The Only Relevant Issue In The Immigration Debate: What Is Good For The Country And Her Citizens?

 

'It's great that immigrants have more babies, we should let them in.'

- Jeb Bush, 13 June 2013

This statement has created a furore with the usual 'RAAAAAAACIST!' label being thrown around as if MSNBC's daily programming has brain-snatched pundits and politicians across the spectrum.  In my opinion, whether one finds it racist is actually not the main problem with the 'immigrants have more babies, which will result in more workers paying taxes to sustain the entitlement state' argument.  The real problems with it are ignorance and a refusal to look at the issue honestly.

Just having more babies is not necessarily a selling point. Look at the problems in the EU, not one of the member states has a FR above the replacement rate, but those having babies have a completely different idea of what the countries should look like.

FIRST, it ignores the fact that even though Hispanic women have more live births than white, blacks and Asians, their Fertility Rate has had the largest and most sustained decline in recent years.   In 2010, the Fertility Rate in the United States was the lowest it had been since it last lowest ever: 1973, which was, coincidentally, the year Roe v Wade was handed down. More depressingly, middle class and educated women have a FR of only 1.6. To put that into context, the death-by-demographics EU has an overall FR of 1.5, although much of it is driven by Muslim immigrants, who have larger families.

And, before anyone says ‘Well, Mexican-Americans will replace disappearing white taxpayers,’ hold on a minute. In just three years – between 2007 and 2010 – the birthrate for Mexican-Americans dropped an astonishing 23%.

From the NYT:

Hispanic Pregnancies Fall in U.S. as Women Choose Smaller Families

Hispanic women in the United States, who have generally had the highest fertility rates in the country, are choosing to have fewer children. Both immigrant and native-born Latinas had steeper birthrate declines from 2007 to 2010 than other groups, including non-Hispanic whites, blacks and Asians, a drop some demographers and sociologists attribute to changes in the views of many Hispanic women about motherhood.

As a result, in 2011, the American birthrate hit a record low, with 63 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, led by the decline in births to immigrant women. The national birthrate is now about half what it was during the baby boom years, when it peaked in 1957 at 122.7 births per 1,000 women of childbearing age.

The decline in birthrates was steepest among Mexican-American women and women who immigrated from Mexico, at 25.7 percent. This has reversed a trend in which immigrant mothers accounted for a rising share of births in the United States, according to a recent report by the Pew Research Center. In 2010, birthrates among all Hispanics reached their lowest level in 20 years, the center found.

Why do we need people? Well, apart from needing a tax base so that the entire country doesn’t become Detroit, you have to have enough young workers to pay for the ever-increasing aging population.

 

‘After eight years of President Obama’s economic policies, and quite frankly foreign policy, people are going to be looking around.  But if we don’t pass immigration reform, if we don’t get it off the table in a reasonable, practical way, it doesn’t matter who you run in 2016. We’re in a demographic death spiral as a party and the only way we can get back in good graces with the Hispanic community in my view is pass comprehensive immigration reform. If you don’t do that, it really doesn’t matter who we run in my view.’

 

- Senator Lindsey Graham, (R-SC), shilling for his big corporate donors

Good graces?  Bless his heart.  Since when do Hispanics reward Republicans for legalising illegal aliens.  They most certainly did not after the 1986 amnesty…

In 1980: Carter received 56% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan only got 37% — a difference of 19%.

In 1984: Mondale received 66% of the Hispanic vote while Reagan only got 34.82% — a difference of 31.18%.

In 1986:  President Ronald Reagan signed The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 a/k/a Simpson-Mazzilo into law, which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants, the vast majority of which were Hispanic.

In 1988:   Michael Dukakis won 70.15% of the Hispanic vote while the Vice-President of the man who legalised millions of Hispanics, George H W Bush, received a mere 30.85% — a difference of 39.3%.

If Hispanics could be purchased with amnesty, then they would have overwhelmingly voted Republican in 1988. They didn’t so that should tell the “brains” in the GOP something.

Continuing on…

In 1992:  Bill Clinton won 61% of the Hispanic vote while President George H.W. Bush won 25% – a difference of 36%.

In 1996:  President Bill Clinton won 72% of the Hispanic vote while Senator Bob Dole received a mere 21% – a difference of 51%.

In 2000:  Vice-President Al Gore won 62% of the Hispanic vote while George W Bush won only 35% – a difference of 27%.

In 2004:  Senator John Kerry won 58% of the Hispanic vote while President George W Bush won 40% – a difference of 18%.

In 2008:  Senator Barack Obama, who voted AGAINST President Bush’s immigration reform, won 67% of the Hispanic vote while Senator John McAmnesty won a mere 31% – a difference of 36%.

In 2012:  President Barack Obama won 71% of the Hispanic vote while Mitt Romney won only 27% – a difference of 44%.

