is the same lie that McCain was running on for years and years.

http://www.henrycuellar.com/news-clips/congressman-says-virtual-border-wall-better-actual-wall

Jon Tester, Montana. Quite the cultural chauvinist, sadly not for our culture.
https://www.jontester.com/issues/defending-native-american-rights/
https://www.jontester.com/issues/protecting-our-rural-way-of-life/

Far as a cursory search can tell, immigration maximalism is an absolute in the Democrats.

This guy has no chance, he's running in a safe Mormon seat. But it looks like it was unfrozen from 2010 carbonite.

https://swisherforidaho.com/immigration/

===

Outside of the US, the Socialist government (Smer-SD) in Slovakia is anti-invader.

snorlax said...

I should add that all except Lipinski and Traficant represented very conservative districts or states which would otherwise probably have elected restrictionist GOPers. So not exactly a list of profiles in courage.

Feryl said...

Snorlax:

It's interesting to read articles from the 2000's and 2010's about campaigns to target and eliminate rivals from the other party. While this has obviously gone on in the past, it's also true that in less corrupt and happier eras, people are more comfortable with forging bi-partisan alliances. It's often been noted that the mid-90's is when the congress shifted to being at or near a Boomer majority, which immediately caused bi-partisan efforts to crumble and also caused many moderates of each party to resign after several years of feeling estranged in their own party in the 1990's.

Your list also makes it obvious that around circa 2010, the Democrats no longer had any emerging figures willing to challenge the elite liberal consensus on immigration, and were shedding the established ones who would have done so. To me this is analogous to the 1990's purge of "Rockefeller Republicans" (less hawkish, less morally sanctimonious, and less rabidly anti-government spending than TrueCons) within the GOP. While it took Republicans almost 30 years to embrace a less rigidly dogmatic Republican (Trump), it would seem as if the Dems are on schedule to embrace a less dogmatic liberal in......the 2040's. Yikes.

IHTG said...

This Twitter thread is useful: https://twitter.com/DeanDeChiaro/status/880544905432530944

Although his NumbersUSA score is bad, Mark Krikorian says Minnesota's Collin Peterson has "always been good on immigration".

Zagg said...

Snorlax: I live in what was Lipinski’s district until we were redistricted into Gutierrez/Garcia. The district comprises SW Side of the city and some SW suburbs. I sure wouldn’t call it conservative. Most of the voters are Daley Dems. Is or was heavily Catholic. Lipinski faced a Leftist opponent this year who openly attacked his non-appproved positions.

Audacious Epigone said...

216,

Thanks. In some ways it's even "better" if the Dems who do take a squishy moderate restrictionist stance go down. Feryl won't like it, but I think we need the issue to be even more clearly partisan than it is now.

snorlax,

Man, that's yeoman work. Thanks very much.

It looks like it'll probably be beneficial to scour all ~470 senate/house races to get an accurate count. This list will give a useful perspective of the direction things are moving in.

IHTG,

Yes, very useful. Thanks!

Anonymous said...

I'm going to troll everybody by running for public office some time in the future. I'll be a Democrat who runs on an immigration-restrictionist platform.

I will work towards having 500,000 illegals deported each year. This number is high enough to trigger liberals and still low enough to trigger the Aryan Brotherhood. I want to see salty tears on all sides.

I will work to completely end the diversity visa. Diversity for its own sake should not be pursued. Cue liberal tears. I will also work to reduce the number of family-sponsored visas and immediate relative visas by as much as I can.

The immigrants to the United States should be legal ones who have the intelligence, work ethic, education, and job skills that I deem necessary for admittance. I will set the highest standards for the immigrants that can come here, but they won't be race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion based. My immigration plan will give the United States more white immigrants. But not the ones the white supremacists want. You're not going to get the "boots o the ground" working class types. You're getting IQ 130 SWPLs from Oxford/LSE/TU Munich/Heidelberg/Zurich. You're also going to get a lot colored immigrants, but the ones who simultaneously piss off liberals and the "alt-right". You're not going to get many blacks or hispanics. Cue liberal tears. You ARE going to get significant numbers of jews, asians and subcontinentals. Cue wn tears.

If I could decrease immigration from 1.18 million per year to 0.5 million per year, and get a racial mix that makes both Democrats and Republicans maximally triggered, I will do it.

216 said...

AE,

I'm going to disagree, the GOP is despised by our cultural elite, and the SWPL "white college" class takes its signals from them. Take the example of the NRA, they were formerly able to exercise their influence across the aisle with blue dog Dems, like legacy Hispanic Joe Baca (D-CA) and the otherwise far-left John Dingell (D-MI), that generation is gone and the NRA is a de-facto part of Cuck Inc.

A solid 45% and increasing of America will never vote for any Republican, let alone Trump, and this number can be roughly estimated at 35% of whites (1972,1984). The strongest rhetoric in favor of immigration control is that of underclass wages and environmental damage. The GOP will never be able to be pro-union or anti-fossil fuel, at best neutrality on one of the above. The Dems have a fight under the radar of NIMBYism vs more housing, and gentrification vs POC chauvinism.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/bv5282d2b3.png

Assuming this graph is correct, white fertility was on a steady increase from 1990-2008. This might explain why the Bush types weren't so worried about immigration. The 90s apparently saw non-white fertility going down, while white fertility was stable/increasing.

