Gerry Charlotte Phelps

Why So Few Illegals Cross Canadian Border

                                        Montanta Border Patrol

New Illegal Immigration Problem

                            (Image from unilonleader.com)

This from Ben Blankenship, and also here.  It is from the Manitoba Herald, Canada (described as being a "very underground paper.")

The flood of American liberals sneaking acorss the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration.

Tha actions of President Bush are prompting the exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray and agree with Bill O'Reilly.

Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists and Unitarians crossing their fields at night.

"I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.  The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry.  "He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken.

When I said I didn't have any, he left.  Didn't even get a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"

In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them.  So he tried installing speakers that blare Rush Limbaugh across the fields.  "Not real effective," he said.  "The liberals still got through, and Rush annoyed the cows so much they wouldn't give milk."

Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons, drive them across the border and leave them to fend for themselves.

"A lot of these people are not prepared for rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said.  "I found one carload without a drop of drinking water.  They did have a nice little Napa Valley cabernet, though."

When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives.  Rumors have been circulating about the Bush administration establishng re-education camps in which liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.

In recent days, liberals have turned to sometines-ingenious ways of crossing the border.  Some have taken to posing as senior citizens on bus trips to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs.  After catching a half-dozen young vegans disguised in powdered wigs, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior-citizen passengers on Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney hits to prove they were alive in the '50s.

"If thay can't identify the accordian player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we get suspicious about their age," an official said.

Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and renting all the good Susan Sarandan movies.

"I feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them," an Ottawa resident said.  "How many art-history majors does one country need?"

Immigration: A French Lesson

,

                               (Image from Stratfor)

While we struggle with an immigration bill, the French have come out with a huge change in their immigration policy, here. 

According to Srdja Trifkovic, "The head of France's newly established MInistry of Immigration and National Identity, Brice Hortefeux, has ruled out the possibility of mass legalization of illegal immigrants," saying "it doesn't work." 

New President Sarkozy's goal is 25,000 expulsions by the end of 2007.  Heortefeux "set a year-end goal of 125,000 arrests for illegal entry or residence.  He also wants to expand the system of "paying illegal immigrants to return to their country of origin of their own accord."  They usually receive $4,700 per couple, plus $1,350 each for the the first three children.

"Prime Minister Francois Fillon said 'The French Republic will be extremely firm.  It will ensure laws are applied...Generosity is not opening wide the borders without thought for how people will integrate, how they will live, how they will subsist."'

France is responding to the "evident inability or unwillingness of millions of (primarily Muslim) immigrants to integrate into the host society...The emerging new (anti-immigrant) consensus in France is a direct consequence of the riots almost 2 years ago." 

These Muslims "account for over 10% of France's population and 25% of all newborns.  They live in compact communities in which it is no longer possible to buy wine in a local store.  Their leaders regard their faith and culture as superior to that of the host society.  Those who have doubts wisely keep quiet, or else risk a knife slash across the face."

"M. Fillon's 'extreme firmness' may well be France's last chance to stem the tide: over 3 million new voters, at least half of them Third World immigrants, have been added to the electoral roll following the rioting in October-November 2005.  Another 2 million will follow suit before the next election.  They are voting, as their counterparts in America vote, for the parties reconciled to, or actively supportive of, the nation's eventual self-liquidation."

As an example, "A mere 1% of eligible Muslim voters cast their ballot for Sarkozy last month, compared with over 90% for his opponents.  They are the unnatural allies of that half of the French electorate which is dependent on the state for wages, benefits or pensions.  In 2012 they will present a formidable force in favor of re-establishing the statist status quo."

The article ends saying ..."we can only wish President Bush would say or do some of the things the French Government ministers have been saying and doing over the past week."

(Hat Tip to Jeffrey Foxworthy)

Illegal Immigration Woes

                            

                  (Image from myheritage.org)

Watch Ed Meese on immigration

Heritage scholar Ed Meese, who served as President Reagan’s attorney general, has filmed a new Heritage video to debunk myths about the proposed immigration legislation.

Click here to watch the video on MyHeritage.org.

Immigration: Win Now, Lose It Later

(This is #12 in a series on immigration.)

,

                                    (Image from Stratfor)

Why would winning everything we want on immigration make us lose it all later?  It probably wouldn't.  But if things continue in the present direction, we would be likely to lose all we won, in just months afterwards.  Why?

Because so many conservatives are so angry.  They are so angry at the Republican Party that many are likely to stay home for the next two elections, or vote for a third party candidate.  Former Reagan speech-writer Peggy Noonan is recommending it.  So are many others.

What is wrong with that?  Just that if conservatives stay at home, or vote for an "Independent", that will split the conservative vote.  Then the Democrats win, even without a majority.  (Bill Clinton won with only 43% of the vote in 1992, when disgusted conservatives either stayed home or helped give Perot his 16%..)  Then our new House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, our new Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and our new President Hillary Clinton would undo whatever conservatives achieve, this time around, on immigration. 

