13

Why Trump?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“We’ve got to enforce our border, go to enforce our laws.  But there are people willing to do jobs Americans aren’t willing to do. Lots of Americans don’t want to pick cotton in 105 degrees, but there are people who want to put food on their family’s table, and are willing to do that.

We ought to be able to say thank you, and to welcome them. Have a plan in place that enables workers to do work Americans won’t do.

When there’s a populist sentiment it makes it harder to get that kind of issue resolved.”

George W. Bush, Speech in Dubai, February 8, 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

George W. Bush in a speech in Dubai last week unintentionally helped explain why Donald Trump is President.  My favorite living historian Victor Davis Hanson gives us the details:

While in Dubai, Bush criticized the Trump Administration’s lack of progress on immigration reform. Then he weirdly noted, “Americans don’t want to pick cotton at 105 degrees, but there are people who want to put food on their family’s tables and are willing to do that.”

Where to start when Republican elites confirm their own stereotypes?

First, Republicans should agree with Churchill’s dictum about the inadvisability of criticizing one’s government while in a foreign country: “When I am abroad I always make it a rule never to criticize or attack the Government of my own country. I make up for lost time when I come home.” Bush repeatedly followed that guidance when he insisted that he would not attack Barack Obama—even at home. But not now.

Second, Bush is far more critical of Trump’s efforts to reach a compromise on DACA and border security than he was of Barack Obama’s illegal and politically expedient 2012 pre-reelection executive order nullifying immigration law and enforcement. Whether he intended it or not, Bush’s “woke” emergence as a megaphone after eight years of hibernation, confirms the impression that Republican elites were always much closer in spirit to their Democratic counterparts than they were to their own so-called grassroots conservative base. Translated, they mildly were displeased with the Obama agenda, but loathe Trump’s.

Third, how incoherent were Bush’s cotton-picking riffs! (He may not have realized it, but Bush put a 21st-century spin on 19th-century plantation owners’ pleas that they needed imported chattel African labor because American workers were neither acclimatized to heat nor inexpensive enough to pick cotton in scorching Southern temperatures). Bush substantiated the stereotype of crass corporate concern (note the inadvertent contempt in “willing to do that”) that trumps both the law and the idea of promoting the wages of U.S. entry-level workers—as well as general popular cluelessness about illegal immigration in general.

To wit, cotton picking (which I used to do as a child in the 1960s on my father’s small 40-acre cotton allotment) has been widely mechanized for over 50 years. And agriculture now only accounts for about 10-20 percent of illegal alien labor.

Mechanization has revolutionized farming, even in crops once deemed impossible to automate such as nuts, olives, raisins, and delicate Napa Valley wine grapes. New computerized and laser-calibrated breakthroughs will likely mean that even soft fruit and vegetables will soon be mechanically picked, matching ongoing labor reduction in weeding and irrigation.

More importantly, it was not just the Trump tax and deregulatory reforms that have fueled economic growth and prompted workers’ wages to rise, but also the substantial drop in illegal immigration. In the new psychological climate that’s followed, employers are beginning to believe it is no longer worth the risk to hire illegal aliens, as they scour the economy to find citizen workers (in the inner city, the red state postindustrial swath, and the barrio) and pay them more to reenter the workforce.

When the country has a 63 percent labor participation rate, there are more able-bodied workers than we assume, even as unemployment measured by traditional rubrics is about to fall below 4 percent.

The old Republican idea that illegal immigration is a good thing because noble foreign nationals work hard and cheaply for businesses in a way unemployed Americans “will not do” is not a sustainable factual, ethical, or political position. About half of illegal immigrant households use some sort of government assistance, for example.

Mechanization, automation, and higher wages for labor are the future of the American workforce. If we learned anything from the 2016 election it is that we should reject the calcified idea of corporate importation of inexpensive laborers from impoverished countries, profiting from their peak productive years, and then as they age, tire, and become ill, passing them on to the social welfare industry to rely on taxpayer-subsidized health, legal, and education services—even as firms seek out yet a new, young, and recyclable cohort from Mexico and Latin America.

