There’s obvious a crisis regarding The Wall and illegal immigration. Clear News has many articles regarding this subject (see below), but let’s see if we can synthesize all of these articles into a clear understanding of this problem.
First of all, President Trump wants to build the wall and the Democrats oppose building it.
Secondly there is a Hispanic invasion going on. 12 million illegal immigrants, and their supporters, living in the U.S., want dual citizenship, and then perhaps over 50 million Latin American citizens would also like to get dual citizenship if they had the chance. Finally, perhaps over a billion citizens around the world would also like dual citizenship if they had the chance.
The Democrats are refusing to fund the wall. Trump is refusing to accept the 2019 budget unless there is funding for the wall. So, now, we have the longest shutdown of the government in history. Both sides are digging their heels in the mud.
Trump is stating that the shutdown has caused a national emergency, and therefore he can invoke emergency powers to build the wall without Congress’ approval – arguing that the wall is causing the shutdown, and once he funds building it, the government can function again.
The Grand Deception
The main Immigration deception is being made by the Democrats and the Progressive con, for they argue that they are not for open borders and unlimited illegal immigration. Rather, they argue that they support immigration control, and once government should open again, they will negotiate authentic “immigration reform.”
However, Democrats have resisted any practical measure to have any immigration policy that is actually enforced. And they actively support many policies that encourage illegal immigration, for instance welfare benefits and sanctuary cities. The only way that there can be a realistic immigration program is to have large deportation – for a percentage of the millions of illegal immigrants who fight legal proceedings and who simply overstay their visas. And Democrats oppose nearly all significant deportations.
Fooled me once, shame on you, fooled me twice, shame on me.
In 1986, 11 million illegal immigrants were allowed to become legal. Nearly all of these new citizens voted Democrat. The Progressives promised the country that, now that the illegal immigrants were made legal, they were going to really enforce the borders and deport illegal immigrants. It was a con job. They never intended to do either. Now there are 12 million more illegal immigrants in the country, all demanding legalization and eventual dual citizenship.
(It isn’t rocket science to predict what would happen in the next ten years if all these illegal immigrants were all now rewarded with eventual citizenship.)
The main reason why Democrats support illegal immigration, and then eventual citizenship, is simple: virtually everyone of the illegal immigrants made citizens will vote Democratic, as will their children, and their children. (What Hispanic would ever vote for the party that supported authentic immigration control?) Then country would be ruled by Democrats and Progressives for the foreseeable future. The Republican party would be dead for all intensive purposes.
In fact, Democrats must oppose deportations and any authentic immigration control, for if they supported authentic immigration control they would lose the Hispanic vote in their districts, which means less electoral victories, which means less political power.
Thus the Democrats and Progressive support one policy of the Hispanic con, the Immigrant con, and the Black con: to increase the population with racial diversity on all levels of the economic pie until there is an end of white supremacy in the United states, that is, until all people of color (African-American, multi-racial, Asian, African, and Latin American) people have as much money and as much social status and European-Americans (white Americans). This is the right of people of color. This is one interpretation of the civil rights movement.
(Of course, the deception in the movement to destroy white supremacy is in the duplicity in the definition of this “grey” (vague) concept. White naïve idealists interpret “white supremacy” as meaning the belief in white genetic superiority, which they opposed. However, the African American and Hispanic con define “white superiority” as whites having more economic or social success in the United States, that is, meritocracy. Whites have a bigger piece of the pie, when these con movements believe in equal slices of the pie, regardless of how much each group contributed to making the pie. (Any authentic discussion about “contribution” and “responsibility” is considered racist.)
There is another reason Democrats support illegal immigration: naïve idealism. Democrats want to help the poor and under-privileged. They don’t want to hurt anyone. The believe there should be no pain nor suffering in the world. They believe that anyone who is poor or suffering should be allowed to enter the U.S. illegally and eventually become citizens. Deportations (even if it is to their home country, which usually they love) is too painful and cruel. How open borders will be paid for or what will be the consequences for the country is none of their concern: let the evil Republicans, conservatives and responsible citizens take care of it.