  

SECOND, a high fertility rate, in and of itself, is not necessarily a net positive for either the children or society, in general:

* At 53%, the Hispanic illegitimacy rate is more than twice the white rate (23%) among whites, and Hispanic women have abortions at 2.7 times the white rate.

* Per capita income of Hispanics is one-half that of non-Hispanic whites, and household net worth is less than one-tenth.

* 50% of Hispanic households use some form of welfare, the highest rate of any major population group.

* Hispanics are 3.3 times more likely to be in prison than whites; they are 4.2 times more likely to be in prison for murder, and 5.8 times more likely to be in prison for felony drug crimes. 

* 34.9% of all Federal prisoners are Hispanic (U.S. Bureau of Prisons)

* Young Hispanics are 19 times more likely than young whites (and slightly more likely than young blacks) to be in youth gangs.

* Hispanics drop out of high school at three times the white rate and twice the black rate.

* Even third-generation Hispanics drop out of school at a higher rate than blacks and are less likely to be college graduates.

* From 1992 to 2003, Hispanic illiteracy in English rose from 35% to 44%.

* The average Hispanic 12th-grader reads and does math at the level of the average white 8th-grader.

 'There are American workers who, for lack of a better term, can’t cut it. There shouldn’t be a presumption that every American worker is a star performer. There are people who just can’t get it, can’t do it, don’t want to do it. And so you can’t obviously discuss that publicly.'

-  Enrique Gonzalez, aide to Senator Marco Rubio, (R-FL)

THIRD, we actually have real-life examples to look at in conducting a cost-benefit analysis.   To begin with, we can look at the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.  Its supporters assured Americans that immigration would be miniscule and would never change the demographics of the United States.

On 10 February 1965 during a hearing of the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalisation of the Committee on the Judiciary, Senator Edward Kennedy, the bill’s sponsor, said:  ‘First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia … In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think…The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.’

At the same hearing, Secretary of State Dean Rusk said:  ‘The present estimate, based upon the best information we can get, is that there might be, say, 8,000 immigrants from India in the next five years … I don’t think we have a particular picture of a world situation where everybody is just straining to move to the United States … There is not a general move toward the United States.’

Attorney General Robert F Kennedy said:  'I would say for the Asia-Pacific Triangle it [immigration] would be approximately 5,000, Mr. Chairman, after which immigration from that source would virtually disappear; 5,000 immigrants would come the first year, but we do not expect that there would be any great influx after that.'

Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI) said: ‘Asians represent six-tenths of 1 percent of the population of the United States … with respect to Japan, we estimate that there will be a total for the first 5 years of some 5,391 … the people from that part of the world will never reach 1 percent of the population ...Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.’

 On 25 August 1965, Representative Sidney Yates, (D-IL), said:  ‘I am aware that this bill is more concerned with the equality of immigrants than with their numbers. It is obvious in any event that the great days of immigration have long since run their course. World population trends have changed, and changing economic and social conditions at home and abroad dictate a changing migratory pattern.’

How far off were the above and their fellow immigration reform followers with their estimates?  By 1968 — when the law fully took effect — the 1965 level of 290,697 had increased to 454,448, 'only' a 56 percent increase.

 
There were some Republicans that warned of the consequences, but two Democrats, in my opinion, nailed it…

Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-MN), the 1968 Democratic Presidential nominee, said:

 

The United States cannot regain its competitive standing in the world by importing low wage workers from other countries.  On the one hand, it engenders conditions this country cannot and should not tolerate.  On the other hand, in the modern age, a nation's wealth and prosperity is secured by high worker productivity and capital investment, not by the availability of low-wage labour.'

And, Theodore White, the American political journalist, historian, and novelist, Kennedy family intimate, coiner of the term "Camelot" to describe the Kennedy Administration, and author of America in Search of Itself: The Making of the President, said:

'The immigration Act of 1965 changed all previous patterns, and in so doing, probably changed the future of America … [it] was noble, revolutionary – and probably the most thoughtless of many acts of the Great Society.'

So, despite assurances from Washington, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 DID flood American cities with immigrants and change the ethnic mix of the United States, immigration DID far outpace the predictions made by the Washington elite, and the 'great days of immigration' were FAR FROM OVER.

Another example is that of Europe.  I've written about this issue on many occasions, but let's go through it again, for those that have never read or given great thought about it.

Not a single country in all of Europe has a fertility rate of 2.1, which is considered the replacement rate, ie, the rate necessary for the population to remain stable? Even before the financial meltdown, Spain and Greece, in particular, had fertility rates so low that their populations would halve themselves with successive generations.

Several decades ago, white Europeans decided that they just couldn’t be bothered to have children. Of course, this presented a huge problem given the fact that they not only loved their luxurious welfare hammocks, they believed they were entitled to them. Konstantinos in Athens thought he was entitled to retire to his Speedos at 50 at 97% of his highest annual salary and it was up to the government to figure out how to pay for it. And, while Marina and the rest of the bamboccioni in Italy find it perfectly acceptable to be sleeping in their childhood bedrooms when they are in their late 30s and have absolutely no problem with suing their elderly parents for allowances, they aren’t having children, which is probably a good thing, nor is anyone hiring them, which is likewise understandable. Soooo, there aren’t enough workers paying taxes to support the retirees.