Winners can always undo the gains made by those who lose.  We forget that.  So there is no point - none - in sacrificing our majority to get just one thing.  The new Democrat majority can simply take it away. 

But shouldn't conservatives be angry?  Not to the point of losing their good sense!  But doesn't venting their anger help make it go away?  Actually, anger-managetment therapists learned decades ago that having clients "act out" their rage in group sessions did not make them less angry, but more angry.  What is indulging in rage worth, if it makes us lose the very thing we got so mad about?

Don't get mad - get even!  How?  By keeping the conservative majority, and making it even bigger.

How?  Start with Hugh Hewitt's new book, "Paint the Country Red", which tells how.  (It can be ordered from Amazon by clicking on the image in the right-hand column.  Also, see what Hugh says in an interview by Professor Marvin Olasky, editor of World Magazine.)  Hugh recommends this: "Win.  Confirm.  Cut. Control."  These are what to focus on.

"Win the war.  Confirm the judges.  Cut Taxes.  Control Spending" (and Hugh would have added "Control Immigration" except immigration was not as hot when the book was finished.  But a look at his blog will show Hugh is very conservative on immigration.)  Now he says - "Control Spending and Immigration."  If we keep working on enlarging our majority, all of these are possible.  If we lose that majority, even what we have already gained will be lost.

How fast would a new Democrat majority jump out of Iraq?  What kind of judges would the new President Hillary Clinton appoint to the Supreme Court?  Would Dems cut or raise taxes?  And when they raised them, what would happen to the economy?  Would the Dems spend more, or less, than the present Republicans?  (Come on now - be serious!)  And would their new amnesty for illegals bring about more illegals? 

Look at the consequences.  Ducking out of Iraq prematurely would spell "cowardice" to the jihadists.  It would only encourage them.  Instead of fighting them where they live, they would be coming to where we live - again.  All over the world, China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., would be encouraged to take us on.

The Supreme Court?  If Republicans lose just 3 Senators, the "nuclear option" is no longer possible.  The Dems could then fillibuster all our court nominations, stopping every one cold.  If Democrat Senator Leahy becomes the Chair of the Senate Judicial Committee again, he would once again make sure no Republican court nominee would make it out of committee to receive a vote from the full Senate.

Remember, the courts are where the "values" issues get decided these days.  Abortion, partial-birth abortion, gay marriage, the taking of private property, religious freedoms, freedom of speech, prayer in public schools, the cross not removed from public monuments, etc.  We have worked for years to have a chance of a more conservative court that would not "legislate from the bench," but would follow the Constitution and listen to the will of the people.  We are almost there.  What a pity to throw away the long, difficult. hard-won gains on winning back the courts!  Just because our side made us so mad.

Cut taxes?  Today the new unemployment rate fell to 4.6%, and the economy's growth rate went up to a roaring 5.8%.  All that with almost no inflation!  Mostly because of the tax cuts.  But don't worry.  A new Dem majority would raise taxes back up in a hurry.  Who needs a good economy?  Who wants a job?

Control spending?  Actually, the Republicans have been spending like crazy.  But do you think the Dems won't spend even more?  Control the border?  After the Dems erase the border control measures enacted by a Republican majority, we can wave goodbye to the new fences along the border as they are being torn down.

Actually, there will be so much more to look forward to, like a new Kyoto Treaty, tearing down the military again, appeasing our enemies, taking achievement testing out of schools, more bilingual education, expanding hate-speech laws to forbid "bigotry" in sermons, expanded enforcment of "political correctness," legalizing gay marriage, polygamy, putting welfare back in place, rising unemployment - but it would be heartless to go on.

Hopefully, we will "get it" this time.  And on time.  And stop flirting with the idea of not turning out to vote Republican anytime there is an election.  And stop trying to get others not to vote.  Or getting them so mad that they won't vote later, no matter what you say.  Some of us may be chewing-up-the-furniture-mad; but hopefully, we're not crazy. 

As Hugh said as his interview with Marvin ended, "No matter what the problem is...the answer can never be electing more Democrats."

Immigration: Looking Up

(This is #11 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

,

                                    (Image from Stratfor)

Lately I have not posted anything on immigration.  The reason is that the issue has grown to the biggest in years, with a will and force of its own.  I don't think much that is said by any individual would make much impact right now.

But before going further, I want to state that I still believe that we need a double or triple fence or wall before anything else, well patrolled and enforced.  It won't work perfectly, but could slow the flood to a trickle.  It could also avoid a huge rush for the border if "comprehensive" immigration reform is legislated later.

Also, we should not ignore that our "birth-dearth" requires "replacement immigration."  See here.  More illustrious economists than myself, such as Lawrence Kudlow and Robert Samuelson, keep reminding us that despite what we think and hear, we are short on workers.  And that shortage will only grow.  Because the Boomers had too few children - actually, too many abortions, to put it plainly - there will not be enough American-born workers to support those same Boomers in retirement.  And that starts in just 8 years.

