Today’s immigrant voters are heavily Democratic, but ’twas not always so. As Open Borders explains, immigrants were almost evenly split during the Reagan era. It’s not hard to see why. At least rhetorically, Reagan nearly endorsed open borders:
I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.
What changed? The Republicans I know focus on immigrants’ changing national origin. When you look at the data, however, Republicans have lost favor among immigrants around the world. European immigrants are Democratic. So are Indian-Americans – the richest and most socially conservative ethnicity in the country.
What gives? I say there’s been a vicious feedback loop. Once Reagan left the stage, Republicans started feeling more negative about immigrants, which made immigrants more negative about Republicans, which made Republicans more negative about immigrants, which made immigrants more negative about Republicans. And so on and so on.
You could say, “Tragic, but Republicans are stuck. If they don’t keep out immigrants, their party will perish.” Yet common decency aside, the path of exclusion has worked poorly. A vocally anti-immigrant Republican president has totally failed to permanently rewrite immigration law. Even if he gets reelected, Trump will soon be a lame duck.
What’s the alternative? Lose the American’t attitude that “Immigrants hate Republicans – and there’s nothing Republicans can do about it.” Massive partisan realignments really do happen; look what happened to white Catholics over the last fifty years. Or to be more more precise, partisan realignments don’t “happen”; rather they come to fruition. The secret: Far-sighted statesmanship. Start magnanimously showing respect to people who don’t yet vote for you. Search for common ground, and accentuate the positive. If at first you don’t succeed, try try again. And always shuck your tamales.
P.S. Some readers object to the Reagan cartoon’s implied comparison between the Berlin Wall and immigration barriers. There’s a world of difference between keeping people in and keeping people out, right? For private property, yes. For countries, however, the distinction between “keeping people in” and “keeping people out” is far more complicated than it looks:
Suppose, for example, that the East German government closed its airspace to Western aviation and used the Berlin Wall to prevent anyone from leaving the surrounded city of West Berlin. Honecker could have even told his citizens, “You’re free to move to West Berlin, but since we’ve got it surrounded, don’t expect to enjoy too many Western luxuries.” Despite his oppressive intent, Honecker would, grammatically speaking, be keeping West Berliners out of East Germany, not holding East Germans in East Germany.
To make the hypothetical even starker: Imagine the East Germany government legally granted independence to a one-mile strip of land along its entire border. Call it Mauerland. All of the citizens of Mauerland are former officers of the East German border guard; their country is just one big, deadly wall. East Germany then abolishes all laws against emigration; everyone is free to leave. Unfortunately, the sovereign state of Mauerland refuses to grant visas or overflight permission to anyone without the East Germans’ approval. When challenged, they say, “Mauerland, like the United States, has every right to keep foreigners out. You keep out Mexicans. We keep out East Germans.”
See my dialogue on “The Berlin Cage” for more.
READER COMMENTS
Thaomas
Oct 29 2019 at 3:18pm
I’d love to see them try. But I’d argue that they would have a better chance if they argued conservatively for more open borders that would result in more immigrants just like the wonderful immigrants that we have now rather than open borders which might result in who know how many from who know where. It would fit well with their claim to me more interested in economic growth and and geo-political strength vis a vis China.
Rafael Guthmann
Oct 29 2019 at 3:50pm
But, adding millions more immigrants to the labor force of the “Western Alliance” (US, EU, Japan, etc) would surely improve its geopolitical bargaining power against authoritarian states like China, which would also be a plus for open borders since it means liberal democracies which will have a bigger population, will be able to constraint authoritarian states’ influence, hence that both reduce the fraction of the world’s population inside authoritarian states through direct immigration plus the population living inside their spheres of influence. A win-win situation.
Alexander Turok
Oct 29 2019 at 3:48pm
“East Germany then abolishes all laws against emigration; everyone is free to leave. Unfortunately, the sovereign state of Mauerland refuses to grant visas or overflight permission to anyone without the East Germans’ approval. When challenged, they say, “Mauerland, like the United States, has every right to keep foreigners out. You keep out Mexicans. We keep out East Germans.””
You could use this same logic to condemn private property rights. After all, can’t they just declare the 1 mile strip private property and then exercise their right to “keep people out of their property” which Caplan would agree they have?
nobody.really
Oct 29 2019 at 6:27pm
Yes, the Republican Party could win back (much of) the immigrant vote. But it would cost the GOP the votes of the white people without a college education—and that would be a net loss to the party, at least in the short term.
Recall, the GOP party of Lincoln was the original party of civil rights and the oppressed, while the Democrats were the party of the Solid South and state’s rights. Gradually the Democrats became more affiliated with unions, and thus with the working class, while Republicans became affiliated with the educated and elite and affluent. When Kennedy and Johnson expanded the Democratic brand to supporting civil rights for traditionally oppressed groups, Nixon adopted his Southern Strategy to lure away the support of resentful white voters. And it has been a wildly successful political strategy–at least in the short run.
Thus the Republican Party became a fusion of businessmen, libertarians, fundamentalist Christians, and racists. The first two categories provide the money, the latter two categories delivered the votes, and each faction complains that it isn’t getting his fair share of the spoils. Thus, libertarian Caplan fantasized about making the GOP more open to immigrants by—surprise, surprise—making it more libertarian. He evidences little appreciation for the years of work done appealing to the grievances of white people who lack a college education—an appreciation that Trump well understands, and commands.
