Reconciling Amnesty, Free Movement, and Integrity of the US Republic
Some people believe amnesty is a bad idea, because most likely it would involve an overwhelming amount of immigrants from Latin America. Hispanics in the United States do tend to vote Democrat and have more statist tendencies.
Most people who do not like the inefficient economic policies and the expansive government proposed and implemented by Democrats, myself included, are therefore worried any form of amnesty will therefore mean more of those policies.
However, one must consider the self-fulfilling prophecy here. By opposing amnesty and calling for stricter immigration laws, you are isolating those who currently have relatives who would like to come to our country and future immigrants (Hispanics in particular) by appearing anti-immigration.
Immigrants from Latin America tend to be socially conservative — on issues such as abortion, for example — similar to the Republican Party. Why not find common ground there?
Immigrants in general are also more likely to be small business owners and benefit from less government regulations, similar to what the Republican Party claims to champion.
If the Republican Party were to focus on what it has to offer, instead of always opposing things, maybe it’d be less averse to an important and growing demographic . . . Hispanics.
This message is for those who champion the apparent Republican view on immigration — one of even heavier enforcement and nothing less. Immigrants, when approached correctly, could be your allies.
Finally, just like fewer restrictions on trade with other countries is efficient for the economy, fewer restrictions on immigration would also result in positive economic outcomes. It’s called comparative advantage, but I’ll save that for another post. My point is that you shouldn’t be so hostile regarding a more open immigration policy, especially if you claim to be in favor of an efficient, free market economy.