So with that as a reminder, it is worth pausing in this headlong rush to look - upward.  To think a bit, as Christians, about what we are doing and how we are going about it.  So many fellow Christians seem, not only angry about illegal immigration, but almost out of control.  Some even seem to be showing hatred and comtempt for illegals.  It may be time to remember the "love your enemy" parts of what Jesus taught.  And to remember who these illegals are.  Human beings.  For the most part, with families.  You probably already know some, but you would not dream they are illegals because they have worked hard and have homes and small businesses.  We focus on the problem ones - the criminals and welfare users.  But most are not like that.

A few years back, I spent a couple of weeks visiting a friend's church in L.A.  It was Hispanic, huge and impressive.  So were the members, who obviously cherished their children.  These children - scrubbed to a shine - were always dressed beautifully, clearly the pride of parents who didn't have much, but wanted the best for their kids.  Their prayer meetings were very long, their worship services packed, the singing tremendous.  They were godly people.  Also very hospitable and generous.  One invited me to a modest home for a son's 6th birthday.  The parents and other relatives gave so many gifts, so nice, that I was amazed.  They were warm, gracious, with many little jokes and teasing and much laughter.

One day I said something to the pastor about the problem of illegals.  He didn't answer at first.  Finally, he said, "Almost everyone here is an illegal."  My mouth probably dropped open - who would have guessed? - then he shrugged and added, "What can I do?  Even 3 of my 5 elders are illegals." 

Then I began to notice more things.  They worked very hard.  When they were out of work, they started small businesses, like selling special home-made dishes.  They came to the church many nights to take courses being offered.  One man asked me to look over his doctoral thesis that he was about to submit to his seminary.    A stylish, earnest young woman executive spent days trying to learn from me how to run, successfully, a charity for the poor in her country - she was about to quit her well-paid corporate job and go back to Colombia to do that.  These 1000 or so people were probably more typical than the ones we hear horror stories about.

These are the ones we are talking about sending back.  A good question is - when we replace them with legal immigrants (because we have to replace them - we didn't have enough kids), will that be better for us?  Their replacements will no doubt be good, hard-working people, but probably with some major differences.

What differences?  The ones who risked so much to get here - some literally crawing through sewers, some dying - are more likely to be the high-risk takers.  More adventurous.  Braver.  More determined.  More willing to pay a high cost to help their families.  More entrepreneurial.  Harder to discourage. 

Are these these things of any special value to the rest of us?  Think of how the American economy works now.  No longer primarily based on manufacturing.  Heavy on services.  Extremely dependent on innovators and innovations to maintain our prosperity.  Getting 70-80% of our new jobs from small business entrepreneurs.  By definition, entrepreneurs are people willing to take risks.  People willing to keep looking for a way that works until something finally does.  That describes our illegals more closely than people who do things the customary ways.

It also describes the American pioneers.  And those who flooded to California for the gold rush.  It describes my Dad's parents' generation who were part of the Oklahoma "land rush."  His parents were "Boomers" rather than "Sooners."  They lined up in a straight line, miles long, of people waiting side by side to "rush" for free land.  Some were on horseback, but most were in covered wagons with their families.  The Boomers waited for the boom of the canons that signaled the start of the run.  But the "Sooners" had slipped over the line the night before, and were sitting, grinning, on their already staked-out choice plots when the Boomers showed up.

The Boomers were more admirable.  My grandparents lost their first child the next morning.  The toddler was crazy about fried chicken.  During the night he had silently gotten into the fried chicken left from supper and gorged so much that he died the next morning.  Too fast for a doctor to come, even if there had been a doctor.  But they found good land and raised 5 more children on their homestead, having my Dad last of all when they were far into middle age. They were "salt of the earth" people.

So then who did Oklahomans name their formidable OU football team after?  The  Boomers?  No, the Sooners!  As their fight song says, "I'm a Sooner-born, a Sooner-bred, and when I die, I'll be a Sooner-dead!"  It was not that they didn't appreciate the Boomers.  But there was something about the spirit of those darn Sooners that they admired.  We need mostly Boomers, true.  But we need some Sooners too, some adventurers, some high-risk takers, some determined entrepreneurs in with the mix - even when they may not always do things exactly the correct way.

So we need to think pretty long and hard about what to do about our illegals.  We need to get it right.  And also to look upward from time to time, just to check on whether we're behaving in Christian ways while we do it.

IMMIGRATION: KELLY - 'GIVE BUSH A BREAK'

(This is #10 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

                                    (Image from Stratfor)

Respected journalist Jack Kelly of the Pittsburg Post-Gazette, wrote Sunday in his "Big Picture" Column, "On  immigration, conservatives need to give Bush a break."

