McCain Pushes Full Speed Ahead For “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”
May 22nd, 2008 by joe
Republican presidential candidate John McCain continues to clarify his position on illegal immigration as the primary season closes and the candidates position themselves for the general election in the fall. McCain has been slowly reviving the notion of “comprehensive immigration reform” in speeches before various groups.
The problem “comprehensive” reform has posed to many Americans is that it posits a path to citizenship for people who are currently in the United States illegally, alongside a supposed array of immigration enforcement measures. Enforcement, however, has largely never taken place. It has been a chimera. This failure was made most evident before the 2006 elections when the Congress passed a law requiring 800 miles of fence on the U.S. - Mexico border, legislation which was signed into law by president Bush. But the fence was never built.
Those who are skeptical of “comprehensive immigration reform” believe that the amnesty portion of the program will definitely be enacted, while the enforcement measures will continue to be empty promises.
Amnesty for those who have jumped the border will send the signal that U.S. immigration enforcement is a joke, and will encourage more border jumpers. Following the 1986 amnesty, what was supposed to be leniency for no more than 3 million illegals resulted in over 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. today. Those who oppose “comprehensive immigration reform” believe that giving a pass to those in this country illegally will result in tens of millions more illegals coming across our southern border.
On top of that, current U.S. immigration policy is geared towards family reunification and not attracting immigrants with needed skills. “Comprehensive” reform therefore promises millions of new unskilled, undereducated arrivals in the U.S. This is a sure formula for importing many people who will draw disproportionally on government benefits and impose a net cost on U.S. taxpayers.
It means radically increasing the size of the U.S. underclass, essentially relieving Latin American countries of their poorest citizens and putting those people on the U.S. dole. This provides a safety valve for corrupt oligarchic countries south of here, and shifts the public cost to working Americans. We end up bailing out the upper classes in Mexico and other nations to the south.
John McCain as quoted in today’s New York Times:
“Senator Kennedy and I tried very hard to get immigration reform, a comprehensive plan, through the Congress of the United States,” he said. “It is a federal responsibility and because of our failure as a federal obligation, we’re seeing all these various conflicts and problems throughout our nation as different towns, cities, counties, whatever they are, implement different policies and different programs which makes things even worse and even more confusing.”
He added: “I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
Mr. McCain asked others on the panels for suggestions about how to “better mobilize American public opinion” behind the notion of comprehensive immigration reform.
It is an open question whether Mr. McCain will be able to continue to push for amnesty for illegal aliens while so many Americans are aware how difficult it is for those who are following legal channels to immigrate to the U.S.
Granting amnesty to illegals will allow the border crashers to jump in line ahead of the many millions of people who have been waiting to have their cases processed by the US Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. This policy of blatant injustice may turn out to be an Achilles heel for McCain’s general election campaign.
The prospect of “better mobilizing American public opinion” for the corrupt policy of “comprehensive” immigration reform suggests that McCain is seeking for a way to pull the wool over voters’ eyes.
For a Republican candidate, that is probably not the best way to signal a break with the past.
UPDATE: Ace and John Hawkins join our own Jacob with some very, very serious reservations about McCain.
This entry was posted on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008 at 9:36 pm and is filed under Campaign 2008, immigration. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:49 pm
This is foolish for so many reasons. One has to wonder if McCain has learned anything. From his choice of immigration advisers, plans to address LaRaza and now the resurrection of this losing policy.