Bret Kavanagh and the Wall
During the Kavanagh hearings, the Democratic Senators tried to pull the same deception are now doing with the wall. During those hearings the Democrats engaged in a moral inquisition with Kavanagh, digging into 30 years of his personal past history to find any sin that they felt would disqualify him from getting on the Supreme Court – regardless if there was any legal evidence for his committing these sins or not.
They claimed that they were executing this inquisition to assure that every Supreme Court justice was morally pure, but the real reason was that they wanted to stall the Senate’s consent until after the 2018 election, hoping that the Senate would get a majority and then confirm a liberal Justice.
The same basic deception is going on with Senator Schumer and Congresswoman Pelosi. They claim that they only want an honest debate over how to control illegal immigration, but what they really want the maximum amount of illegal immigrants to become citizens, and thus become Democratic voters. Thus, the Democrats will oppose any meaningful program of deportation of illegal immigrants, and they will support sanctuary cities, where illegal immigrants will be protected. Finally, they will oppose any practical measures of stopping illegal immigrants from crossing the border.
We can see this strategy being played out with the recent election of Congresswoman Cortez, who may be one of the leading voices of the Hispanic con. Only 12% of the voters voted in the Democratic primary in her Congressional district. Because of her charismatic personality and Hispanic nationalism, she rallied the Hispanic voters, and other immigrants to vote for her. (How many of these immigrants were once illegal and then became voting citizens?) The Democrats automatically always win in her district and thus she was voted in to her $175,000 a year job.
Cortez argues that all illegal immigrants should become legal, and eventual citizens, and that ICE, the agency that deports illegals, should be eliminated. She also proclaims that her district is economically vibrant, largely because of the illegal immigrants. But she doesn’t attribute any of this economic vibrancy to the tens of millions of dollars pouring into her district every year from welfare programs, paid by taxpayers from other districts.
If Cortez has her way – which she argues with Hispanic nationalistic and moral passion – their will be many more Cortez’ elected in the future. The Hispanic vote will be the swing balance in many districts.
The fallacy of the Republicans
Meanwhile Trump, with his routine dysfunctional political behavior is arguing that we must control the border to protect the country from criminals and terrorists. Then he denigrates the people who want to come here illegally, as he denigrates all his opponents, largely for entertainment value.
However, what he should be arguing is that the U.S. has a right to have legal borders and a legal process of immigration. Period. The U.S. is a democracy and the citizens have the right to vote on who should be let in the country and who should not. Every other country in the world has this right, and they enforce it. For instance, illegal immigrants are not allowed in any Latin American country, nor in Canada or Australia (two countries with high legal immigration rates and who criticize the U.S., claiming their moral superiority regarding immigrants).
Illegal immigrants are not criminals nor terrorists.
Illegal immigrants are, by far, ordinary, decent people who come from difficult countries and who want a better life for themselves and their families. They want the American prize – often $40,000 a year of benefits (1) and a lifetime of over $1 million benefits for their extended families – all at the expense of the naïve American taxpayer. They want the unlimited opportunity that America offers for them, especially for their children. They don’t want “asylum” in any other Latin American country, where there are no such benefits. They are good people pursuing their rational economic self-interest.
But this doesn’t mean that the U.S. is obligated to immigrate every person in the world who is tired or poor, who wants $1 million of lifetime benefits for him and his extended family, who lives in a high crime neighborhood in their country, or who is governed by corrupt and immoral governments.
This would mean that approximately 3 billion people in the world have a right to come to American – any way possible – and to eventually become dual citizens, at the expense of the American taxpayer.
In fact, this is exactly what many in the Progressive con are demanding: that every person in the world has a right – a civil right – to come to the U.S. and become a citizen:
“This land is your land, this land is my land, it is meant for you and me.”