Go here to read the rest.  There are few policies that are more class driven in the US than immigration.  Liberal elites want future voters.  Republican elites, I cannot call them conservative, want cheap labor.  All of these elites know that, in all likelihood, they and their offspring will not be directly affected by the criminal gangs that are always active among illegal aliens, that they will not have to wait for treatment in emergency rooms swamped with nonpaying illegal aliens, that they will not see their kids’ schools go downhill trying to educate the children of illegal aliens, that they will not lose their jobs as cheap illegal aliens are used in preference to higher paid Americans.  In short, elites get what they want and the tab is paid for by the middle class and poor Americans.  If Americans dare speak out about this they are condemned as racists and Nazis.  It is not a wonder that Trump got elected, the wonder is that it did not happen long ago.

Oh, and on a personal note, when I was a teenager and in my early twenties I often did agricultural labor during the Summer, no matter how hot and humid it got, Central Illinois often gets very hot and humid indeed in the Summer, and I was glad to have the job.  Bush insulted the American worker with either lies or sheer ignorance.

 

 

37

Third World Hellholes and Other Truths

Much mock outrage is being generated over  observations that President Trump purportedly made yesterday complaining why the US had so many illegal aliens from s—hole nations rather than immigrants from nations like Norway.  (Trump had met with the Prime Minister of Norway on Wednesday.)

President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they discussed protecting immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to several people briefed on the meeting.

“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to countries mentioned by the lawmakers.

Trump then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries such as Norway, whose prime minister he met with Wednesday. The president, according to a White House official, also suggested he would be open to more immigrants from Asian countries because he felt they help the United States economically.

In addition, the president singled out Haiti, telling lawmakers that immigrants from that country must be left out of any deal, these people said.

“Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said, according to people familiar with the meeting. “Take them out.”

 

Go here to read the rest.

His observations, assuming that he is being reported accurately, are being called terrible, racist and everything under the sun except what they are:  completely correct.  Since 1965 the US has in fact given preference to immigrants from Third World nations rather than from First World nations and our illegal alien problem is overwhelmingly from troubled Third World nations.  Was Trump wrong to disparage these countries?  Well it certainly wasn’t diplomatic, but it also certainly was true.  People from those countries flock to ours because they view the conditions in their home nations as being bad, often appallingly so.  The  shills for illegal aliens in this nation continually wax eloquent over how bad the conditions are in those nations as the main reason why the hordes of illegal aliens we have in this nation cannot be sent back.  The whole DACA charade is based on how terrible it would be to send those illegal aliens back to, shudder, mainly Mexico.

None of this is surprising however.  When it comes to our illegal alien problem mendacity has ever been king.  Illegal aliens serve two powerful constituencies:  many businesses which want to import cheap labor, and the Democrat Party which wants to replace the native populations in many areas in our land with new populations which will vote reliably Democrat for a generation or three.  Since the flaunting of our immigration laws is unpopular with most Americans, the policy of amnestying these illegal aliens every generation or so has to be shielded with lies.  Trump, crude as he is, broke with this policy of lies, and the mainstream media, and the political establishments, are in a tizzy.   Good.

10

Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts Finds That Telling Truth Out of Season can be an Unpopular Avocation

So Deacon Steven Greydanus has banned me from his Facebook page.

We’ve had some good discussions he and I.  We haven’t always agreed, but generally we’ve debated well, and I’ve certainly learned some things.

But this time the topic of immigration came up.  He posted an editorial about immigration (this was posted on Mark Shea’s webpage, since I can’t access Deacon’s FB page at this point), what it is, America’s rights and immigrants and all.  We’ve heard it a thousand, million times. 

I responded by something that’s been buzzing around my head for a couple days.  When Trump said he would do away with DACA, you had the obvious outcry: But the babies!   While this was being done, the MSM ran out and found case after case of people who would be hurt by this.

While doing this, some news outlets also went a different direction.  I believe they were trying to say ‘Look how unfair this is!  People who have lived their lives, and are now firmly set in a path toward contributing to society, will be uprooted and thrown out!’  To that end, they interviewed various business leaders, tech giants and even Ivy League universities about all those undocumented individuals who will be hurt by this.  Undocumented workers who have good jobs, are attending college, going to Harvard, and on and on.

And that got me to thinking, as I am wont to do.  Isn’t it possible that sympathy for people who have spent their lives breaking the law, who are now attending Harvard, might go down hard for Americans who are struggling to pay bills, can barely feed their own families, and have no hope for their own children affording college?  I mean, I’m not hearing much from the Church about that.  Oh, the Church talks its usual concern for the poor and injustice at home.  But how does it square supporting people who have broken the law, spent their lives breaking the law, and our now reaping great rewards while their surrounding citizens are watching their fortunes diminish?