He starts with two simple facts:

1.  Medicare and Social Security will go broke sooner than was expected.

2.  Mexico has an election on July 2, 2006.

Then he asks what this has to do with Bush's immigration reform plan, and answers "maybe lots." 

1.  As to Medicare and Social Security, they "...are going broke because there aren't enough workers...Unless millions of new workers can be found to pay the payroll tax, the retirement of the baby boom generation will bust both programs."

2.  As to Mexico's July 2 elections, Kelly points out:

"An Obrador victory likely would be a greater blow to our national security than the Ayatollah Khomeini's ouster of the Shah of Iran has proven to be.  Imagine the harm a Marxist dictator controlling a nation of 108 million which shares a 2,000-mile border with us can do.  President Bush has.  You should.

"The No.1 source of revenue for Mexico is remittances from Mexicans working in the United States.  Threatening those remittances helps Mr. Obrador.  Regularizing them helps Mr. Calderon."

Kelly admits we should not shape our immigration program primarily to help a foreign ally.  But he points out that a guest-worker program can benefit our economy and security both.

He writes, "President Bush hasn't done enough to secure our borders.  But he has done more than Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, his dad and Bill Clinton combined." 

Click here to read the rest of Kelly's argument.  It is a very short, clear and concise article.  Won't take more than 2-3 minutes.

Illegal Immigration - Africa to Spain

(       (Image from WN Network)

(Image: Epoch Times)

Spain is having its own problems with illegal immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa.  Would-be immigrants are from all over Africa, some making journeys of as long as 3 years, according to Epoch Times.  They arrive near the Spanish enclaves in Africa, Melilla and Ceuta, hiding in the Morrocan pine forests near the border.

It reached a crisis point in October, when guards were overwhelmed by hundreds of would-be immigrants rushing the razor-wire fence in waves, 700 the first time and 500 the second.  They poured over the border in the biggest wave of immigrants to hit Europe yet.  Sixteen people died in the incidents.  The immigrants were rounded up and sent to Morroco, which then dumped them in the desert.

The crisis has been blamed on Spain's socialist government and on its very lenient immigration policies.

Since October, the preferred entrypoint into Spain for African illegal immigrants has shifted to the Canary Isles off the coast of West Africa, a Spanish territory and therefore a part of the EU with its lax immigration laws.  Breitbart News reports that over 1000 arrived this week alone, with over 7000 for the year to date.

The Red Cross in the Islands says it is overwhelmed with the "avalanche" of people arriving daily, many needing immediate medical treatment.  Many travel in overcrowded makeshift boats not suited to ocean travel.  Hundreds have drowned.  The Spanish Navy turns back many such boats before they reach the Canaries.   

The U.S. is apparently not the only place in the world with immigration problems.

IMMIGRATION, ENERGY AND MEXICAN ELECTIONS

(This is #10 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

                            (Image from Stratfor)

The immigration issue is getting bigger.  It would seem to affect, not only our economic and security issues, but also our energy crunch and the Global War on Terror.

First, our major energy supplier is not Saudia Arabia, or even the Middle East.  Our major energy supplier is the Americas, here.  Who is our biggest oil supplier?  Mexico!  Second biggest?  Canada.  Third?  That would be Saudia Arabia.  Fourth is a very unstable Nigeria.  Fifth is Hugo Chavez' Venezuela.  Of special significance is that Mexico and Venezuela together supply a third of all our oil imports.

Over half of the oil imports of the U.S., then, come from Canada and Latin America.  About 22% comes from the Middle East, and most of the rest from Africa.

Why is this important in relation to illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico?  Because of the Mexican elections on July 2.  Far-leftist Presidential candidate, Lopez Obrador (known as AMLO), is in the lead.  He also appears to be getting heavy funding from his good friend, Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, a close ally of Cuba's Fidel Castro. 

Lopez Obrador is not a shoo-in.  His opponent, Felipe Calderon (from Fox's PAN party), is gaining.  But how it all works out depends on how our immigration debate develops.  If the result seems harsh to Mexicans - 2/3 of whom feel the U.S. is racist toward Mexicans - it could bring victory to Lopez Obrador, who strongly opposes U.S. attempts to restrict illegal immigration.

Up to now, our problems with Mexico have centered on immigration and drugs.  Now we need to add energy to those.  If Lopez Obrador wins, he is likely to unite Mexican policies with those of Chavez and Castro.  And if Mexico and Venezuela choose, together they could deny us 1/3 of our oil imports.

But more is at stake in the Mexican elections than just immigration and oil.  All these years we have faced a relatively friendly Mexico across our 2000 mile border. (Compared, say, to North Korea.)  When Mexico has not been friendly, it was too weak to be a real concern to us. 

Now, however, if Obrador wins, he is likely to unite with Chavez,Castro and their allies, President Evo Morales of Bolivia and Ollanta Humala, who looks likely to win in Peru.  Combined with them, Mexico would become a much more hostile nation.  It could use oil as a club.  Our border problems could also intensify far beyond what they are now.