 

In the UK in the 1990s, Labour made the decision to take an 'open borders' position and champion massive immigration. They did it for two reasons, which will be very familiar for everyone here:

A. They believed in multiculturalism and that nationalism was a bad thing. “Countries” and “patriotism” were bad things. Brits needed to become “citizens of the world.”

AND

B. They knew that they would be able to get the votes of the, mainly, third world and Eastern European immigrants.

But, something happened that they never foresaw:

They lost their entire base of blue-collar, union voters…even many of those “on the dole” turned on Labour. Why?

Because they felt that Labour put immigrants and, especially, illegal immigrants ahead of native citizens.

  

Imagine being a veteran of WWII or a child, whose father died fighting Hitler, and being told that an illegal, who managed to stay undetected in the country for 6 weeks, was entitled to all of the rights and benefits that they are afforded?

On top of that, if these people even mentioned immigration, they were labeled racists and bigots. One of the defining moments of the 2010 election was when former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was caught on tape calling a life-long Labour voter — an elderly woman concerned about the influx of immigrants from Eastern Europe –a “bigot.” She had legitimate concerns and his words about her were so elitist, arrogant and insulting that no amount of damage control and personal apologies could save either him or Labour. More devastating for Labour was their failure to recognise that she wasn’t some old, oddball crank — a one-off aberration. Sadly for the myopic idiots in Labour, she spoke for much of their “base.”

Now, even Labour’s leaders like “Ed the Red” Miliband (they call him that for a reason and it isn’t because he has red hair) have admitted that their immigration and multicultural policies have been a disaster for the country and their party. Oh, and guess what? We’ve been given “permission” by Labour and the other Leftist elites like the BBC to actually discuss “immigration.” It is no longer “racist” to do so. No word yet on whether the ridiculous British press will stop referring to all Muslims as “Asian immigrants.” In London, you’ll hear some of the really “smart” people referring to a Muslim immigrant from, say, the Bahamas as an “Asian immigrant.” It is not unlike the idiocy of calling all blacks “African-Americans.” I can assure you that the blacks in the UK or South Africa do not consider themselves to be “African-Americans.”

Back to the rift, drift, and schism between Leftist parties and their natural constituents… The thing is that this isn’t just happening in the UK. It is occurring across the Continent. You see, even Marx and Engels understood and recognised that socialism would never work in heterogeneous populations. Leftists here point to Scandinavia and say, “Look, Socialism works and everyone gets along.” Apart from the fact that Scandinavian countries began moving away from Socialism in the 1990s, this argument overlooks a very serious phenomenon that is occurring, which was wholly predictable. As the population of Sweden, etc., has become less homogenous, the support for welfare programmes has fallen dramatically and the racial strife has increased measurably.

Sir Peter Mandleson, one of New Labour nucleus that sent out 'search parties' to bring immigrants to Britain has admitted this, finally, and some Labour leaders like Ed Miliband have acknowledged the catastrophic effect that their immigration policies have had on British society and government programmes.

Labour leader, Ed Miliband: 

‘There has been a collision of a large amount of immigration from Eastern Europe and a UK labour market that is frankly too often nasty, brutish and short-term.

It became clear that the estimates that we had relied on were vastly wrong. We expected 15,000 migrants and 15,000 came to Southampton. The country was put under strain as a result.  There was an impact on wages and public services that people were concerned about.

There are issues around the pace of change in communities, pressures on public resources and making sure entitlements work fairly.

There are clearly issues that people have been raising over a number of years. We have to look at where the rules are right and, if they are wrong, what we can do about it. You have to have the right entitlements in place.

We have got to talk about this issue because the public are talking about it. I am for politics that is relevant to people's lives. We cannot have a debate going on in every kitchen, street and every neighbourhood and the Labour party not talk about it.

Labour has to change its approach to immigration, but you cannot answer people's concerns on immigration unless you change the way your economy works.

Overall, immigration has benefits, but the thing we did not talk about was its relevance to class, and the issue of where the benefits and burdens lie. If you need a builder, it is good that there are more coming into the country and lowering the price of construction, but if you are a British builder it is less beneficial.

In government, we were not sufficiently alive to the burdens, so when people said they were concerned that their wages were being driven down by people from eastern Europe our response too often was to argue that these people are saying 'stop the world, I want to get off', or at worst 'this is prejudice'. I think we were too starry-eyed about globalisation's benefits.

We need to make sure there is a level playing field … there has to be a fair chance for everybody.’

David Miliband, 8 March 2011:

‘My view is that after we have considered all the contingent factors, all the cultural differences, and after we have forsworn the option of accepting that we are wrong and there is nothing better in politics than the right can offer, there is a fundamental question to be answered.

