1) The lesson of the last thirty years or so is that immigrants hate immigrants and want immigration restricted. Especially Hispanics, who appear to hate illegal immigration and want to build a wall.
2) "It wouldn’t be that hard to persuade immigrants to be as libertarian as the median native-born American."
How about "as libertarian as a native born American that shared their traits."
Hispanics are about as libertarian as whites that share their IQ and other characteristics. Perhaps a little less so because Affirmative Action is a draw for them.
Asians are about as libertarian as an equivalent nerdy conformist minded coastal liberal.
The issue is simply that whites as a whole are naturally more libertarian, which is why its only ever been a thing in white societies.
3) To remain competitive the GOP is going to appeal more and more to the median white Hispanic, especially living in a swing state. This will mean being less libertarian on most if not all issues than it used to be, though it may remain more libertarian than the Democrats. Trumpism is actually a good preview of this.
To qualify 1, legal immigrants hate illegal immigrants. They resent them for jumping the line, as it were. There is other dislike based on country, race, ethnicity, etc., the usual gamut of dislikes that are rather more common in the rest of the world than the US as it turns out, as well, but the legal vs illegal issue is a big one.
It's common over-update on factors that are legible due to social desirability bias. Excluded from the polling (and from our personal experience) are illegal immigrants from country X who hate illegal immigrants from country Y, or who hate whites more, or who would prefer no more stream in behind them to further dilute their opportunities, or those who despise everything American except for the money and would like to go home and be a big man there if it were possible, etc.
Oh sure, but I don't trust them to tell (or even know) the truth about why they hate them.
A fun little microcosm is stopping in at a catholic church towards the end of service and seeing how groups that the priest was patronizing all together as one group (with his bad spanish) ignore one another and go light candles each at their different national versions of the virgin mary.
Please provide a recent example of success with an immigrant group (naturalized and voting descendants) in a particular jurisdiction responding to such marketing by flipping from >50% to <50% share of their votes to Democrats. From all accounts even internal migrants fleeing California keep voting for this things that made California a place they wanted to flee, changing the politics of the places they land in the anti- liberty direction. Marketing can reasonably be expected to be easier and more effective the shorter the cultural distance, since the marketer is likely to have a better understanding of the minds of those targets and what might work on them. If Americans can't change Californian minds, why expect better results on foreigners?
Trump seems pretty good at drawing Hispanics, although I don't know how many are immigrants. I would also note that it doesn't seem like anyone in the Republican party has made serious attempts to sway immigrants, usually going after them as much as anything. One has to decide to do the marketing to persuade people before seeing any success at persuading people.
Old, "Real Communism has never been tried." New, "Real immigrant outreach has never been tried." As with communism, it has been tried, and it keeps failing. In the face of repeated failures, it is wishful thinking that there is an effective marketing approach out there somewhere, it just hasn't been discovered yet. The burden of proof to extraordinarily claims that this is easily doable is properly placed on those making that claim to show evidence of a single success. In fact, there have been very serious attempts. This was Rove's and Bush family in Texas strategy going back decades. Best it does is not lose by as much, but like the joke says, if you can't get the GOP vote above 50%, you can't make it up on volume. This pattern of immigrants and descendants voting consistently for the left plays out in every developed country. This is because a relatively more liberty-favoring party can never outbid the left to buy the affiliation and votes of those people with state-provided benefits.
If anything people are getting this backwards. The GOP used to be much more pro- immigration, but the immigrants aren't reaching out to the Republican party with their votes to allay the fear that all that voting for Democrats is going to make the GOP extinct in more and more districts, just like it did in all those formerly competitive but now permanently blue cities and states.
Mostly open borders libertarians do not want to paint themselves into the rhetorical corner of having to complain about democracy, because reality is, "liberty, democracy, open borders, pick two." So they pretend otherwise, but, as for evidence, where's the beef?
The difference between communism and immigrant outreach is that I have seen many times where communism was tried, quite aggressively, and seen the outcome. Do you have any examples of national GOP immigrant outreach that were tried? I can remember about 30 years politics pretty well, and I don't recall any national party efforts at wooing immigrants, although I remember quite a bit of anti-immigration rhetoric at the edges.
If you want to argue that Bush/Rove in Texas tried and failed I will take that as an example, but that's a local party move, not a national one. I would be surprised if it worked at the local level while the national level was pushing in the other direction. Maybe I missed national level attempts being somewhat outside the target audience, but I have never heard the GOP making the case to immigrants why their interests are better served by the Republicans than the Democrats.
That said, I am generally in agreement that the cultural background of most immigrants isn't conducive to independence as opposed to seeking benefits from the government. Possible exceptions are those from former Soviet countries, or similar places with "We don't want anything to do with that nonsense anymore" levels of anti-communism like Cuba. It seems like most countries people want to leave have the assumption of government giving away things, and the problem people have is that they aren't the ones getting the things, not the redistribution itself.