The Wisconsin Experience
In the 1990s some African-American families living on welfare in Chicago discovered that they could easily get welfare in Wisconsin if they moved there. The benefits were better, the schools were better, and the neighborhoods were relatively crime free.
After numerous families moved to Wisconsin and got the benefits, word quickly spread to the other families who were on welfare in Chicago, and then to others. Soon there was a mass migration.
Many Wisconsin taxpayers were shocked. They could never afford this invasion, the crime would go up, and the quality of the schools would go down.
The Progressives and the Conservatives lined up in their usual political positions: Progressives arguing that the Wisconsin taxpayers had a moral obligation to help the poor from Chicago and that the poor had a moral blank check – there was no way they could commit crimes or contribute to dysfunction in the schools, and certainly they couldn’t have racial hostility towards Wisconsin citizens. Any other idea was racist.
The “evil” Conservatives, on the other hand, wanted to conserve the good they had in the State. They wanted to help the poor of Chicago, but do so in a realistic and responsible way. Some Conservatives didn’t even believe in the welfare system and certainly didn’t want to expand it. They believed in small governments and maximum individual liberty (especially the liberty to hold on to their work earnings). Other Conservatives had little empathy for the poor in Chicago and were only interested in themselves and the citizens of Wisconsin.
(The members of the black con and the Hispanic con have contempt for this lack of empathy, while they have same lack of empathy for the people paying the vast majority of the bills, the white, “racist” taxpayer.)
The synthesis of this dialectical clash was that the Wisconsin government established a welfare-to-work program, where the welfare recipients were required to work and/or go to school for their welfare benefits. This program stopped the Chicago migration.
In the 1990s, Mayor Giuliani, of New York, hired the same administrator from Wisconsin to be his welfare administrator in New York City, and the welfare rolls went down 50% in just a few years.
Many similar welfare-to-work policies was implemented in many states throughout the country, most resulting in lower welfare rolls. Progressives routinely oppose such welfare-to-work program, claiming it is – you guessed it – immoral and racist.
In the same way, the U.S. can’t discourage illegal immigration by rewarding families with great benefits if they come here illegally. And the U.S. can’t allow every tired and poor person in the world to immigrate, become citizens, and then hand the bill to the U.S. taxpayer.
Good or Bad?
It is a fascinating paradox in this society that discussions about what is good and what is bad is almost a taboo subject in our whole education system. And yet what is good or bad is the very essence of the immigration conflict – as virtually all of our political policy disputes.
Citizens who support authentic immigration control are seen as racists, xenophobes, and cruel and immoral people. People supporting people coming to this country and breaking all its laws, including welfare fraud, lying about authentic amnesty, committing theft, engaging in drug smuggling, engaging in drug dealing, and having children out of wedlock, are seen as good people.
Church and state
The taboo about having authentic debates about what is good and what is bad stems from a dysfunctional interpretation of our Constitutional statutes that mandate a separation between church and state. Because we are prohibited from having a state church, some argue that we are prohibited from discussing any of the ideas that churches and religious denominations propose, and certainly we are prohibited from discussing any aspect of Jesus’ worldview, or his philosophy. This would be integrating religion with the state. Meanwhile, the vast majority of our political leaders are religious in one way or another, as is most of the citizens of the U.S. This is a paradox.
The Hispanic Con
One aspect of the debate about what is good and what is bad in our immigration conflict is an honest look at the Hispanic con – the system of dysfunctional beliefs held my many illegal immigrants and their supporters.
Here are some of the dysfunctional beliefs of the Hispanic con:
All citizens of Latin American have a right to illegally come to the U.S. or come legally and overstay their visas. Once here they have a right to all U.S. laws.
They have a right to “due process.” Thus they can evade the law to the maximum power they have; they can not show up for court dates; they can hire lawyers to fight the deportation process with all the money they can earn. (If you calculate how much an illegal immigrant looses by being deported, it is in his economic interest to fight deportation with all the money he can get.)