This election could be the reason President Bush has seemed slow to act on immigration.  It makes sense that he would probably prefer to postpone the whole debate until after the Mexican elections on July 2, in hopes of not assisting the election of Lopez Obrador.  It is too late to postpone it now, of course.  But how it comes out will affect much, much more than immigration.

When we deal with immigration issues, then, we need to pay close attention to how we might affect Mexico's July 2 elections.  If not, even bigger problems than just immigration could be coming very rapidly. 

U.S. Wars, Immigratrion and "White Guilt"

"WHY IS AMERICA SO DELICATE WITH THE ENEMY?"

(Image from krakow.uscounsulate.gov)

So asks renowned Professor Shelby Steele in his recent WSJ article, "At War: White Guilt and The Western Past." 

He points out that since WWII, America has never used the full measure of its military power in any war.  Instead, America has "practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war."  This unacknowledged policy "...always makes a space for the enemy," and has us in a "...long and passionless war against a weak enemy."

How did that start?  Prof. Steele believes it happened in the late 20th century, with an event more important than the fall of Soviet communism.  That was the fall of colonialism after WWII.  That led to "...a world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority."  After WWII, revolutions around the world to free nations from their white colonizers, together with the civil rights movement of the 1960s in the U.S., "...defeated the authority inherent in white supremacy, if not the idea itself.  This defeat exacted a price: the West was left stigmatized by its sins."

Ever since, we have tried to avoid appearing to repeat those sins, in order to avoid the twin stigmas of racism and imperialism.  Why?  Because stigma destroys legitimacy.  So we struggle to prove we have not relapsed into those sins.  That is why the war in Iraq must also be shown not to be the great Western sin of imperialism. 

Steele says, "Thus in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and one against the past--two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation."

Anti-Americanism, in Steele's view, is the outgrowth of white guilt.  As the strongest country in the West, America is stigmatized "...with all the imperialist and racist ugliness of the white Western past, so that America becomes a kind of straw man, a construct of Western sin...Once the stigma is in place, one need only be anti-American in order to be 'good,' in order to have an automatic moral legitimacy and power in relation to America...This formula is the most dependable source of power for today's international left."

Not only does this stigma confound our willingness to outright win our wars, it clogs our ability to rule ourselves as we would like.  "White guilt" causes so much minimalism and restraint that our problems can't be addressed head-on, so are allowed to get worse. 

Steele asks, "...where is the will to truly regulate the Southern border when those who ask for this are slimed as bigots?  This is how white guilt defines what is possible in America.  You go at a problem until you meet stigmatization, then you retreat into minimalism."

Steele muses that "white guilt" has blocked our seeing the extraordinary moral transformation of Americans into a non-racist population.  Though there may be the occasional odd white bigot "...surviving past his time,"  the vast majority of today's Americans view racism as morally repugnant and "...only feel goodwill toward minorities."

How to regain the moral authority to seriously tackle America's "...most profound problems"?  Steele insists that we must integrate the knowledge of our true moral transformation into our education and history, making it a part again of our public life.

Our education system, however, decided to teach American history, "warts and all,"  some 30 years ago.  But instead, it has taught almost entirely the "warts."  Products of our public school system can recite all American's failures, sins and mistakes.  But few have any idea of how well America stacks up, not against some abstract ideal, but against every country in the world, past and present.  (Not to mention how few graduates know even the most simple facts about actual American or world history.)

Our media and our Left are largely of the same mind.  So acknowledging that America is no longer a racist society is not going to happen any time soon - not if it is left up to our present education system or media or the Left.  But it is time to point out this important fact at every opportunity.  When the next "racist" or "imperialist" sliming is used to stigmatize us into pulling back from whatever needs to be done, we need to start setting the record straight.  These do not describe us.  And we have too many problems on our plate to be "minimalist" now.

(Mr. Steele is presently a research fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford. He is also author of the new book, "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era."  It may be ordered by clicking on the image in the right-hand column.)

IMMIGRATION: HISPANIC LEADERS SPEAK

(The following is excerpted with permission, from a message sent by guest blogger Bob Bailey.)

                            (Image by Stratfor)

"Hispanic Leaders Speak:

"Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets: 'Go back to Boston!  Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims!  Get out!  We are the future.  You are old and tired.  Go on.  We have beaten you.  Leave like beaten rats.  You old white people.  It is your duty to die...Through love of having children, we are going to take over.'

"Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council: 'They're afraid we're going to take over the government institutions and other institutions.  They're right.  We will take them over...We are here to stay.'

"Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico: 'The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot.'

"Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas: 'We have an aging white America.  They are not making babies.  They are dying.  The explosion is in our population.  I love it.'

"Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party: 'Remember 187 - the proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non-citizens - was the last gasp of white America in California.'

"Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor: 'We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country...I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back."'

"Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton: 'California is going to be an Hispanic state.  Anyone who doesn't like it should leave.'

"Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General: 'We are practicing "La Reconquista" in California.'

"Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University: 'We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos...'"

"Are these just the words of a few extremists?  Consider that we could fill up many pages with such quotes.  Also, consider that these are mainstream Mexican leaders.'

"Finally, the U.S. vs. Mexico:

"On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum.  The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country.  They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down.  As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon.  Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match.  The coach of the U.S. team, Steve Sampson, said, 'This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession.'"

Immigration: Do the Facts Matter?

(This is #9 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

                           (Image from Stratfor) 

There are not any polls yet about the response of Americans towards Monday's pro-illegals demonstrations.  But there does appear to have been a groundswell of anti-illegals response.  As the volume increases, some important facts can get lost.  Trying to point them out can be a little like trying to tap a runaway horse on the shoulder and say, "Excuse me, but..."  Still, I think the attempt should be made.

Right now a letter by a retired Border Patrol Officer is making the rounds on emails, even getting mention on radio shows today.  It makes many good points, but some things are contrary to fact.  He says,

"10.  There is not a labor shortage in this country.  There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of American housewives, senior citizens, students, unemployed and underemployed who would gladly take jobs at a decent wage."

On this claim, he badly misses the mark.

First, he gets the economics wrong.  We do NOT have that many people who want to work who cannot find jobs.  Certainly not with unemployment at 4.7%.  (Remember that "full employment" is 5.6%.  Unemployment rates below that mean many jobs are not getting filled.  That means another million or so could be put to work right now in addition to those already working, including the working illegals.)  For more detail, scroll down to: "Immigration: Costing American Jobs?" under "Immigration" in the column on the left.

Second, as to demographics:  we have not had enough native-born American children, for over 30 years, to fill all of today's jobs.  (A fact closely related to the loss of some 40-45 million children to abortion since Roe v. Wade in 1973.)  That is the major reason we need 11-12 million immigrant workers today.  Certainly they do not need to be illegal immigrants, however.  For more detail, scroll down to "Immigration and Demography" under "immigration" on the left.

In just 8 years, however, we will need still more immigrants.  That is when the huge Boomer generation starts to retire.  The Boomers had so few children that when they retire, there will be only 2 workers per retiree.  But it takes at least 4 workers to support one retiree! 

The only long-term solution is to start having 4-5 children per woman.  Or else we will continually need more and more immigrants to fill up the worker-gap resulting from low birth rates and an ever-growing gray population.  And even if we should reach 4-5 children per woman as early as this year, they would not join the work force until at least 2024.  Until then, while we waited for them to grow up, we would need more and more immigrants.

A remaining fact: if American women begin to have 4-5 children per woman, many if not most of them will leave the labor force to care for their children.  In such large families, that would be the only way to avoid neglect of the children.  These women must also be replaced in the labor force - either by having still more children or by our admitting more immigrant workers.

This is what the future looks to be, for a prosperous, secure U.S.  Many more children per woman, one parent at home most of the time with these large families, and the gray population continuing to grow as long as life-spans keep increasing.  How many immigrants will be needed in the mix will depend on any gap between needed birth-rates and life-span increases. 

These facts may not be liked or welcome: but it would be foolish, even dangerous, to ignore them.

Immigration: Why You May Lose My Vote

(This is #8 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

                            (Image from Stratfor) 

Maybe I will feel differently tomorrow.  But today - I cannot believe my Hispanic friends just did what they did.  (And I have been a supporter - just check out my posts 1-7 below, on Immigration.)

Remember, I have been pointing out for months, to Americans, that we need at least 11-12 million immigrants right now, for demographic reasons.  (That is, we have not had enough children for the last 30 years to fill all our jobs today - largely because of abortion.)  Further, that it would be logistically just about impossible to eject around 11 million people.  Moreover, that illegals have not, on the whole, been taking jobs away from Americans. 

In addition, I have urged giving current illegals a (strict) path to citizenship, arguing that it would better to have such a large group to be loyal to this country rather than to their home countries.

Why do I think these things?  Mostly, because I can read!

But - ask me what I think today, after the demonstrations, and you will find my outlook has soured.  Why?

It was from seeing what kind of citizens these demonstrators would become.

So many seemed to have the attitude, "I'M ENTITLED."  And "IT'S MY RIGHT."

"Entitled" to be here.  "Entitled" to work here.  "Entitled" to stay here.  "A right" to citizenship.  "Entitled," as foreigners, to mass demonstrations (actually , that's not in our constitution.)  "Entitled" to welfare and free medical care and education.  "Entitled" to break our laws.  "Entitled" not to learn or use English.  "Entitled" to make our laws.  "Entitled" to threaten us, to be "in our face."

I listened to those interviewed, read the signs, saw the many foreign flags, heard the speeches.  "Entitled" is what I heard.

We are already burdened with so many people who think "I'm entitled."  Who think of what their country can give them, not what they can do for their country.  Why do we need any more?