Left parties are losing elections more comprehensively than ever before. They are losing from government and from opposition; they are losing in majoritarian systems and PR systems; just for good measure they are losing whatever position the party had on the Iraq war; and they are fragmenting at just the time the right is uniting.

I don’t believe this to be some accident or cosmic joke being played by destiny.

There is only one place to start. Where have the voters gone?

My answer is that if you look across the six countries there are three groups of voters we on the centre left are losing. All three groups have a class base and a set of values that they feel have been violated by the centre-left.

Centre left parties are losing working class voters to the far right and far left. Just look at the second place for the anti Islamic Party for Freedom in Holland. There are two related reasons, in which interests and culture are interwoven. These voters find immigration to be a very big issue on which the centre-left is suspect at best and guilty at worst; and they find that their jobs are the first to go in the new economy.

Centre left parties are losing middle income, swing voters, often young parents, in part because of coalitions with the left and Greens. Just look at Sweden. Only one in five Stockholm residents voted for the social democrats; the figure for those in work was nearly one in ten (13 per cent); only half of trade unionists across Sweden voted for the social democrats; and a third of those voters who turned their backs on the social democrats say did so because of their alliance with the Left Party.

The primary reason is tax and spending issues. These voters have a good lifestyle and don’t want to lose it. They certainly don’t want to trade part of it in for more generous welfare systems.

In Britain, median wages stagnated after the dot com crash, in other words well before the financial crisis. This is the squeezed middle whose position Ed Miliband has effectively highlighted.

If this is the electoral arithmetic, the second question is ‘why have they gone?’

Politics across Europe is not determined by economics, but it is shaped by it. And in the face of severe global competition, the crunch on growth and the distribution of its rewards has consequences. Politics has taken on a harsher hue – on welfare and wages, on tax and spending, on immigration - to the benefit of the right. And the increased budget deficits, the symptom of the expansionary budget antidote to slump, has provided a new and simple rationale for the centre right.

But the downward escalator that makes people fear for their children’s economic future has been stronger than the measures to promote social mobility. In fact, welfare is seen as not tough enough by those who see idleness in benefit recipients, and not empowering enough for those on the receiving end.

...

The left is torn between commitment to individual human rights for all people whatever their nationality and a recognition that communities depend on deep roots and long standing.

The consequence is that we are on the back foot when it comes to community. The Searchlight research published last week should be required reading for anyone who wants to understand politics in Britain; it explains the danger of assuming a natural centre-left majority when values issues cut across political divides in a fundamental way.

So if we know who we have lost, and have some idea of why we have lost them, what next?’

So, Labour opened up immigration and lost its base, along with putting a tremendous strain on social services and tearing the fabric of society.  Can anyone argue that the massive influx of immigrants from the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia, and the former Eastern Bloc has helped the UK?  Ask the family of drummer Lee Rigby or the 85 year-old woman, who was jailed for telling the youths from the Muslim Mafia that were celebrating this horrific, barbaric act to 'Go home to your own countries!' what they think.

  

'I would tell my Republican colleagues — both in the House and the Senate — that the road to the White House comes through a road with a pathway to legalization,” the New Jersey senator said on State of the Union this morning. “Without it, there’ll never be a road to the White House for the Republican party.'

- Senator Bob Menendez, (D-NJ), who obviously wants to see Democrat presidential nominees defeated in the future / 

FOURTH, the cause for immigration reform received a huge boost following Obama's reelection.  Because they were erroneously told that Hispanics cost them the election, many Republicans have decided to vote for immigration reform even if it is written by liberal Democrats and is, essentially, a replay of the failed 1986 immigration reform law.  The problem with this is that it is based on a faulty assumption.

Contrary to popular belief, which is constantly regurgitated by the MSM, pundits, and Progressives on both side of the aisle, the Hispanic vote did NOT decide last year’s election. In fact, Hispanic turnout was lower in 2012 (48%) than it was in 2008 (49.9%). In fact, the number of Hispanic voters, who elected not to vote in the 2012 presidential election, increased even more – by 2.3 million – from 9.8 million in 2008 to 12.1 million in 2012, according to a report issued by the US Census Bureau in May, 2013.

Even though Obama received 3.6 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008, he increased his vote totals in two categories: Middle-aged African-Americans and elderly black women. Both groups turned out in their highest percentage ever and only these two groups voted in larger numbers in 2012 compared to 2008: blacks aged 45-64, and blacks over the age of 65 — mostly elderly black women. 

In 2008, participation was as follows:

White: 66.1%

Black: 64.7%

Hispanic: 49.9%

Asian: 47.6%

In 2012, participation was as follows:

White: 64.1%

Black: 66.2%

Hispanic: 48%

Asian: 47.3%

The decrease in white voter participation was countered by an increase in black votes, which made the difference for Obama. According to the Census report, the Hispanic vote was not the deciding factor no matter how often people say that it was.