Isn’t it possible that sympathy for that Harvard grad who never became a citizen might not be easy to extract from that struggling American family who can barely afford cloths and a decent car for their family? Continue Reading

29

Let Them Do Their Dreaming in Mexico

Trump has announced he will cancel in six months the completely illegal Obama Executive Order Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, DACA, issued in 2012 to allow the children of illegal aliens to remain in this fair land of freedom so long as they meet certain criteria, such as no felonies, high school graduates or completed a term in the Armed Services of the United States.  The media and the Democrats have designated the 800k applicants under this program by Executive fiat as “American Dreamers”.

It has long been the law in this country that an alien who successfully completes a tour in our Armed Services is granted citizenship.  I support this law and see no reason to change it.  The DACA scheme however was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Executive Branch and Trump is wise to do away with it.  We will see what sort of law, if any, Congress implements to succeed it, and if Trump would sign such a law.

Around 74% of the DACA applicants are Mexican, the rest mostly coming from Central America, South America and the Caribbean.  Under the law of our country they are illegally here, just as much as their parents who brought them here.  Under the laws of their home nations they are citizens of their countries.  The fact that they were brought here as children is supposed to enlist our sympathies on their behalf.  Why?  If a parent steals a large amount of gems that are now in possession of their children, that gives the children no claim on the gems. Their parents stole the right to live in this country and now we are supposed to feel sympathy for the right of their children to live in this country in perpetuity?

The argument is heard that the “Dreamers” often do not know the language of their birth nation.  Spanish is one of the easiest languages to learn and, assuming that their illegal alien parents are still alive, I am sure that they can help teach them once they, too, are deported.  If the “Dreamers” are not familiar with the customs, laws and mores of their birth nations, once again mom, dad, and their other relatives will be of great help in acclimating them.

Of course mass deportation of “Dreamers” is unlikely to come to pass.  The Democrats will oppose it because they believe that the Hispanic vote is their path to permanent majority party status.  The Republicans will oppose it because many of them are idiots, John McCain that is your cue, afraid of the media and in the pockets of too many business interests that profit from cheap illegal alien labor.  Thus our immigration laws will likely remain a sham and the only losers are our native-born Americans, especially those at the bottom of the economic ladder, and very few of our politicians truly give a damn about them or their dreams.

10

What a Salon Writer Thinks Illegal Aliens Are For

 

Well, Ms. Williams, other than their Grandparents and their Aunt Cathy, my wife and I had someone else look after our three kids precisely once as they were growing up.  I have the duty of scrubbing out the toilets at my home, my Air Force Sergeant Dad having made sure I learned to do that job properly as I grew up, and I have always driven myself, although I have never owned a limo.  Go here to read other responses to Ms. Williams.

32

Rockville Rape

 

 

A 14 year old girl was allegedly brutally raped in a boys’ bathroom at Rockville High School by two illegal aliens, 18 and 17 years old.  This comes at a time when Rockville, Maryland was considering becoming a sanctuary city.  The Superintendent of Montgomery County Schools, Jack Smith, seems a lot more concerned about protecting illegal aliens than he does about protecting his female students from rape.

 

The two suspects, Henry Sanchez-Milian, 18, and Jose O. Montano, 17, who was charged as an adult, are being held without bail. Montgomery Schools Superintendent Jack Smith told reporters that both suspects had been in a special program for non-English speakers at the high school and not in classes with the victim.

Smith pushed back hard against questions about whether the rape case should affect local efforts to comply with federal law, which guarantees a free public education to any child living in the United States, regardless of citizenship status.

“It’s totally inappropriate to suggest that we’re going to deny a 14-year-old, a 16-year-old, an ­18-year-old an education because of a horrible thing that happened in our schools last Thursday,” Smith said. “Some have tried to make this into a question and issue of immigration . . . but we serve every student who walks through our doors.” Continue Reading

35

We Agree About There Being Shame Sister

 

 

 

Sister Mary Ann Walsh, press flack for the Catholic Bishops of  our country, has written a column entitled Busloads of  turned back immigrants, an image of shame, in which she attacks all Americans foolish enough to think that the immigration laws of our country should be respected.  Go here to read it.  Here is her column with my commentary:

Sometimes a picture says it all.