If these immigrants and their children feel so "entitled," why would we want them?  It might make more sense, over the long-term, to go through the turmoil now of deporting these particular illegals, while at the same time opening up 11-12 million places for other, legal immigrants, to be applied for only in their home countries.  Maybe some others would apply who wouldn't feel so "ENTITLED" as these do.

Were there perhaps illegals who opposed the demonstrations?  Then where were the counter-demonstrations by illegals in opposition?  I didn't see any.  Were there Hispanic-American citizens who joined in?  Then how do they think their presence there, where there was so much "entitlement" talk and atmosphere, so much "separate nation" talk, might affect Anglo attitudes toward them?

The demonstrations were a bad, bad idea - even worse than I thought yesterday. 

"Shut Down the Cities" - a Very, Very Bad Idea

(This is #7 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

                            (Image from Stratfor)

This is primarily to the Hispanics among us.

First, let me say that, as Gringos go, I'm about as supportive of Hispanics as you can find.  One of the churches I pastored was an Hispanic church.  My dear adoptive family is Argentine.  Illegal immigrants once lived in my parsonage - 2 given sanctuary to save their lives, 1 because he was their close friend, and 1 because, as an illegal, homeless Mexican teen who was small for his age, Juan did not want to be around grown men who were homeless (wisely, I thought - so I did not try to send him to the homeless shelter I was running then instead.)

But neither am I a "softy" on the issue of immigration.  As a reading of the 6 preceding posts on "Immigration" will show, I argue for a wall at the border, strict controls on who enters the U.S. and constant tracking of every foreigner in the U.S.  We are, after all, at war!

Still, I have also argued, on demographic grounds, for keeping the 11 million illegals we have - carefully and with their having to meet strict requirements.  And also that the U.S. would be better served by letting them become citizens eventually, rather than being a French-style, indigestible and unassimilated large population of "guest workers" whose primary loyalty is to other countries.

So please regard this as advice from someone who cares about you: here it is. 

The "Shut Down the Cities" demonstrations you have planned for Monday are a very, very bad idea.  The backlash will be bad.  And it was totally not necessary.  Your organizers have given you exactly the wrong advice.  They were trying to help themselves and their organizations, not you.

First, most Americans don't really like street demonstrations.  They make them very uneasy.  They worry about having "mob rule," where a noisy, aggressive minority can rule over the majority by being - well - noisy and aggressive. 

Democracy means majority rule.  That happens by secret ballots at regularly scheduled elections here.  The majority wins.  If the minority doesn't like it, tough.  They can try to win at the ballot box the next time.  Meantime, we protect their rights. But we all accept that the majority rules.  And that is, a majority of our citizens.  No one else is given a right to help decide what we do.  No one.

We realize that in Europe, Latin America and other places in the world, street mobs sometimes shut down governments temporarily, or even bring them down.  We don't allow that here.  We don't do "general strikes," trying to shut down everything to make our point.  You will find that if you try anything close to that, Americans will start getting ready to fight you.  (And we especially don't do any such thing on May 1 - the communist "May Day!"  What were you thinking to pick that date??)

Second, the demonstrations you already had, have so greatly angered Americans that they will not be friendly toward any more demonstrations.  They were friendlier before than they are now.  More demonstrations will make them angrier, because of the first ones.

Why were Americans angry?  Are you kidding?  The upside-down American flags.  The Mexican flags.  The speeches about this territory really belonging to Mexico and to Mexicans.  The loyalty to another country.  The disloyalty to the host country.  Acting like invaders, not guests.  Not appreciating being allowed to be here illegally.  Not appreciating anything.  Demanding "rights" that we give only to citizens.  Being aggressive, hostile.  Whoever led you into acting that way is no friend of yours.

You were doing OK.  Coming in despite our laws.  For the most part, being allowed to stay.  Working.  Making more money.  Sending money home.  Doing better than where you came from. Education, emergency medical care.  We were getting ready to make laws about your situation.  We still are. 

Please - don't work so hard at messing up your chances!  Instead, by all means - talk to us.  But be civil.  Appreciate what we have already given you.  Don't act as if you have some right to it - understand it is against our laws for you even to be here. 

Get ready to decide whether you want to be a loyal citizen of this country, if you are given that chance.  If you are, work as hard at becoming an American as you worked to get here, to stay here and to prosper here.  Learn English.  Learn our history and our ways.  Be ready to adopt and defend your new country.

May I be even more frank?  You should not even dream of trying to make a literal "new country" inside this country; or to make part of it a part of Mexico.  Why not?  For your own sake!  The countries most of you come from are incredibly corrupt, poor and without opportunities for getting ahead. That comes from their cultures - that is, their religion, history, system of government, etc. 

It is the culture of the U.S. that has made it rich and free.  You think that if you can take over a part of a rich country, that part would continue to be rich.  But that is not how it works.  It is not the land that makes people rich; it is their culture!  Your dreams can best come true inside the U.S. culture.  The best thing you can do for yourself and your dear ones is to learn and adopt it.