If a female illegal immigrant has a child in the U.S.that child is now a U.S. citizen, and his mother should not be deported. The child cannot be “ripped away from its mother’s arms” if the mother was deported. Thus the mother must stay in the U.S. The mother has the right to commit welfare fraud, that is, not report that she has a common-law-husband who helps support her and her child with under-the-table (tax-free and illegal) earnings.
And the same goes for his father, for we can’t rip the chid away from his father’s arms. “That is not who we are.” Of course the father has a right to not marry the mother and work off the books, thus collecting generous welfare benefits for his family, while contributing to his family with his off-the-books cash. In other words, welfare fraud.
Latin American countries have the right to support illegal immigration to the U.S. Many Latin American countries — including Mexico — whole-heartedly support illegal immigration to the United States. Some even have official guides on how to do it. The money these illegal immigrants send home is often one of the biggest sources of their foreign income. These illegal immigrants are treated like heroes in their home country.
An illegal immigrant has the right to work off-the-books and pay no taxes. An illegal immigrant has the same rights a member of the black con: the moral blank check. He can commit and immoral or illegal act that is necessary to stay in the U.S.
(In fact, many of these immigrants come from countries that the leaders have arrogated to themselves the same moral blank check. This has resulted in the poverty and crime that the immigrants are escaping, but at the same time they want to have the same moral blank check in the U.S., thus establishing a more Latin American culture in the U.S. The con belief is that all morality is relatively equal – any other idea is white supremacy.)
Illegal immigrants have the right to all basic welfare benefits: free education, free housing, food stamps, cash assistance, and free health care. A country as wealthy as the U.S. cannot allow people, illegal or not, to be homeless, sick, or hungry.
So how do we get out of this conundrum? Here are RG’s policy proposals. Like most of my polices, I feel these are realistic and practical, although perhaps not politically feasible. There may not be the political will to implement them. The strong Hispanic, African-American, and Progressive political forces may render these policies impossible to implement because of the reality of democracy.
Here are my proposals:
Accept our moral obligation
The U.S. has a moral obligation to help the tired, poor, and oppressed of the world. There is no way we can accept the philosophy of the Judeo-Christian worldview and ignore this obligation.
However, there is no mandate that we harm our country in the process. There is no mandate that we cannot love ourselves as we love others. In fact, loving ourselves (in this case supporting the good of the country) may help us love others (being more generous to the poor and suffering in the world).
Thus we can dramatically increase our foreign aid to those countries who are in bad shape, while still deporting illegal immigrants, having border control, and having a realistic immigration program. We can also (somehow) tailor our assistance to poorer countries to discourage corruption in their governments.
This increase in foreign aid an act as a leverage to discourage these countries from supporting illegal immigration to this country.
We can also treat the deportees as humanely as possible, giving them start-up money in their home countries – say, $1,000 – and provide transportation, as well as giving aid to their home country to handle the deportees. This may be much less expensive to American taxpayers than paying up to $1 million in lifetime benefits to an illegal immigrant who contributes little to the economy.
What about Bob? Bill Murray made a very funny movie about a neurotic patient and an arrogant psychiatrist. A variation of “What about Bob?” was asked by Donald Trump during his campaign and this significantly contributed to his winning the Presidency: “What about all the American citizens?” This question was not asked by the Progressive political group. They asked the questions: “What can we do for the African Americans and illegal immigrants?” and “What can we do for the poor populations of the world?” The white working class in America can go screw themselves (just pay the increase in their taxes).
In the same way we can ask that American citizens be given something in return for allowing a portion of the illegal immigrants to become legal. We could demand that the home country of these illegal immigrants-turned citizens grant, in turn, the same number of American citizen’s dual citizenship in these countries.
Honest appraisal of the costs of illegal immigration
The Progressives have “hard facts” that show illegal immigration, made legal, adds to the economy and, in the long run, benefit everyone. The Conservatives, on the other hand have “hard facts” that every illegal immigrant cost the American taxpayers over $500,000 in lifetime costs.