Did Republicans lose the 2012 election because of Hispanics?  Not according to The New York Times' Nate Silver and Byron York of the Washington Examiner:

 

Even With 70% of Hispanic Vote, Romney Still Would Have Lost … Winning Hispanic Vote Would Not Be Enough For GOP

In 2012, President Obama famously won 71 percent of the Hispanic vote to Mitt Romney’s 27 percent. If all other factors remained the same, how large a percentage of the Hispanic vote would Romney have had to win to capture the White House?

What if Romney had won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote, the high-water mark for Republicans achieved by George W. Bush in 2004?

As it turns out, if Romney had hit that Bush mark, he still would have lost, with 240 electoral votes to 298 for Obama.

But what if Romney had been able to make history and attract 50 percent of Hispanic voters? What then?

He still would have been beaten, 283 electoral votes to 255.

What if Romney had been able to do something absolutely astonishing for a Republican and win 60 percent of the Hispanic vote?

He would have lost by the same margin, 283 electoral votes to 255.

But what if Romney had been able to reach a mind-blowing 70 percent of the Hispanic vote? Surely that would have meant victory, right?

No, it wouldn’t.  Romney still would have lost, although by the narrowest of electoral margins, 270 to 268.

According to the [New York] Times’ calculator, Romney would have had to win 73 percent of the Hispanic vote to prevail in 2012…Which suggests that Romney, and Republicans, had bigger problems than Hispanic voters.

The most serious of those problems was that Romney was not able to connect with white voters who were so turned off by the campaign that they abandoned the GOP and in many cases stayed away from the polls altogether. Recent reports suggest as many as 5 million white voters simply stayed home on Election Day. If they had voted at the same rate they did in 2004, even with the demographic changes since then, Romney would have won.

Likewise, the white vote is so large that an improvement of 4 points — going from 60 percent to 64 percent of those whites who did vote — would have won the race for Romney.

  

FIFTH, what should we do about the millions of unskilled, low-paid Americans, who are unemployed and will have to compete against illegals and another wave of immigrants?  Should we just throw up our hands and say that they are just destined to live on the dole and we shouldn't worry about them anyway?  Most of these people are African-Americans.  Do they not count as citizens any longer?  Does their country not owe them an opportunity rather than ennobling criminaliens at their expense?

As Peter Kirsanow wrote in an important piece yesterday:

The assurances of the bill’s proponents that the bill will somehow help the economy obscure copious evidence that the bill will wreak enormous damage to the employment prospects of American workers who have already seen their wages and employment rates plummet over the last several years.

Indeed, it is no secret that the employment picture for low-skilled workers is abysmal. The national unemployment rate has been above 7.5 percent for more than four years and millions have dropped out of the workforce entirely. Among those without a high school diploma, the unemployment rate in May reached 11.1 percent, and for blacks without a high school diploma, it is more than 24 percent. The labor-force participation rate is at historic lows and long-term unemployment is the worst since the Great Depression. The workweek is shrinking, as well as wage rates. Barely one in two adult black males has a full-time job. A record 47 million people are on food stamps.

The immigration reform bill has the potential to make things even worse. Not only will the bill grant amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants, it will act as a magnet for future illegal immigration and substantially increase the number of legal immigrants. It is conservatively estimated that the bill will result in 30 million to 33 million additional immigrants over the next 10 years.

The bill is structured so that most of the immigrants will be low-skilled. These immigrants will compete with Americans in the low-skilled labor markets. The competition is most fierce in some of the industries in which blacks historically have been highly concentrated, such as construction, agriculture and service. Since the supply of low-skilled workers already exceeds the demand, the massive influx in low-skilled immigrants bodes ill for all such workers, but particularly black males. Evidence adduced before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights shows that immigration accounts for 40 percent of the 18-point percentage decline in black employment rates over the last several decades — the bulk of the decline occurring among black males. That’s hundreds of thousands of blacks thrown out of work; hundreds of thousands who can’t support their families without taxpayer assistance.

The evidence adduced by the commission shows that not only does illegal immigration depress the employment levels of low-skilled Americans, it drives down the wages for available jobs. For example, an economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta estimated that as a result of the growth of undocumented workers, the annual earnings of actual documented workers in Georgia in 2007 were $960 lower than they were in 2000. In the leisure hospitality sectors of the economy, the wages were $1,520 lower.

A $960 annual decrease in wages may not seem like much to some members of Congress, but as President Obama observed when he signed the extension of the payroll tax cut in 2012, an extra $80 a month makes a big difference to many families. It means $80 more toward rent, groceries and the cost of gasoline. Besides, why should American workers suffer any decline in their wages because of illegal immigration?

What do we do about them?  Yes, requiring work visas and Americans First is a form of protectionism, but that's sort of the whole point.  One can be a strong supporter of the free market without abandoning one's fellow citizens.