216 said...

Anon,

19th/20th century motivations to move to the US were centered on the higher income levels, but a fairly similar cost of living. I don't see why anyone in the EU professional class would choose to live in America unless their incomes were at least 1.5-2x higher. The two largest Jewish populations in the world are in the US and Israel. Not a lot of European Jews are going to leave the EU for the US, when Canada is more to their liking. Nor do I see many Jews rushing to emigrate from Israel in search of higher income, the ones that would leave would be shirking military service.

The high IQ pools that do want to come to the US are Chinese, Indian, African, and possibly a few white Latin Americans. While some Russians might like to come here, their government would put in place severe restrictions to prevent brain drain. The only "white" immigrants you would get would be Sunni Arabs, surely to attract the highest level of opposition. A variant of the policy you propose already exists, in the program that has virtually open admissions for any physician that practices for 10 years in a "low income area". Better luck with an immigration policy that only allows in unmarried females of a certain attractiveness level.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon/216,

There is even less a constituency for that platform than their is for Bill Kristol's. If it's enjoyed as a thought exercise, fine, but the idea that Dem grassroots would support it is in anywhere across the country is risible.

216 said...

AE,

The Dem base's policy goals are very emotive. The left has a belief that anyone is entitled to come to the First World for a "better life". Different foods are used a serious argument for the benefits of immigration (followed by POC cooks complaining that white people won't pay more for "ethnic" foods). Working class non-whites focus only on brining over family members than on the impact that immigration has on wages and housing prices.

Obviously they would never support a true "merit" plan, as it is in defiance of their values system, and ignores the reason they are so dedicated to mass immigration: permanent socialist majority, and the desire to punish whites and blur them out of existence. This is why they freaked out over an NBC report on Russian "birth tourism".

Jim Bowery said...

The very phrase "comprehensive immigration reform" was made radioactive by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which was the "comprehensive immigration reform" of the nascent neocon takeover of the Republican party. The reason the phrase is radioactive isn't simply nor even primarily due to the fact that amnesty preceded enforcement. The phrase is radioactive because it brings to mind that the Federal government isn't remotely legitimate and that all who were admitted to the US and then campaigned for more to be admitted to the US constitute an invading army that effectively destroyed politics as the continuation of war by fraudulent means, leaving only force ast the only effective option. The folks waving around "comprehensive immigration reform" may think that what they are doing is waving a red cape before a mre cow with testosterone poisoning, but what they are really doing is asking to have the physical infrastructure of urban areas disrupted, and those fleeing death to the countryside, met with a blizzard of steel.

216 said...

Jim,

"Earned citizenship" polls well, as does "assimilation". "Abolish ICE" went from fringe, to Dem mainstream in the space of months. "White nationalism" polls horribly. Colin Kaperick was at one point only popular with 25%, he's now probably at 45% and 55% if you include the people saying he has a "right to protest".

"Quotas" is known to poll badly, so "Affirmative action" was invented to obliviate this. Of course, affirmative action is far worse than explicit quotas as the entire process occurs behind closed doors with no records.


Anonymous said...

@216

I think you seriously underestimate the number of white foreigners and jewish foreigners who would come to the United States.

Ireland. Southern Europe. Eastern Europe. white hispanic elite from Latin America.

I want to look at Israel's cognitive top 10% and also the top jews from the UK.


My ultimate goal would be to use immigration to make America just white enough to trigger liberals and just colored enough to trigger the least fanatical individuals in the "alt-right". Of course the coloreds need to be ones who are not detrimental to my personal happiness, so it'll have to be jews, asians, and subcontinentals. I have a feeling that the ideal percentage is somewhere in the 75% range. Anything between 70%-79% will do.

216 said...

Anon,

Less than 10% of the world population is white, down from its 1914 peak of 25%. I doubt whites are even 25% of the high IQ population worldwide.


EU citizens with college education can go to Canada without much trouble as most Europeans are taught English alongside their home language. We don't see that much movement, but we do see the Chinese and Subcontinentals colonizing the major cities of Canada. The North American lifestyle is not appealing to most Europeans, for all the British complaining about how un-free and Islamized they are, you can own firearms and live with a higher quality of foreigners in Canada. Yet the British seem to prefer Spain(retirees) and Australia.

And the Canadian immigration system is rigged to prefer the UK and France, being that a higher level of English proficiency exists in France than French proficiency in the UK, large numbers Frogs should be crossing the pond. As far as I can tell, the flow is disproportionately Jewish.

http://canadaimmigrants.com/french-immigrants-to-canada/

Your proposal has no real seriousness to it, the Quixotic balkanization ideas I propose have a better likelihood of happening.

Anonymous said...

@216

I like Canada. It has exactly the amount of diversity to trigger the "alt-right" but is still white enough to trigger liberals.

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Check back in a decade on that!