Consider the 1963 picture of fire hoses and snarling police dogs in Birmingham, Ala., used against African-American students protesting racial segregation. Surely not our civil servants at their best.

Yep, Sister, we get it.  Those who do not agree with you on immigration are racist bigots.

 

Or the 1972 picture of the little girl in North Vietnam running terrified and naked with burning skin after South Vietnamese planes accidentally dropped napalm on Trang Bang, which had been occupied by North Vietnamese troops. The world then saw how war could hurt children.

I think the world already understood that Sister. Kim Phuc, the girl in the picture, tired of being used as a symbol by the Communists, converted to Christianity, and later was granted asylum by Canada.

“Now, in 2014, we see citizens of Murrieta, Calif., turning back buses of women and children headed for a federal processing center, a day after Mayor Alan Long told them to let the government know they opposed its decision to move recent undocumented immigrants to the local Border Patrol station.”

Undocumented immigrants?  Do you mean illegal aliens Sister?

The first two images helped turn the tide when they awakened U.S. citizens to a shameful tragedy. We know the aftermath. The U.S. Congress 50 years ago passed civil rights legislation to guarantee basic human and equal rights for minorities that civil rights workers fought (and some died) for. We pulled out of Vietnam, a war we could not win.

The persecution of the Catholic Church in Vietnam, the million put in Communist re-education camps, the summary execution by the Communists of at least 100,000, the 900,000 boat people, do you regard that Sister as an acceptable result of the American people “awakening to a tragedy”?  I think for some people the year will always be 1968. Judging from the “social justice advocacy” page of Sister Mary Ann Walsh’s order, go here to view it, I’d say that their views have been frozen in amber since that time. 

We now await a moral conscience moment in the welcoming of children and others escaping the violence in such countries as Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. Parents and children from these countries have made the difficult decision to leave their homes and have endured dangerous journeys to cross the U.S.-Mexican border. They risk it because the possible horrors of the treacherous migration, such as trafficking, abuse and even death in the desert, still look better than possible death by gang violence at home.

Actually Sister, I agree with you that we await a moral conscience moment, but I think that was provided by the American protestors, sick at the mass violation of their immigration laws, with the active collusion of their government.  The ills of Central America will not be cured by the parents of Central America paying $12,000.00 a head to Coyotes who then transit Mexico by bribing Mexican officials, with kids in tow subject to every type of exploitation.  This farce came about because the Obama administration sent a signal south of the border that they were no longer going to face the enforcement of the immigration laws.  Now the Catholic Church in this country, that has faced persecution from the Obama administration, joyfully links arms with this same administration in giving a one fingered salute to every American who believes in the rule of law in regard to immigration.    Continue Reading

15

Class and Amnesty

amnesty

 

 

Usually forgotten in the debates over illegal immigration is the class aspect.  A good example of this is why the House  GOP leadership embraced amnesty yesterday.  For Democrats an embrace of amnesty is obvious:  more Democrat voters down the road based on current voting patterns.  The reason why Republicans would agree to such a plan brings out the class dimension.

I can only imagine the amount of money the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-illegal alien groups must be throwing at the House GOP leadership for them to embrace amnesty, a policy hated by almost all rank and file Republicans.  Go here to read about the plan proffered by the GOP leadership which is barely disguised amnesty for illegal aliens.  The desire of many businesses for a continuing stream of illegal aliens from south of the border, drawn by the lure of eventual legalization, as occurred with the 1986 amnesty, is a betrayal of our own native workers at a time of high unemployment.  Senator Jeff Sessions (R.AL) explains this largely ignored aspect of the immigration debate:

Once again, we have  the same recycled talking points—crafted, it would appear, with the help of the same consultants and special interests. Each time, the talking points are followed by legislation that fails to match the promises—legislation that, at bottom, ensures only the amnesty and not the enforcement. The leadership talking points look like an attempted repackaging of the tired Gang-of-Eight-style formula that has been proposed, rejected, and re-proposed for years. It is no surprise then that Senator Schumer and former Speaker Pelosi are so encouraged by these developments. But while Democrat leaders and interest groups appear satisfied, this document was not voted upon by the GOP conference and clearly does not represent the consensus of Republican members. Is it not time we pushed aside the stale proposals stitched together in concert with the same lobbyists, and asked what is in the best interests of the hardworking American citizen—and the nation?