As Victor Davis Hanson writes:

'Many employers appreciate the myriad advantages of hiring illegal immigrants. Although supporters of amnesty are bold in leveling charges of illiberality against their critics, the unspoken truth is that insistence on access to cheap labor is about as reactionary and unethical as one can imagine.  Off the record, employers will admit they are reluctant to hire jobless African-American youths, although the black community is suffering historic levels of unemployment. They are not even eager to hire second-generation Hispanics, who, according to the employers’ creed, have lost the firsthand memory of crushing Mexican poverty and thus their parents’ desperate work ethic.'

Over the weekend, the Wall Street Journal ran its weekend interview with the CEO of Carl’s Jr, Andy Puzder, who said that a 'high percentage of our employees, particularly in California, are immigrants.'  Isn't the typical response to why we need more immigrants is that they are needed to do the 'jobs that Americans just won't do'?  Typically, these jobs are said to be of the agricultural variety.  Are they now arguing that Americans won't work at fast food restaurants?  Really?  This type of work is a great entry-level position for teenagers and those without marketable skills.  Americans learn how to work and the type of responsibilities and ethics that will be required of them elsewhere in the labour market.   

Are we throwing great first jobs and employment for those without skills away and consigning these jobs to immigrants?  In other words, does America need more burger-flippers or has fry-cooking become a job that 'Americans just won't do'?  If so, when did that happen?

Elitist politicians doing the bidding of Big Business always argue that America needs cheap labour from Latin America.  No, they want cheap labour.  When unemployment in many areas of the country is in the double digits, Big Business is going to have to make do with the current labour force.  It's a time of record profits and not to sound like an Occupier, but increasing their wealth is not at the top of my to-do list.  Libertarians like myself put an emphasis on the INDIVIDUAL above all else.  The rights of the individual must be protected over any other and insuring that the millions of Americans, who are unemployed, stay that way in order to boost the earnings of business through a new influx of cheap labour is an abuse of the rights of Americans.

Sorry, but there are two really bad things about the position that assholes like the 'Gang of 8' have taken:

1.  Our Declaration of Independence speaks to the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  These are owed, first and foremost, to American citizens.  Elevating illegal immigrants, whose first act on the soil of the United States was to break its laws, over the poor, unskilled Americans, who are desperately in need of jobs, is a slap in the face of what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country.

2. Most illegal immigrants come from very poor areas of the world, but, primarily, from Latin America.   Those that come to the United States are often the victims of exploitation by Big Business.  Is it an American ideal to bring in cheap labour and explode it in order to pad the profits of Big Business?  Can we not say 'Enough, already!' with Crony Capitalism?

Going back to Hanson:

‘Unmentioned is the exploitation of illegal labor. Hard-working young Latin Americans, most of them from the interior of Mexico, cross the border illegally, usually to find jobs that pay over five times more per hour than anything they could find in Mexico, yet still less than the employer would have to pay an American. Between the ages of 18 and 40, illegal immigrants are among the hardest-working laborers in the world. However, the traditional entry-level jobs — picking peaches, nailing shingles, mowing lawns, changing diapers, cooking, making beds — for those without legality, education, or English often become a permanent dead end.’

 

How is relegating poor immigrants to low-paid, dead-end jobs ‘compassionate’?

Again to Hansen:

Instead, employers want a continuing influx of young workers who will undercut the wages of American citizens. That the bargaining power of other minorities, Latino- and African-American citizens especially, is undercut by illegal labor matters little. How odd that elite Republicans pander to Latino grandees to win perhaps 35 percent of the Latino vote; that the party garners no more than 5 percent of the much larger African-American vote is never discussed. In the bizarre logic of the Republican elite, you must cater to the Hispanic elite in order to siphon votes from the liberal Latino bloc, while the much more important black demographic is simply written off. Is there one Republican politician who is more worried about the plight of unemployed African-American citizens than he is about granting amnesty to foreign nationals who broke U.S. laws to come here?

Employers do not care that the presence of 11 million illegal aliens has driven down entry-level wages. They are not concerned about the depressing cycle of illegal-immigrant labor: The young male from Latin America works extraordinarily hard for 20 years. But by the time he’s 40, he is married with children, and discovering that without education, English, or skill sets, he has no way forward.

Arms and backs that were near superhuman at 25 are often shot at 50. When the 45-year-old illegal alien can no longer pick, or cook, or rake as he once did, the employer loses interest, and the state steps in to provide him with rough parity through subsidies for housing, health care, food, and legal assistance, and meanwhile it has been educating his children. Because second-generation immigrants are deemed less industrious than their worn-out fathers and mothers — and Hispanic males in California graduate from high school at little more than a 60 percent rate — the need arises for another round of young hardy workers from Latin America.