This guy is going to Stupid himself right out of this election.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:03 pm
You can lose an election if you try hard enough. Ask many of our elected Virginia Republicans. They have the formula.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Will McCain wake up before the American people actually start focusing in on this election? We can shoot across his bow for only so long.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
McCain’s Immigration Insanity
McCain’s has been campaigning all across the country with various cronies muttering secure the border first and that he never really supported amnesty. McCain and Lieberman were on a PR campaign together in NH and lying through their teeth on McCain’s immigration record. At a town hall meeting in the granite state, McCain speaks for a while uttering his gibberish about illegal immigration and the illegal’s are god’s children (he obviously believes that they are a special type of god’s children and deserve some kind of extra compassion), etc. Lieberman takes the mike and says…”To say John McCain ever supported amnesty for illegal immigrants is a lie…” This is extremely disturbing that both of these Senators would try to deceive and directly lie to people for the express purpose of garnering votes. You can view this for yourself in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Er3gSPhNSEM
McCain is trying to run from his actions and record. He is intentionally distorting (I call it lying) the irrefutable fact that he was a supporter of amnesty by claiming he was never for amnesty. He was a main architect, contributor and proponent of the Comphrensive Immigration Reform bills (s. 1348 and s. 1639) of 2007 that were written in order to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. McCain was so deep into the content and language of these bills that they were often referred to as the Kennedy-McCain Immigration Reform bills.
McCain has consistently supported amnesty for illegal aliens since at least 2003 as reported by hotair.com from a Tuscon Citizen article…“McCain Pushes Amnesty, Guest-Worker Program,” reported the Tucson Citizen of May 29, 2003. The senator is quoted as saying: “Amnesty has to be an important part because there are people who have lived in this country for 20, 30 or 40 years, who have raised children here and pay taxes here and are not citizens. That has to be a component of it.” The newspaper also quoted McCain as saying: “I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people who are eligible and at the same time make sure that we have some control over people who come in and out of this country.”
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/05/video-liebs-says-mccain-did-not-support-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens/
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2007/06/017540.php
An in-depth interview in June 2007 conducted with WBT radio Charlotte, NC illustrates McCain’s lack of knowledge of the details in his own Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill. His arrogance, disdain and condescending attitude to those who disagreed with him on the amnesty issue can also be heard: http://jeffkatz.wbt.com/audio.cfm;jsessionid=2e30fbce04aa6e53e62082817536929611f5TR?ID=7
During the ABC News presidential debate on January 5, 2008 McCain said: “Let me just say I’ve never supported amnesty. A few nights ago, Joe Lieberman and I had a town hall meeting together. It was a rather unusual event. The issue came up. Joe Lieberman said John McCain has never supported amnesty, and anybody says he does is a liar, he’s lying.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-rdebate.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1199721737-2vqWJVFzkwWyQwnxeL9Sew
One day later at the Fox News presidential forum, McCain said, “I have never, ever supported amnesty, and never will”. http://www.cfr.org/publication/15179/republican_forum_transcript_fox_news.html?breadcrumb=%2Fcampaign2008%2Fspeeches
During the Fox News presidential debate on January 10, 2008 McCain said: “I know how to secure the borders. I come from a border state where our borders are broken. More people come across our border illegally every year than most any other state. And I will secure the borders first…The remaining 12 million…we must then, in my view, address it in as humane and compassionate way as possible. The three GIs who were missing last year in action, one of them was still missing in action, his wife was about to be deported from this country. I’m not going to deport the wife of a fighting serviceman who’s missing in action. I’m going to handle it in a humane, compassionate fashion.” EARTH to McMARS; if you know how to secure the borders, why is your home state’s border still unsecured (McCain has been in Congress for 26 years, the last 22 as a Senator), so much so that more illegals come across your border than anywhere else? What have you been waiting for? Amnesty (again)? Furthermore, what does a GI wife’s situation have to do with the 20 to 36 million illegal aliens here, many of which came across those borders you know how to secure but have done nothing to secure?
http://www.thestate.com/presidential-politics/story/281821.html
It’s readily obvious that McCain hasn’t changed his views on illegal immigration. “Actually, I didn’t change my position…” McCain told Sean Hannity on January 19 right after he was declared the winner of the SC Primary. McCain is constantly saying that conservatives opposed his plan because they didn’t trust the federal government. But that’s only partially true. They opposed the amnesty plan because they disagreed with forgiving the crimes of 20 plus million illegal aliens crashing through our borders by giving them amnesty and putting them on a special path to citizenship. Watch the video below carefully on the interview Sean Hannity conducted with McCain right after he was declared the winner in the SC Primary. When Hannity brings up the ‘Kennedy-McCain Comp. Immig. Reform’ bill, McCain’s arrogance flares as he starts laughing, dismisses the question with the “actually I’ve never changed my position”, babbles about he’s from a border state so he knows how to secure the borders (remember he has been in Congress for 26 years and has done nothing); then he quickly moves in another direction to avoid addressing Hannity’s question any further.