In three fundamental respects, the House leaders’ emerging immigration proposal appears to resemble the Senate plan: it provides the initial grant of amnesty before enforcement; it would surge the already unprecedented level of legal lesser-skilled immigration to the U.S. that is reducing wages and increasing unemployment; and it would offer eventual citizenship to a large number of illegal immigrants and visa overstays.

Rank-and-file House Republicans are the last line of defense for working Americans. Now is the time for rank-and-file House Republicans to claim the leadership mantle and to say, firmly: our goal is to transition millions of struggling Americans from welfare and joblessness to work and rising wages. The President has not only dismantled enforcement but has delivered for a small group of special interests and CEOs by forcing through the Senate legislation that drastically surges the future flow of new immigrant workers competing against unemployed Americans. There is a reason why these increases are never mentioned in the slick ads and radio spots: the American people reject them. Americans earning under $30,000 prefer a reduction to an increase in current record immigration levels by a 3-1 margin. Republicans have the chance to be the one party giving voice to the real-world concerns of the everyday worker whose wages have been flat or falling for more than 10 years.

House leaders should support—not ignore—the immigration officers pleading for help. They should stand with—not against—unemployed American workers. And they should expose—not join—the President’s campaign to pass an immigration plan that will hollow out our shrinking middle class. Continue Reading

34

A Brief Thought on Immigration

Conservatives are fairly comfortable with the point that if you ban or severely restrict guns, than only the criminals will be armed.

Let’s then ask ourselves: If we ban or severely restrict immigration (most especially from a right-next-door country with a much poorer economy, such as Mexico) aren’t we assuring that only criminals immigrate?

If it’s cross-border crime which is such a problem, would anti-immigration advocates be willing to support a massively increased legal immigration quota for Mexico (say 250,000 immigrants a year, rather than the current legal quota of ~25,000) in return for permission and cooperation from the Mexican government for US law enforcement and military units to hunt down cross border cartels?

29

Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A.

The boycott that Los Angeles is imposing on Arizona has its first victim, the city of Los Angeles itself.

The state of Arizona is about to strike back at L.A. again to defend itself.

A letter written by one of the commissioners of the Arizona Corporate Commission is telling Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to be ready to accept the consequences of his actions:

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

Basically Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s bluff has been called.

Continue Reading

8

The Dignity and Worth of Every Person

The Lying Worthless Poltical Hack, a\k\a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, tells Priests and Bishops to speak out on immigration from the pulpit based upon a biblical concern for “the dignity and worth of every person”.

The respect that the Lying Worthless Political Hack has “for the dignity and worth” of the smallest and most helpless among us was well demonstrated by this quote from Naral Pro-Choice America in 2007 after Pelosi became speaker of the House:

“Americans who value freedom and privacy have many reasons to celebrate as Nancy Pelosi takes the Speaker’s gavel to make this historic move forward for our country.  For her nearly 20 years in office, Speaker Pelosi has been an effective advocate for women’s health and has championed her pro-choice values by consistently voting to protect a woman’s right to choose.  In November, voters across this country endorsed Speaker Pelosi’s call for a change and new direction by electing 23 new pro-choice members to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Today, we celebrate as Speaker Pelosi takes the reins; under her leadership Americans can expect a new focus on commonsense solutions, not the divisive attacks that marred the previous Congresses.”

38

Illegal Aliens Boycott Arizona

The State of Arizona is only enforcing what is already law at the federal level.  That being said and myself being the son of a legal immigrant from the nation of Mexico, the May Day protests and the highly unbalanced news reporting from the mainstream media have purposely distorted the legislation that has been passed in Arizona.

Having attended college and lived in Arizona for almost ten years I know for a fact that there are many good people living there and I am disappointed in how unfairly and untruthful they have been portrayed by the mainstream media.

The only other thing I want to say is that Roger Cardinal Mahony’s reprehensible choice of words to characterize the law that had been passed in Arizona is unbecoming of an archbishop.

_._

Related posts on this issue here at The American Catholic:

Illegal Immigration:  A Winning Issue for Democrats?

Catholic Worker View of NAFTA/Immigration

Mexifornia:  A State of Becoming

Arizona, Immigration, and Moral Panic

Arizonas New Immigration Law

Somewhat related posts on this issue here at The American Catholic:

British Survey on Foreigners in the United Kingdom

http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/04/23/arizonas-new-immigration-law/
22

Illegal Immigration: A Winning Issue for Democrats?