Somehow we could get some realistic “hard facts.” Then we could calculate how much the
authentic immigration reform and still
[retweet] improve the country’s economy.
A key to authentic immigration reform is deportations. We are not deporting illegal immigrants to hell, to prison, or to a terrible country. We are deporting them to their home country, which most of them love. It is imperative to do this in order to discourage further illegal immigration.
We must give the citizens of the world the message that America has a very generous immigration policy (in fact, one of the most generous in the world — and certainly more generous than any Latin American country), but it must be legal, and we will effectively stop illegal immigration. We can even increase our number of immigrants and increase the number of immigrants claiming amnesty.
(But we must have a limit to the number of amnesty immigrants, for the majority of the world could claim amnesty due to war, oppressive and corrupt governments, crime, and persecution.)
We could have a policy of humane deportations. This would not cause undue bitterness among the deportees nor poor public relations among fellow countries. Thus we could pay generous resettlement benefits; help for Mexico caring for the illegal immigration caravans; and help for other Latin American countries to take in migrants claiming amnesty.
Registering illegal immigrants
We could mandate that all illegal immigrants register with the government. They could give their address, fingerprints (even DNA), and brief questions about their immigration history. If they complied, they could be guaranteed not to be deported within, say, two years. After the two years, they could apply for another two years.
They could be given ID cards and legal status for two years, although not in any way promising a path to citizenship. They could even be put on a priority line for the consideration of citizenship.
(Of course, this policy would be viciously opposed by Hispanic con and the Progressive con, claiming that his policy was racist and fascist, and would lead to a Nazi government.)
Those illegal immigrants who refused to register with the government could be subject to rapid deportation if caught, and they could be promised never to be considered for citizenship.
Then, if economically feasible, the justice system could be infused with as much money – and laws passed – to make this deportation process humane and efficient, while understanding that it is to an illegal immigrant’s economic interest to fight this deportation process with all his available resources. And it may be to the U.S. taxpayer’s economic interest to deport those who do not contribute to the economy.
Mitt Romney was right
In his Presidential bid, Romney suggest “voluntary return to homeland” program. This could be integrated into our identification process. Illegal immigrants could be promised that, if they returned to their home country (and we could give them financial help to do so), and they applied for legal immigration from their home country, they could be given priority to immigrate in the future.
If these returnees thought their govenment was so terrible, they could devote themselves to try to improve it.
(Of course, this idea was denounced as racist, draconian, and fascist by the Hispanic con and the Progressive con.)
Romney also enunciated one of core hypothesis of the policy of this article: we can’t stop illegal immigration when we reward it so generously. This is psychology 101: rewards increases behavior, punishments discourage behavior. We may not like psychological reality, but it is reality nonetheless.
“The answers are blowin in the wind.”
There are moral, humane, and practical policy solutions to virtually and political/economic problem we face. We only have to have the political will to identify these solutions and work towards them. And be willing to make the sacrifices
Then, as always, we must live in reality – including political and economic reality. Living in a democracy has its limits. This is why we need authentic political leaders, not a common experience.
Finally, these ideas are not absolutely true but relatively true: I find them to be the best ideas on immigration available. And the reader may agree. Then the reader can accept these ideas until better – more ethical and practical – ideas come along.
(1) Let’s add it up
Let’s add up the total benefits a woman, her common-law husband, and, say, three kids, born in the U.S., receive:
free housing $10,000 a year
food stamps $3,600
cash allowance $4,000
ed and ESL) $30,000
free health care $15,000
Total $108,000 a year
If she get’s these benefits for, say 20 years, when here kids reach adulthood, she will receive over $2 million in benefits. If all 3 kids go to free college at a cost of $30,000 a year, we can add another $360,000 onto her lifetime benefits.
Can can anyone doubt why she (and her common law husband) will do anything they can to come to the U.S. illegally? And can any reasonable person argue that the U.S. can afford to give these benefits to anyone in the world who is tire and poor, and wants to declare amnesty? This is called naive idealism