http://www.redlasso.com/ClipPlayer.aspx?id=07767d08-f30d-4183-9834-1be8e37b45fb
Just a few days later during an interview with Tim Russert on MSNBC, McCain was asked if he’d sign his immigration bill if he were president and it came to his desk. McCain said, “Sure I’d sign my bill.” http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/27/video-sure-id-sign-my-immigration-bill-as-president-says-mccain//
In April of 2006, McCain spoke at an ALF-CIO convention. During his speech some questioned his immigration plan, which included putting illegal aliens on a path to citizenship. When McCain insulted the attendees work ethic by saying that illegal immigrants do jobs Americans won’t do, a number of the crowd started to boo and one shouted out, “Pay a decent wage.” McCain said he’d heard that before and that illegal immigrants do jobs Americans won’t. Then he said that he’d offer anyone present $50 an hour to pick lettuce in the hot, brutal Arizona sun for a season. When a number of people shouted they’d take it, McCain said, “You can’t do it, my friends” then hurriedly left the podium and disappeared. http://blog.aflcio.org/2006/04/05/50-an-hour-to-pick-lettuce-you-bet/
http://thismodernworld.com/2811
Michelle Malkin sums up his contemptuous nature well. Her recent article states, “His admission of the shamnesty failure is grudging and bitter…For all his supposed newfound enlightenment about what most Americans want—protection against invasion, commitment to the rule of law, meaningful employer sanctions, an end to sanctuary cities, enforcement-by-attrition plus deportation reform, and an end to special illegal alien benefits that invite more law-breaking—The Maverick remains a Geraldo Rivera Republican. Instead of emphasizing the need for local and state cooperation with federal immigration authorities to prevent the release of illegal alien criminals or discussing 100 percent preventable crimes by illegal alien thugs who should never have been on American soil in the first place, McCain harps on open-borders sob stories.”
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/01/23/john-mccain-the-geraldo-rivera-republican/
After the massive illegal alien protests of 2006 in American cities, McCain made the following statement; “If such demonstrations continue, I think we will have a bill for the President to sign soon. The more debate, the more demonstrations, the more likely we (illegal alien supporters) will prevail.”
Under McCain’s immigration bill, even members of Mexican drug gangs would have received amnesty by simply signing a statement in which they renounce their gang affiliation; the so-called ‘background checks’ that illegal aliens would have received were only of the 24-hour variety, which reveal very little (if anything) and would have then been given a six month worker card; Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents would have traveled the country handing-out amnesty applications to suspected illegal aliens (Not kidding!), and all immigration enforcement would have ended.