In past times, this depressing cycle of exploitation was justified by low unemployment or ongoing wars that siphoned off American manpower. But why the need for imported labor in times of near-record joblessness, relative peace, and often-record profits? The elites simply turn a blind eye to out-of-work Americans, the low wages of illegal laborers, and the cynicism of using up human capital and letting the state pick up the subsequent social costs. How odd that profit-making from cheap labor is considered liberal, while concern for low-paid American workers is written off as xenophobia.

Most elites talk of nativism and racism as being what fuels opposition to their brand of comprehensive immigration reform. Yet I doubt that the wealthy Silicon Valley residents who clamor for “reform” send their children to public schools. Indeed, in the fashion of the Southern academies that popped up in the 1960s during court-ordered busing, Silicon Valley is currently experiencing an explosion in private schools.

 

 

SIXTH, Democrats need a permanent underclass.  'Keep'em on the government plantation and they'll vote for us forever because we give them goodies!' It's how they perpetuate their power.  We know that. 

But, when did the so-called 'Conservatives' become champions of both limited opportunity and the cradle-to-grave welfare state?  How do 'Republicans' think that they will ever be able to adopt low taxation, limited government and maximum freedom policies when there is a permanent and growing poor population, which is dependent upon the state for everything from housing and food to health care and education?

Republicans say that they have a 'natural constituency' in the Latino community; yet, there are many signs that point otherwise.  Apart from the high illegitimacy and abortion rates that I mentioned earlier, there is a stark fact that belies this claim of the Republicans.  Its name?  Obamacare, which the GOP claims it wants to repeal even going so far as voting to repeal all or part of it 37 times; yet, it is overwhelmingly supported by Hispanics.  So, do Senator Insane and Miss Lindsey actually believe all of those Hispanics that they passed immigration for in order ‘to get back into their good graces,’ are going to vote for the Party that wants to repeal one of their favourite laws?  Good luck with that, toots.

According to David Plouffe:

'The bigger problem [Republicans] have got with Latinos isn’t immigration.  It’s their economic policies and health care [and] the group that supported the president’s health care bill the most? Latinos. Obama’s majority support among Florida’s Cuban-Americans was probably my favourite stat of the whole campaign.'

So, in order to Hispander, will those supposedly 'Conservative' Republicans abandon their pursuit to repeal Obama and just decide to expand it for the group that supports it most?

SEVENTH, our betters in DC swear that this bill is unlike the Amnesty of 1986.  In fact, Congressman Paul Ryan DARES anyone to call it ‘AMNESTY.’  Well, snookums, I’ll take that bet.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines ‘amnesty’ as:

‘The act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals’

If you are going to prosecute the lawbreakers and give them a fresh slate, you’ve given them amnesty.  Oh, and please save it with ‘they must learn English’ (Already the law; how’s that worked out for you?), ‘they much pass a civics test,’ (Already the law; how’s that worked out for you?), the wall will be built substantially, (On the books since 1986 and again in 2006.  By the way, a 36 mile fence along the 700 mile requirement is not indicative of a ‘finished’ job.  It’s called 5.14% - EPIC FAIL), and for others, let’s listen to Attorney General Ed Meese, who was very familiar with Simpson-Mazzoli:

I Recall the 1986 Immigration Act Rather Differently

Karl Rove's recollection of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act ("Immigration Reform and the Hispanic Vote," op-ed, June 6) is, shall we say, highly selective. That law, he writes, "essentially told those here illegally that if they had arrived in the U.S. prior to 1982 and wanted to become citizens, simply raise your right hand." He asserts that the Gang of Eight bill is different because it "has plenty of penalties and hurdles for those here illegally who seek citizenship."

Well, I was there in '86. I read that bill carefully. (We did that back then.) And I can tell you that Mr. Rove's blithe description of the bill is way off the mark.

The 1986 act didn't turn illegal immigrants into citizens on the spot. It granted temporary resident status only to those who could prove they had resided continuously in America for five years. After 18 months, their status could be upgraded to permanent residency, and only after another five years could they become U.S. citizens.

But advancement to citizenship was not automatic. Immigrants had to satisfy various requirements along the way. They had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

Sound familiar? It's pretty much the same "penalties and hurdles" set forth by the Gang of Eight. Today they call it a "roadmap to citizenship." Ronald Reagan called it "amnesty."

The '86 reform bill also had supposedly "rigorous" border security and immigration law enforcement provisions. So how did that pan out? On the day Reagan signed "comprehensive" reform into law, only one thing changed: Millions of unlawful immigrants gained "legal" status. The promised crackdowns on security and enforcement never happened. Only amnesty prevailed.

Since the '86 amnesty, the number of illegal immigrants has quadrupled. That should teach Congress a very important lesson: Amnesty "bends" the rule of law. And bending the rule of law to reach a "comprehensive" deal winds up provoking wholesale breaking of the law. Ultimately, it encourages millions more to risk entering the country illegally in the hope that one day they, too, might receive amnesty.

On legislation as important as this, lawmakers must take the time to read the bill, not rely on others' characterizations of what it says. We can't afford to have Congress "pass the bill to find out what's in it."