1) The lesson of the last thirty years or so is that immigrants hate immigrants and want immigration restricted. Especially Hispanics, who appear to hate illegal immigration and want to build a wall.
2) "It wouldn’t be that hard to persuade immigrants to be as libertarian as the median native-born American."
How about "as libertarian as a native born American that shared their traits."
Hispanics are about as libertarian as whites that share their IQ and other characteristics. Perhaps a little less so because Affirmative Action is a draw for them.
Asians are about as libertarian as an equivalent nerdy conformist minded coastal liberal.
The issue is simply that whites as a whole are naturally more libertarian, which is why its only ever been a thing in white societies.
3) To remain competitive the GOP is going to appeal more and more to the median white Hispanic, especially living in a swing state. This will mean being less libertarian on most if not all issues than it used to be, though it may remain more libertarian than the Democrats. Trumpism is actually a good preview of this.
To qualify 1, legal immigrants hate illegal immigrants. They resent them for jumping the line, as it were. There is other dislike based on country, race, ethnicity, etc., the usual gamut of dislikes that are rather more common in the rest of the world than the US as it turns out, as well, but the legal vs illegal issue is a big one.
It's common over-update on factors that are legible due to social desirability bias. Excluded from the polling (and from our personal experience) are illegal immigrants from country X who hate illegal immigrants from country Y, or who hate whites more, or who would prefer no more stream in behind them to further dilute their opportunities, or those who despise everything American except for the money and would like to go home and be a big man there if it were possible, etc.
That might be true as well, but I can assure you from first hand observation that legal immigrants are really negative about illegal immigrants.
Oh sure, but I don't trust them to tell (or even know) the truth about why they hate them.
A fun little microcosm is stopping in at a catholic church towards the end of service and seeing how groups that the priest was patronizing all together as one group (with his bad spanish) ignore one another and go light candles each at their different national versions of the virgin mary.
Please provide a recent example of success with an immigrant group (naturalized and voting descendants) in a particular jurisdiction responding to such marketing by flipping from >50% to <50% share of their votes to Democrats. From all accounts even internal migrants fleeing California keep voting for this things that made California a place they wanted to flee, changing the politics of the places they land in the anti- liberty direction. Marketing can reasonably be expected to be easier and more effective the shorter the cultural distance, since the marketer is likely to have a better understanding of the minds of those targets and what might work on them. If Americans can't change Californian minds, why expect better results on foreigners?
Trump seems pretty good at drawing Hispanics, although I don't know how many are immigrants. I would also note that it doesn't seem like anyone in the Republican party has made serious attempts to sway immigrants, usually going after them as much as anything. One has to decide to do the marketing to persuade people before seeing any success at persuading people.
Old, "Real Communism has never been tried." New, "Real immigrant outreach has never been tried." As with communism, it has been tried, and it keeps failing. In the face of repeated failures, it is wishful thinking that there is an effective marketing approach out there somewhere, it just hasn't been discovered yet. The burden of proof to extraordinarily claims that this is easily doable is properly placed on those making that claim to show evidence of a single success. In fact, there have been very serious attempts. This was Rove's and Bush family in Texas strategy going back decades. Best it does is not lose by as much, but like the joke says, if you can't get the GOP vote above 50%, you can't make it up on volume. This pattern of immigrants and descendants voting consistently for the left plays out in every developed country. This is because a relatively more liberty-favoring party can never outbid the left to buy the affiliation and votes of those people with state-provided benefits.
If anything people are getting this backwards. The GOP used to be much more pro- immigration, but the immigrants aren't reaching out to the Republican party with their votes to allay the fear that all that voting for Democrats is going to make the GOP extinct in more and more districts, just like it did in all those formerly competitive but now permanently blue cities and states.
Mostly open borders libertarians do not want to paint themselves into the rhetorical corner of having to complain about democracy, because reality is, "liberty, democracy, open borders, pick two." So they pretend otherwise, but, as for evidence, where's the beef?
The difference between communism and immigrant outreach is that I have seen many times where communism was tried, quite aggressively, and seen the outcome. Do you have any examples of national GOP immigrant outreach that were tried? I can remember about 30 years politics pretty well, and I don't recall any national party efforts at wooing immigrants, although I remember quite a bit of anti-immigration rhetoric at the edges.
If you want to argue that Bush/Rove in Texas tried and failed I will take that as an example, but that's a local party move, not a national one. I would be surprised if it worked at the local level while the national level was pushing in the other direction. Maybe I missed national level attempts being somewhat outside the target audience, but I have never heard the GOP making the case to immigrants why their interests are better served by the Republicans than the Democrats.
That said, I am generally in agreement that the cultural background of most immigrants isn't conducive to independence as opposed to seeking benefits from the government. Possible exceptions are those from former Soviet countries, or similar places with "We don't want anything to do with that nonsense anymore" levels of anti-communism like Cuba. It seems like most countries people want to leave have the assumption of government giving away things, and the problem people have is that they aren't the ones getting the things, not the redistribution itself.