http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=602835
On June 2, 2006 (Le Mars, Iowa) when McCain was questioned about why he didn’t support immigration law enforcement, his response was “In case you hadn’t noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France,” McCain said. “They’ve got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can’t even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don’t want that in the suburbs of America.” That’s right, John McCain, seeking to be President of the United States is afraid of enforcing our laws because of upsetting a group of people who are illegally present in America. Why would anyone vote for a candidate who lacks the faith, commitment and optimism to believe that America is capable of enforcing the law? What we have here is a presidential candidate who uses fear mongering and deceit to advance his commitment to giving amnesty to illegal aliens. It is also irresponsible and reckless, because it conveys a very dangerous message, which is: America is governed by the rule of law, except when the threat of anarchy and violence is too great. In which case, congress and the president will simply change the law to legalize what had been illegal, thereby pacifying those guilty of behavior once considered unlawful.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/03/mccain-without-amnesty-we-might-have-riots-here/
http://o-be-wise.blogspot.com/2007/06/mccain-fears-riots-if-illegals-deported.html
http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=13&num=13814
A new revelation regarding McCain’s presidential campaign is that his “Hispanic Outreach Director”, Juan Hernandez, is the same guy who was a close advisor to Mexico’s President Vicente Fox! Hernandez headed up a Mexican bureaucracy called the “Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad.” It was designed to allow Hernandez to travel across the U.S., meddling with local, state, and federal immigration enforcement on behalf of millions of illegal aliens in America. ” Hernandez has been quoted as saying, “I never knew the border as a limitation. I’d be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries… There are twenty million people, like myself, who have one foot in Mexico and one foot in the United States, and we’re very proud of it… We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.” U.S. born dual citizen Juan Hernandez is very notorious for having said of Mexican Americans on Nightline on June 7, 2001, “I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think Mexico first.” Does John McCain agree that they should always “think Mexico first?” With Hernandez as his “Hispanic Outreach Director”, I don’t think there is any question. Is there any reason that anyone should think open borders fanatic Dr. Hernandez wants President McCain to secure the border? Is there any reason that anyone should trust a man to secure the border if he is getting his “Hispanic Outreach” advice from Dr. Juan Hernandez? Is there any reason why anyone should not think that John McCain is committed to giving amnesty to the 20 million illegal aliens in America? When McCain was questioned about his immigration advisor by an attendee at a Florida town hall meeting during his campaign, his response was “He’s on my staff because he supports my policies…I don’t know what his previous positions are or [his] other positions are, he supports mine.” Mr. Hernandez does indeed support Mr. McCain — and that speaks volumes. http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-100152-.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIK9ZawRMlg
Lest we forget or if anyone is unsure as to what the definition of amnesty is, I will provide it below:
AMNESTY, in relation to immigration matters, is legislation to forgive the breaking of immigration laws and to make it possible for illegal aliens to live permanently in the United States. Amnesty represents a system of federal rewards and assistance for illegal aliens, and they entice an even greater number of foreign nationals to illegally enter a country. Amnesty rewards illegal aliens with the very thing they seek by illegally entering our country…legalization of their presence here.
AMNESTY:
1. A general pardon for offenses against a government
2. An act of forgiveness for past offenses, esp. to a class of persons as a whole
3. Forgetting or overlooking any past offense
Not only is McCain a supporter of amnesty, he is not fond of any fencing for immigration control or for security reasons. McCain said, “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”[Prisoner of Conscience - Vanity Fair, February 2007: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/mccain200702
”We are not going to erect barriers and fences” (June 5, 2007 CNN Republican Presidential Candidates Debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5G3kH1PvvU ) That’s surely true if McCain gets his way as he has demonstrated over and over again how anti-fence and border security he is. In 2006, McCain voted for the Specter Amendment to the Senate’s Immigration Bill that required consultation with Mexico to seek their approval before constructing any border fence. He’s so concerned with hurting Mexico’s feelings at the expense of our border security that he made sure the consultation language was put into the main body of the 2007 Kennedy-McCain Amnesty legislation attempt. That’s right, the Straight Talk Express who now says he’s all for border security is committed to consultations with Mexico to ask them if it would be OK if we built a border fence.
I suppose McCain has never heard of the 14-mile double-layer fence between San Diego and Tijuana, Mexico. Its benefits in stopping illegal entry into the U.S. were immediate and long lasting. According to a 2005 Congressional Research Service report illegal alien apprehensions along the fence region dropped from 202,000 in 1992 to 9,000 in 2004, a reduction greater than 95% ( http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200712/NAT20071219b.html )
Particularly galling is that December’s omnibus spending bill did not include the appropriations for construction of the double layer 700-mile border fence, which was passed into law just a few months earlier. Additionally, the requirement of a double-layer fence mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006 was removed, so if funding is ever restored, a truly effective fence being constructed is unlikely.
I’m sure if McCain was somehow elected President; one of his first official acts would be to take down the fence surrounding the White House and the Green Zone in Bhagdad…right John?