Some Democrats think that the Arizona law cracking down on illegal aliens will save them from electoral disaster in November.  They think this will rile up the Hispanics, and to fan the flames a few Democrats are making free with their favorite epithet against those who oppose them, Nazi.

I think that these Democrats are pursuing a losing hand on this issue.  Illegal immigration is extremely unpopular in this country and overheated epithets will simply further energize the conservative base.  More to the point, this election is going to be fought on the economy and government spending, and the Democrats are in dire shape on both those issues.  In regard to the immigration issue, I think there is evidence that some Democrats understand that rather than a gift this could be an electoral landmine.  This AP story here indicates that Obama concedes that Congress may not have the political appetite for immigration reform anytime soon, and notes the type of legislation that the Democrats propose eventually may ostensibly put enforcement before amnesty:  “An immigration proposal by three Democratic senators calls for more federal enforcement agents and other border security-tightening benchmarks before illegal immigrants could become legal U.S. residents, according to a draft of the legislation obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press. The bill is being developed by Reid of Nevada, Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey.”

In an earlier post this week I quoted my favorite living historian Victor Davis Hanson on the issue of illegal immigration.  Here are his current thoughts on immigration as a political issue in the Fall:

A Losing Political Issue

The politics of illegal immigration are a losing proposition for liberals (one can see that in the resort to euphemism), even if they don’t quite see it that way. Here are ten considerations why.
Law?—What Law?

First, there is the simplicity of the argument. One either wishes or does not wish existing law to be enforced. If the answer is no, and citizens can pick and chose which laws they would like to obey, in theory why should we have to pay taxes or respect the speed limit? Note that liberal Democrats do not suggest that we overturn immigration law and de jure open the border — only that we continue to do that de facto. Confusion between legal and illegal immigration is essential for the open borders argument, since  a proper distinction between the two makes the present policy  indefensible—especially since it discriminates against those waiting in line to come to America legally (e.g., somehow our attention is turned to the illegal alien’s plight and not the burdensome paperwork and government obstacles that the dutiful legal immigrant must face).

Why Wave the Flag of the Country I Don’t Wish to Return To?

Second, often the protests against enforcement of immigration law are strangely couched within a general climate of anger at the U.S. government (and/or the American people) for some such illiberal transgression (review the placards, flags, etc. at May Day immigration rallies). Fairly or not, the anger at the U.S. and the nostalgia for Mexico distill into the absurd, something like either “I am furious at the country I insist on staying in, and fond of the country I most certainly do not wish to return to” or “I am angry at you so you better let angry me stay with you!” Such mixed messages confuse the electorate. As in the case with the Palestinians, there is an effort to graft a foreign policy issue (protecting an international border) onto domestic identity politics, to inject an inflammatory race/class element into the debate by creating oppressors, victims, and grievances along racial divides.

Big Brother Mexico?

Third, Mexico is no help. Now it weighs in with all sorts of moral censure for Arizonians — this from a corrupt government whose very policies are predicated on exporting a million indigenous people a year, while it seeks to lure wealthy “gringos” to invest in second-homes in Baja. The absence of millions from Oaxaca or Chiapas ensures billions in remittances, less expenditures for social services, and fewer dissident citizens. But the construct of Mexico as the concerned parent of its own lost children is by now so implausible that even its sympathizers do not take it seriously. Mexico has lost all credibility on these issues, expressing concern for its own citizens only when they seem to have crossed the border — and left Mexico.

It’s Not a Race Issue

Fourth, there really is a new popular groundswell to close the borders. Most against illegal immigration, especially in the case of minorities and Mexican-American citizens, keep rather mum about their feelings. But that silence should not be interpreted as antagonism to enforcing the law. Many minorities realize that the greatest hindrance to a natural rise in wages for entry level jobs has been the option for an employer to hire illegal aliens, who, at least in their 20s and 30s, will work harder for less pay with fewer complaints (when sick, or disabled, or elderly, the worker is directed by the employer to the social services agencies and replaced by someone younger as a new cycle of exploitation begins). In this context, the old race card is less effective. The general population is beginning to see not that Americans (of all races who oppose illegal immigration) are racist, but that the open borders movement has itself a racially chauvinistic theme to it, albeit articulated honestly only on university campuses and in Chicano-Latino departments, as a sort of “payback” for the Mexican War, where redress for “lost” land is finally to be had through demography.

Continue Reading