Edwin Meese III

Washington

 

 

EIGHTH, and this is probably the most important point, it is one thing for a country to decide to increase immigration in a managed way, but it is something entirely different to cause such massive immigration that it fundamentally changes the ethnicity and ethos of an entire country...intentionally.

As I argued earlier, Labour's decision to, as Peter Mandelson admitted recently:

‘[Sent] out search parties for people and encouraging them. The situation is different now . . . entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs [and] who find it hard to keep jobs.’

 
A policy, which was to change the face of Britain irrevocably, was smuggled in under the radar purely for long-term electoral and short-term economic advantage.  The assumption was that the new arrivals would all become naturalised and return the favour by voting Labour. The party’s new friends in the business world, meanwhile, would benefit from an endless supply of willing foreign workers prepared to accept low wages. So it was that Tony Blair’s victory ushered in the greatest mass migration in this country’s history. 

Thus, laws were enacted to specifically passed to change the demographics of the United Kingdom...and, to adopt the 'salad bowl' instead of the 'melting pot' approach toward immigration and assimilation.  As a result, Britain has become more Balkanised and fundamental differences between the native and immigrant population have only widened because of preferences on how the law - including the very type - should govern society.  For example, many Muslim immigrants and their children do not value secular, constitutional, and democratic societies.  Instead, they champion laws based on Shari'ah.  Born Britons will never support the Islamification of their laws and the government structure.  Many Muslims will never settle for anything less. 

Furthermore, the immigration problem in the UK is about to get much worse.  In a country of 61 million people, 23 million impoverished Romanians and Bulgarians will be eligible to immigrate to Britain and become eligible for the exact same benefits that are received by veterans of World War II.

In the United States, the majority of immigrants - both legal and illegal - come from Latin America where both socialism and massive corruption have deep roots.  Just as I have argued time and time again that Europe tolerates less democracy and more oppression because they do not have a foundation based upon liberty, self-government, and limitations on the power of authority, the same is true of Latin America.  Further, as Europeans have more dependency on the welfare state which often results in more corruption because they are more likely to vote for those that will expand benefits, so do those from countries south of the border.  The difference, of course, is that Europe has more of a history with republican democracy - even on a limited basis - than Latin America.

If the United States continues to refuse to enforce its borders, which are a basic necessity of sovereignty, and demand 'melting pot' assimilation, how can it ever expect to maintain its constitutional integrity?  The diversification of the population is not the problem.  The fundamental transformation of the mentality of the population is and it poses an existential threat to the very existence of the United States.

No country has set about to undertake a remaking of the population wherein millions of immigrants, who do not share in the same governing philosophy, survived.  They have all changed.  This is why a country, which enacted the Magna Carter and the common law system upon which the America’s Founders and subsequent jurists drew, now has Shari'ah Courts.

For those that support amnesty regardless of border control, I have but one question:

Do not natural-born citizens have the right to decide who is allowed into their country and to what extent?

As a grateful American immigrant, I say 'Absolutely!'  I had no right to come to this country nor did I demand that you adjust your culture and law to accommodate me.  If I had, all of you would be driving on the left-side of the road.

When deciding whether immigration should be reformed, the primary issue should never be the 'poor people living in the shadows' or the illegals, who are in line for deportation even though they have American children.  No.  The supreme issue should be whether immigration reform is good for ALL American CITIZENS. 

American citizens did not cause illegals to have to 'live in the shadows.' 

Criminaliens made the decision ‘to live in the shadows’ when they chose to break our laws. 

American citizens are not responsible for the separation of families. 

Criminaliens are responsible for the separation of their families because they made the decision to either enter the country illegally or overstay their visas.  Families get broken up everyday in this country because of the choices of individuals.  Should murderers not go to jail because their families would be broken?  Aren't the families of slain mums and dads separated by murderers?

Finally, and I'm looking at you Lindsey Graham, demanding border security first - as 4 out of 5 Americans do - and strict rules on immigration are not 'racist.'  They are the birthright of American citizens, who get to decide what happens to their country.

Americans are angry that criminaliens, who have broken our immigration laws, are placed on a pedestal while the rule of law, the importance of citizenship and the welfare of natural-born Americans are diminished and the borders and culture are erased by those with self-serving goals of power and profit.

Related:

Civil Rights Commission: "Granting Illegal Immigrants Effective Amnesty Would 'Harm Lower-Skilled African-Americans'"
Make Marco Rubio Eat His Own Words
A Fair Warning To Those Promoting Open Borders, Amnesty, & Free Immigration 
Immigration Reform: If The Past Is Prologue...
Yes, Immigration Can Bring Huge Benefits, But On This Scale And At This Speed, It's Too Much To Cope With
Immigration & The Town That Stopped Mincing Words
Adios, Adios, Miss American Pie?  Not Necessarily.
The Non-Existent Immigration Crisis

 

http://tinyurl.com/kx3lq3n