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:00 am
Years ago, lots and lots of years ago, when I was in the 5th grade five or six of my classmates would walk home together after school. When we would arrive at a certain fenced yard a large dog would run out with his tail wagging and we would all pet him and he would run off happy. One day our classmate started poking the friendly dogm through the fence with a big stick when he ran up, he would yelp and run off, Doug thought this was funny and he was superior to the friendly dog. This went on for several days the friendly dog would run to the fence wagging his tail and Doug would keep poking the friendly dog. Then one day Doug poked through the fence and the friendly dog took a couple of quick bites out of Doug’s hand and arm. The point “my friends” I feel like the friendly dog every time Senator McCAMNESTY pokes me with his Open Borders and Blanket Amnesty Stick!
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:10 am
If the election goes other than RINO, this will be the reason why. To tell you the truth, with the checks and balances that are suppose to be in place, I would rather take my chances than have a president “reach” across the aisle to force this amnesty down our throat. It would definitely signal the end of this country as a sovereign nation.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:18 am
I am not voting for Mccain. But at least he is starting to get back to his senses on immigration. Amnesty is not paying thousands of dollars and getting the back of the line.
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
The tragic assumption in ANY of these plans is that our Government is actually capable of making the plan work. The plans devised to date ( the Senates most recent version ) simply are not workable.
When you hear politicians and policy wonks at the federal level tout a plan as comprehensive or multi faceted you are about to be handed a tangled ball of yarn with a price tag in the billions.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
“Amnesty for those who have jumped the border will send the signal that U.S. immigration enforcement is a joke….”
They’ve been getting that message loud and clear for years.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“It means radically increasing the size of the U.S. underclass,..”
Immigrants have always been upwardly mobile, always. The poorest of the poor from farthest reaches of the world can make the jump from low to moderate income and then some. What increased the size of the underclass is welfare as we know it.
I recently asked a woman who the guy she was with was. I asked if he was her boyfriend. “She said no, he’s my baby daddy, well, one of my baby daddies.” She went on to tell me there were two others, both in jail. 5 kids, three baby daddies. Lovely.
That causes me much more concern about the state of our nation than comprehensive immigration reform, but then again I don’t share the horror of Latin America and its poeple that most of you do.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Laura:
How are things in the valley ?
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Laura, exactly (and I will overlook your snide remark at the end because I assume you have started drinking already on such a beautiful Friday - it’s 5:00 somewhere, right?)
Of course, many if not most “immigrants” are upwardly mobile, since they followed the legal course to be here and are part of American society. Our society is by and large upwardly mobile compared to much of the world.
The problem, as you note lies with the welfare state. It enables the illegal aliens - those who largely have come for low- or unskilled work or as family members of the workers, to live a comfortable life and, as you note, enables bad behavior.
Corrupt employers, welfare and enabling government policies at every level - from President Bush to Loudoun County’s Zoning Enforcement Team - are the reasons for our illegal immigration problems.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I see you have skipped the beer and headed straight to the hard liquor. Salud! I on the other hand am off to work and alas must wait until 10 or so for that blessed shift drink.
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Welfare benefits.
Immigrants in general are less likely to access Welfare benefits than whites or blacks.
This stark line that you thinks exists between legal and illegal limmigrants does not exist.
The woman I am refering to was white. As a matter of fact I work with two white women who are both on welfare and both have multiple children from multiple fathers, are unamrried, and on welfare. One is actually in the drug court program.
None of the Hispanics or Hispanic immigrants employed there, 4 times as many, are single parents or are on welfare.
Of course that’s just a microcosm. I don’t have time to gather data because I’m off to work. Much like you ofetn refer to your fisrt hand experience of life in the Sterling ghetto as evidence of the “illegal invasion” I will let that anecdotal evidence suffice as proof of general moral shortcomings and the failure of our welfare system.
Stone - I grew up in the Shenandoah Valley. I went to Loudoun Valley High School. My last name translates as Valley. Which valley are you referring to?
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Greg, I think there must be a special bond between Ms Valle and ourselves.