Maniel
Oct 29 2019 at 7:28pm
Prof Caplan,
The country is currently divided about immigration, but we have always been divided about immigrants. Our first immigrants did not treat the indigenous people with respect or generosity, but then dislike of newer immigrants – the Irish, Jews, Catholics, Chinese, Japanese, and on and on – based on fear of people who look different, smell different, speak a different language, dress differently, and of course, work harder and seek welfare at the same time – became a tradition. Then as now, the fear only subsided as the second and third generations acquired English and became more “Americanized.”
Our “vocally anti-immigrant … president” is exploiting our fear of immigrants, but unfortunately, fear seems to have become a governing principle. Our fear of foreign competition and job loss has enabled tariffs. Our fear that children will be unable to learn has led to attacks on Common Core and placement tests and to repression in our colleges and universities. Our fear that children will lose self-esteem has led to “multiple valedictorians” and to all students receiving ‘A’s. Our fear of children being children has led to excessive parental control, elimination of playground activities, and continual adult supervision. Our fear of insecurity has led to massive government programs which promise to sustain us forever and always, to health care plans designed by politicians, and to over-reliance on drugs.
Even though most us are descended from immigrants, we don’t really get it – that’s who we are, like it or not; and new immigrants are the life’s blood of our country. Fear-based leadership can take us to a very dark place, but like you, I believe that there is a way out of our downward spiral, back to “morning in America.” That is for each of us to honor the courage, work ethic, and devotion to family of our own immigrant ancestors. They gave us the opportunities we have today through hard work and confidence in the future. Our fear of immigrants is fear of our ancestors and ourselves.
I also hope that those among us descended from indigenous people will call on the memory of the grace of their ancestors as they set an example for the rest of us.
BC
Oct 29 2019 at 9:54pm
“Once Reagan left the stage, Republicans started feeling more negative about immigrants,”
Is that the right timing? George W. Bush was able to win 40% support from Hispanics. (Hispanic vote is different than pro-immigrant, but I’m guessing there’s a correlation.) The fervent anti-immigrant GOP seems much more recent, like this decade, similar timing to the hockey-stick explosion of social justice rhetoric on the left. That’s also the same timing of the welfare expansion craziness: started with Obamacare and now has moved on to Medicare for All, free college, etc., which also correlates with renewed support for other long-discredited Big Government policies like rent control and high minimum wages. The crazies have dominated the decade, but it’s only been one decade. It just seems like longer.
Mark
Oct 29 2019 at 11:56pm
It is the right timing if you also look at Asian voters (and there are now more immigrants from Asia than Latin America). Asian support for the GOP peaked in the 90s and has trended strongly Democratic since then.
Thaomas
Oct 31 2019 at 10:35am
I agree about the timing being wrong. Current anti-immigration sentiment, still a minority position) must slightly pre GWB’s push for immigration reform (which was wildly unpopular with core Republicans) but predate passage of ACA.
Mark
Oct 30 2019 at 12:13am
I don’t think immigrants are as cohesive of a voting group as portrayed here, nor is immigration necessarily the top issue for most of them.
For example, it seems that there are significant differences in voting patterns between Hispanics and Asians, our two largest group of immigrants. Trump actually improved on Romney’s performance among Hispanics, and previously 2004 Bush won the record high share of the Hispanic vote based on a jingoistic campaign during the Iraq War. And, Republicans tend to do better among US-born Hispanics than foreign-born ones. So it seems that a significant number of Hispanic voters are receptive to nationalist campaign themes, particularly ones that are more assimilated into the white mainstream.
However, Asians show the opposite voting patterns in many ways. They have consistently moved against the GOP since the 90s, and US-born Asians are even less Republican than foreign-born ones. Based on the data, the description of immigrants in this post seems to fit Asian immigrants better than Hispanic ones. I think this difference is largely because it is easier for Hispanics to assimilate and pass as white than Asians.
There may also be a significant religious element behind this disparity–most Hispanics are Christian, whereas most Asians are not, and the Republican Party has also become increasingly beholden to the Christian right since the 90s. Of course, members of minority religions may be socially conservative too, but most socially conservative Muslims or Hindus would probably prefer as a political matter liberal pluralism over Christian-privileging conservatism.
Education probably also plays a role. With higher-education people moving away from the Republicans generally, one expects higher-education immigrant groups to show the same pattern. In fact, solely as a matter of political strategy, the Democrats should support moving to a more merit-based immigration system (with overall immigration numbers the same).
BB
Oct 30 2019 at 12:30pm
I think the core issue is that a significant portion of the republican party does not like immigrants. Obviously, they would be more attractive to immigrants if they were less hostile toward immigrants, but being hostile to immigrants is kind of their main thing. I’m not saying that all republicans are anti- immigrant, but it’s seems to me that a very significant portion of the party is very anti-immigrant. If you don’t have a plan to change that, you don’t have a plan. It’s like telling a vegetarian restaurant that they could attract more customers by selling meat.
Kevin Jackson
Oct 31 2019 at 5:25pm
Those two hypotheticals you provide to demonstrate the similarity between the Berlin Wall and the US Mexico wall are not convincing. They are contrived and implausible, and do not change the relevant fact: preventing emigration of citizens is different than preventing immigration of non citizens.
This is not to say that immigration preventing walls are justified, just that comparisons to the Berlin Wall are not convincing.
Comments are closed.