Report: Immigration at Current Levels Will Likely Hurt Republicans. So What?

James Gimpel, a professor of government at the
University of Maryland, has written a report
for the Center for Immigration Studies, the restrictionist think
tank, on the impact immigrants had on politics from 1980 to 2012.
Among Gimpel’s findings are the following:

…the enormous flow of legal immigrants in to the country —
29.5 million 1980 to 2012 — has remade and continues to remake the
nation’s electorate in favor of the Democratic Party.

and,

…if legal immigration levels remain at the current levels of
over one million a year, it will likely continue to undermine
Republicans’ political prospects moving forward. Further, if the
substantial increases in legal immigration in Senate’s Gang of
Eight bill (S.744) were to become law it would accelerate this
process.

Gimpel says the following in the conclusion of the report:

Republican reservations about higher immigration levels can be
too easily typecast as racist and xenophobic. This is because the
party’s elites have failed to deliver a clear message that they
want a pro-immigrant policy of reduced immigration…

I’m not sure how a “policy of reduced immigration” can be
“pro-immigrant,” but it is certainly true that the GOP has failed
to convey a clear message on immigration policy. This is in part
due to the fact that a broad range of opinions on immigration are
represented among Republican Party members and lawmakers, some of
whom are
hesitant to take up immigration reform despite the fact that
polling shows that passing immigration reform would
not hurt Republicans in this fall’s midterms.

Some conservatives might think that the political implication of
increased immigration is a good reason to restrict the movement of
people into the U.S. I think opposing immigration for fear of
immigrants’ political opinions is one of the laziest and most
selfish reasons to back restrictionist policies, especially
considering that it takes years for legal immigrants to become
eligible to vote.

I know from personal experience that becoming a U.S. citizen
after holding a green card is an absurdly long process. Those who
oppose increased immigration because of the political implications
should keep in mind that immigrants must have a green card for

at least five years before applying for naturalization.
Immigrants can become U.S. citizens by marrying an American,
although even then they need to have been a green card holder for
at least three
years. However, according to
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, naturalization is
the most common path to U.S. citizenship. I think five years is
more than enough time to make a political argument to immigrants
that they should back team red instead of team blue. Personally,
I’d rather they not vote for either, but I digress. 

As the Reason Foundation’s Shikha Dalmia has pointed out, there
are things the GOP
could do to win immigrant voters if they looked north and
learned from the lessons of Jason Kenney, Canada’s former Minister
of Citizenship and Immigration, who not only crafted what Dalmia
describes as “the conservative charm offensive toward immigrants”
but who also “persuaded conservatives that immigrants’ attachment
to their native religions, customs and tongues enrich — not
threaten — broader Canadian culture. Strong patriotism in Canada
now correlates with strong pro-immigrant attitudes, according to
the Migration Policy Institute.”

Dalmia goes on to outline changes the Harper administration made
in Canada, such as the lowering of arrival fees and cutting taxes
for small businesses, which allowed the Conservative government to
appeal to immigrants without sacrificing conservative principles.
Perhaps Republicans should consider arguing for doing the
same.