Laura, I think there is a stark line between legal and illegal. But I suppose on this matter we will just have to agree to disagree.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Laura:
Upward mobility can at times be a somewhat slow process. Especially on those who have issues with language. Let’s face it, speaking English is step number one. Achieving step number one, or at a minimum making it easier is having an education.
The vast majority of those coming here from South America and in particular Mexico are poor and uneducated making learning the English language will be very tough without resources from some outside entity, such as charities or government(s). Charities or NGO’s are not ever going to be able to tackle such a large task so we are back to government. Governments at all levels have and will continue to us taxpayers money for the purpose of educating illegals.
It is not my ( our ) responsibility to do Mexico’s job. The taxpayers of the United States should not be saddled with the burden of correcting the misdeeds of a failed foreign state.
By the way, how are things in the valley ?
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Laura:
So then you might on occasion refer to yourself as Valley Girl ?
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
It wouldn’t be take a stretch of the imagination now would it genius?
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Welfare benefits.
When an illegal applies for services from lets say LC mental health or another county agency and that agency does not check status, they are receiving benefits. Those benefits have a cost associated with them, a cost paid for by the taxpayers.
I was at one time a member of the Loudoun County Criminal Justice Board. As a member of that board, I became aware of services offered to or mandated to offenders of crimes associated with alcohol or domestic violence.
If Juan the illegal Mexican gets busted pissing on a dumpster in downtown Leesburg, he may very well end up in a class offered or mandated by the court. Given that drunk and disorderly is not an offense that would get Juan deported, Juan the illegal ends up in a class designed for those offenders too stupid to otherwise figure out it is illegal to piss on a dumpster in downtown Leesburg. In other words you and I get to pay to correct Juan’s stupidity.
The following week when Juan smacks his wife up side the head because she forget to get him more Corona at the grocery store, the Sheriffs office tosses Juan back in the slammer. Juan having not become legal since he got busted for pissing on the dumpster, is still an illegal migrant. Not wanting to racial profile or offend Juan, he is then offered counseling ( in Spanish by the way ) The purpose of this counseling is to help Juan understand that is it not cool to smack your wife upside the head just because you are half shot in the ass. It is bad enough I ( we ) have to pay for American nitwits who get drunk and smack their wives, now we have to pay to educate illegal Mexican nitwits not to get drunk and smack their wives.
All of this stuff has a cost. This stuff does not occur free. It is the aggregate total of the costs offered to those who are not deserving that most from your side fail to see or properly calculate.
It is the cause and effect of those who occupy space for which they are not entitled.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Joe:
You didn’t start hitting the hard stuff this early as Ms. Valley said, did you ? Shame on you. That is the type of behavior that might lead one to call you a lush.
And yes Joe, our bond with Loudoun’s Valley girl is very very special.
May 23rd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
McLame said he “got it”, on immigration. Now he is back to scamnesty. Does anyone here want to argue with me why I need to vote for this lying, vengeful crackpot?
May 23rd, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth.
I’m not talking just about the obvious problems that we see in the news - growing dependence on foreign oil, carbon emissions, soaring commodity prices, environmental degradation, etc. I’m talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.
I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled “Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America.” To make a long story short, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.
This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.
But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.
The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight other countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. The U.S. is the only developed country still experiencing third world-like population growth, most of which is due to immigration. It’s absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that’s impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.
If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface for free, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It’s also available at Amazon.com.)
Please forgive the somewhat “spammish” nature of the previous paragraph. I just don’t know how else to inject this new perspective into the immigration debate without drawing attention to the book that explains the theory.
Pete Murphy
Author, Five Short Blasts
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Look at all the wide open spaces out west. There’s room for a lot of people, unless the billionaires buy up the land for their “country homes with a view”.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Plenty of land, Lovisa, but no water.
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Shoot! No water, no problem. Look at Las Vegas, Sun City in Arizona and other desert communities with acres and acres of golf courses (green) and swimming pools. No water, no problem!
May 24th, 2008 at 8:27 am
Well Greg, he’s as much said so himself for f..ks, sake mate. Don’t tell me I’m on some kind of gun loving, immigrant hating hit list, I mean blog watch list.
