The Heritage Immigration Study Is Tragically Flawed And Conservatives Are Foolish To Defend It

By
May 10, 2013

This is sad to see. Some of the usual suspects can demagogue and yell witch hunt all they want, the fact is the latest Heritage immigration study betrays both the Constitution and Conservatism and deserves to be rejected.

And, oh, by the way, I’m no fan of the the Gang of Eight so stow that noise in response to me. For starters, one cannot square the Heritage study with this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, ….

Certainly, one can attempt to fancy dance logic and say, oh no, we believe in the Constitution and that all men are created equal, it’s simply that this or that system has failed in this case. Nonsense. All that amounts to is someone saying, I’m not a racist, I’m simply prepared to surrender to the institutionalized racism long associated with the Left.  Only a fool, or someone scrambling for cover would suggest that’s a smart argument for a genuine Conservative to make.

 

Furthermore, if one is not reaching an erroneous conclusion through either some form of racism, or an abject surrender to the Left’s institutionalized racism, then they are reaching it by demonstrating a sincere lack of belief in Conservatism itself.

I believe in Conservatism and its ideals. I believe that in any ideological marketplace, be it one comprised of white, black, brown, yellow, or ever green people, it will prevail. Consequently, if one is willing to claim that conservatism, or perhaps even traditional American ideals, will fail across this or that ethnic group, but not because of racism – then all you are left with is, well, I guess the conservative argument just isn’t good enough to win in some cases.

That’s not only dangerous and self-destructive, it’s an incredibly stupid notion for any serious Conservative to embrace. Consequently, I feel totally justified in saying the Heritage study is misguided and tragically flawed and needs to be denounced and rejected by Conservatives, not defended, let alone embraced. And that’s even before one gets to the flawed Math.

 But the truth is, I’m with Jim Pethokoukis, Americans for Tax Reform, Cato, the American Enterprise Institute, the American Action Network — and let’s just throw in every centrist and center-right pro-amnesty group that saw fit to flood my inbox with press releases yesterday — in concluding that the Heritage study gives a flawed and incomplete picture of the economic impact of the immigration bill.

Now, go ahead and call me a RINO. And then I’ll tell you, you’re full of chit.

 



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Scoob says:

    Ok, where are the links to arguments, articles and/or math that Heritage’s calculations are incorrect? The ad hominem rascism attacks on the author convinces me that the math IS correct or why would opponents resort to this line of attack? Just show me the facts, man.

  2. Scoob says:

    Also, if the GOP Establishment goal of passing amnesty is to pander to illegal immigrants, and the Establishment media, crony capitalists, and democrats, then why shouldn’t we in the hoi polloi pander as well? If the goal is to pass something to get along, then why should be put up signs supporting GOP candidates in the next election? It would be much easier to post a Democrat candidate sign and pander to our neighbors. Hell, they would even consider us enlightened!!! If the Republicans are not going to stand for the rule of law and instead create a demographic tsunami for the foreseeable future, what difference does it make who we elect?

  3. I want to understand your point about the Heritage Foundation’s report, but I don’t know what it is. I understand that you think the math is flawed, but how does it betray the Constitution and Conservatism?

  4. When the left and GOP establishment is doing or saying anything they have to do to get the current proposals rushed through -both groups doing it primarily self-serving political reasons- it’s hard to blame conservatives for getting a bit excited about anything potentially useful that comes our way… it’s a lonely battle for those of us insisting the border be fixed first

  5. Mary says:

    Michelle Malkin has links to both the Heritage report and the Ph.D. paper here: http://michellemalkin.com/2013/05/09/the-crucifixion-of-jason-richwine/

  6. Scoob says:

    Ok, I found the link to flawed math in your post toward the bottom. Thanks. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/347680/amnesty-entitlements

  7. Scoob says:

    But the National Review piece argues for cutting back the welfare entitlements. Fine. Try doing that with 12 million more citizens and the Dems wanting to buy at least some of their votes. But it is good to have this argument by NR to debate.

  8. When Rubio says that amnestied immigrants would not be eligible for benefits such as welfare, ObamaCare, etc, this is pure BS. The Courts will strike down those provisions, guaranteed. The “Gang of 8” talks about this bill as if the courts would never get involved. If they were serious, they would deny the federal courts the jurisdiction to take any cases challenging this law, which the Constitution gives Congress the authority to do. But of course they would never do that.

  9. Ragspierre says:

    I have no doubt one may criticize the Heritage study on some grounds, overly simplistic assumptions being one.

    That is NOT “tragically flawed”. That is a PERHAPS valid criticism.

    It has nothing to do with “racism”, and I can’t see any justification for that, Dan.

    As Doug Holtz-Eakin put it: “There is no American dream. They start in poverty. They end in poverty. Their kids are in poverty.”

    And is that not EXACTLY what we see in California? When you have something on the order of 70% of births to unwed mothers, that IS what you can assume, based on solid data.

  10. bitterclinger says:

    Rush just mentioned the crucifixion of Mr. Richwine and said there are many RINOs in on this too. Et tu, Mr. Riehl?

    With all dur respect, if it’s good enough for Rush and Jim DeMint, it’s good enough for me. Have fun with the left.

  11. J.P. Travis says:

    Very disappointing post, Mr. Riehl. Next time you decide to criticize a study, read it first. There’s not one racist word in the study, just facts and figures, and the comments by your list of fellow conservative nincompoops about the study using static analysis are also incorrect: the study in fact uses dynamic analysis in two ways. Not only does it take into account the dynamic aspect of the “interim period” but the averages it uses to reflect the cost of uneducated immigrants are themselves already a reflection of dynamic analysis. Like so many conservatives, you’ve fallen for one of the left’s endless hysterical cries of “RACISM!”

    • Ragspierre says:

      I concur. Objective data is not to be subsumed to political correct bullshit.