As to the rest of your comments, just learn to use the fricken language right. Mental Health services are not welfare.
May 24th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Laura V.,
“… ust learn to use the fricken language right. Mental Health services are not welfare.”
What a bunch of hooey! The MHS provide services no questions asked. Papaer work regarding the treatments are provided this very same paperwork is used to get on the county dole for other things like WELFARE etc. To use a hoary old expression on this site “Dork!”
May 24th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Whoops, my bad, It is true that illegals cannot get “welfare” per se but they can get stuff that most people would think of as simply welfare. Indigent health care (paid for by state and local taxes and higher insurance costs), and all the money that is spent on their children (Medicaid, a panoply of school related benefits), on top of the fact they pay at the low end of the tax spectrum. It’s all part of the “welfare state” so the point of Milton Friedman’s remains: “It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.”
May 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Jacob - did you just call me a dork? Umm, I think that the use of that word actually makes you a dork, unless you are under 12. Hoary old expression it is not.
Greg, I think the ASAP program is riddled with problems, regardless of the recipients.
But to both you and Joe, again, I am not an advoacte of illegal immigration, I am an advocate of immigration reform. I think we all can agree that 16 million illegal immigrants is not a good thing. Joe:
Here is a littel more depth to that Milton Friedman quote that you and Greg are so fond of taking out of context:
“Is immigration, I asked–especially illegal immigration–good for the economy, or bad? “It’s neither one nor the other,” Mr. Friedman replied. “But it’s good for freedom. In principle, you ought to have completely open immigration. But with the welfare state it’s really not possible to do that. . . . She’s an immigrant,” he added, pointing to his wife. “She came in just before World War I.” (Rose–smiling gently: “I was two years old.”) “If there were no welfare state,” he continued, “you could have open immigration, because everybody would be responsible for himself.” Was he suggesting that one can’t have immigration reform without welfare reform? “No, you can have immigration reform, but you can’t have open immigration without largely the elimination of welfare.
“At the moment I oppose unlimited immigration. I think much of the opposition to immigration is of that kind–because it’s a fundamental tenet of the American view that immigration is good, that there would be no United States if there had not been immigration. Of course, there are many things that are easier now for immigrants than there used to be. . . .”
Did he mean there was much less pressure to integrate now than there used to be? Milton: “I’m not sure that’s true . . .” Rose (speaking simultaneously): “That’s the unfortunate thing . . .” Milton: “But I don’t think it’s true . . .” Rose: “Oh, I think it is! That’s one of the problems, when immigrants come across and want to remain Mexican.” Milton: “Oh, but they came in the past and wanted to be Italian, and be Jewish . . .” Rose: “No they didn’t. The ones that did went back.”
Mrs. Friedman, I was learning, often had the last word.”
Excerpt from The Romance of Economics
Milton and Rose Friedman: Dinner with Keynes? Yes. War with Iraq? They disagree.
by TUNKU VARADARAJAN
on the Wall street Journal online
May 24th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Friedman also said this:
““That’s an interesting paradox to think about. Make it legal and it’s no good. Why? Because as long as it’s illegal the people who come in do not qualify for welfare, they don’t qualify for social security, they don’t qualify for the other myriad of benefits that we pour out from our left pocket to our right pocket. So long as they don’t qualify they migrate to jobs. They take jobs that most residents of this country are unwilling to take. They provide employers with the kind of workers that they cannot get. They’re hard workers, they’re good workers, and they are clearly better off. “
It seems I am much closer aligned with his point of you than either Joe or Greg, in that welfare is a greater harm to our nation than illegla immigration.
May 24th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I have offered that quote by Friedman because it succinctly states an important truth which seems to escape many of today’s policy makers, not because I consider Friedman the ultimate authority on everything. He could have been a Scientologist, for all I know. But I am glad to see you have found in him a kindred spirit.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Laura :
Your arguments are cheap parlor tricks. I not even going to further address the ” welfare ”
v. cost of social and other services provided.
Joe summed it up nicely. If you don’t understand that we are talking big picture here, that being the total sum of all costs having to do with illegals then we are wasting each others time.
As far as Milton Friedman is concerned, as usual you mix in the apples ( immigration or immigrants ) in order to cover up the oranges
( illegals, illegal migrants , illegal immigrants)
You continue to try to lead these discussions down these ancillary rabbit holes. We keep having to drag you back to the real subject at hand.
Maybe I should be quoting Rose too ?
May 25th, 2008 at 9:24 am
It seems I am much closer aligned with his point of you than either Joe or Greg, in that welfare is a greater harm to our nation than illegal immigration.
Laura :
I am sorry but this is simply one of the dumbest things you have ever said. First, it is a foolish assumption, or a very poor guess on your part that I as a conservative believe Welfare to be a lesser threat than illegal immigration. The fact of the matter is the two are equal culprits to the degradation of life in America. It is my position that welfare or the welfare state to more exact is an overall drain on our countries productivity and prosperity. It also acts as a magnet whether real or through misinformation for illegals. One enhances or complements the others ability to create stress and further burden Americas financial, governmental and social infrastructures.
As soon as we get rid of all these illegals we will embark on a second wave of welfare reform.
Hell, lets do em at the same time, why not ?
May 25th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Greg - hey dude, I was just clarifying use, or misuse, of the Milton Friedman quote.
“I am sorry but this is simply one of the dumbest things you have ever said. First, it is a foolish assumption, or a very poor guess on your part that I as a conservative believe Welfare to be a lesser threat than illegal immigration.”
I didn’t assume or guess anything about your views as a conservative in terms of rating threats to our nation. I simply stated that both Friedman and I feel that welfare is the greater harm, Friedman apparently even more so than I. Great minds think a like.
As to illegal vs. legal, Friedman addressed that distinction as well, and actually made the case that illegal immigration is a good thing, compared to legal immigration, to the extent that legal immigrants are eligible for welfare benefits, though as of right now, a legal immigrant must have permanent residency status for something like 4 years, or so many work credits before they can access most benefits such as food stamps or Medicaid.
Your assumption that the net cost of illegal immigrants is greater than their contribution is debatable by the way, even including other non-welfare types of assistance that are any way costs to the taxpayer. For every study you throw out that proves this to be true I can find a legitimate study that demonstrates the opposite.
“It also acts as a magnet whether real or through misinformation for illegals.”
That, my dear, is complete misinformation on your part. In reality, most immigrants are less likely to apply for assistance because of the fear of Public Charge, which would make them ineligible for adjustment of status. I have gone over that issue with hundreds and hundreds of immigrants who tend to fear that any assistance at all will adversely affect them. They tend to wait until an emergency, which is admittedly rather costly, depending on the institution providing the services. Loudoun Hospital is a non-profit and as such the amount of charity care it provides is not close to what it is required to provide in return for the tax benefits of being exempt from taxes. They did however just donate $100,000 to the free clinic which makes good sense as it is much cheaper to provide preventative and basic healthcare to the indigent population in order to avoid an emergency situation caused by a medical problem left untreated.
If you’ll excuse me now, I’m going to go outside and hang out with my chickens as it is vastly more stimulating and entertaining than hanging out here with Mr. Birdbrain himself Greg Stone.
May 25th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Lovisa, the Colorado river is bone dry by the time it gets to Mexico. The feral gov’mint spends a whole lot of money subsidizing the water in the southwest. It’s a huge problem.
May 25th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Along with the elimination of the welfare state, we would also have to eliminate minimum wage.
May 26th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Jack at 3:5pm-
My statement was, of course, tongue in cheek. I know quite well what the water problems are out west. And I think it’s a shame so much is spent on golf courses. They ought to try to build a few like the Devil’s Golf Course in Death Valley!
May 26th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Laura V
you can thank SPMM for that. he reintroduced the phrase “Dork” to the local lexicon, as for 12 yo and such, when YOUR logic resembles that of a 12 yo, do not be surprised to see a 12 yo aimed at you.