You can be welcome here.  It can happen.  But Monday is not going to help.

Immigration: "From the Other Side of the Fence"

(This is #6 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

The following comes from Tom O'Malley, who was a Director with SW Bell in Mexico City (HT to Ben Blankenship) :

"You remember I spent 5 years working in Mexico.  I worked under a Tourist Visa for 3 months and could legally renew it for 3 more months.  After that you were working illegally.  I was technically illegal for 3 weeks waiting on the FM3 approval.

"During that 6 months our Mexican and U.S. attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called an FM3.  It was in addition to my U.S. passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country.  Barbara's was the same except hers did not permit her to work.  To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my:

"1. Birth certificate for Barbara and I;

"2. Marriage certificate;

"3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation,

"4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation,

"5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for, for at least 1 year,

"6. A letter from the St. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the U.S. and no outstanding warrants, and was 'a citizen in good standing.'

"7.  Finally, I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico.  We called it our "I am the greatest person on Earth" letter.  It was fun to write.

"All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right.

"Once they were completed, Barbara and I spent about 5 hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican Government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least 3 times.  At each location - and we remember at least 4 locations - we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing and criminal law, and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences.  We could not protest any of the Government's actions or we would be committing a felony.  We paid out $4000 in fees and bribes to complete the process.  When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by U.S. Customs in Laredo, Texas.

"This meant we had rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods.  There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid.

"We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law.

"We were required to get a Mexican driver's license.  This was an amazing process.  The company arranged for the Licensing Agency to come to our Headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine.  We showed our U.S. license, were photographed and fingerprinted again, and issued the license instantly after paying out a $6 fee.  We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road.  Our only instruction was never to give a policeman your license if stopped and asked.  We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp.  If he got his hands on it, you would have to pay ransom to get it back.

"We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually, using the number of our FM3 as our ID number.  The company's Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared.  It was about 20 legal size pages annually.

"The FM3 was good for 3 years and renewable for 2 more, after paying more fees.  Leaving the country meant turning in the FM3 and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets of liens) before our household goods were released to customs.

"It was a real adventure and if any of our Senators of Congressmen went through it, they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.

"The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant.  They never protest at their White House or government offices, but do protest daily in front of the U.S. Embassy.  The U.S. Embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests, the Mexican military surrounds the block, with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear, to protect the Embassy.  These protests are never shown on U.S. or Mexican TV.  There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting.  Anything can cause a protest, such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.

"Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants."

Immigration: Costing Americans Jobs?

(This is #5 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

                        (Image from Stratfor)

Whenever common sense is badly needed seems to be when it goes missing.  Right now there are claims, fears and shouts that illegals are taking jobs away from Americans.  If we could all just take a deep breath for a minute, this is not really that hard to figure out.

The key to understanding lies in 2 simple measures, right from "Economics 101."  The first measure is "full employment," which means the level at which almost everyone who wants to work can find a job.  The U.S. is considered to be at full employment at 5.6% unemployment.  (But how can employment be "full" with that many unemployed?  Because this figure does not represent lasting unemployment, but "frictional unemployment".  Mostly, these are people between jobs; leaving old ones and entering new ones.  They are unemployed only briefly, for the most part.  Frictional unemployment cannot be avoided - there are always some people moving between jobs.  It is not a matter for worry for the country as a whole.)

The second measure is the "unemployment rate."  At present that is at a 5-year low in the U.S. at 4.7%.  Is it good for unemployment rates to be lower than "full employment?"  Actually, it is not ideal, because it means that many jobs are going unfilled.  (For instance, at the peak of the high-tech bubble there was only 2% unemployment in Austin.  Sound good?  It was, in some ways.  But it also meant that every business in town had "help-wanted" signs in the windows.  You could not get waited on, you could not find plumbers or carpenters, get your car fixed, etc., etc.  It slowed down the entire economy. More workers would have un-stalled it.  Alan Greenspan told Congress that the 3 million who left Welfare for work about then were the additional workers it took to keep the boom going.) 

Actually, we now have around 0.9% fewer workers than we need.  And that is even with 11 million illegals working!  The economy would work even better if we had a least a million more workers - enough to bring the unemployment rate back up to around the "full employment" level of 5.6%, which would mean no unemployment except for "frictional unemployment."   

But we all know people who want badly to work and still have not found jobs.  What about them?  While they are presently going through the pain of being out of a job, most will eventually be working again.  Some are simply having some hard luck, or have not yet made some tricky decisions (such as moving to where there are more jobs, job-hunting differently, getting more training, etc.)  But most will work again.  Lack of jobs is not what is holding most of them back.  The jobs are there. 

The odd thing is, if there were more workers - there would be more jobs and more prosperity!  That is how "dynamic" developed economies work (rather than "static" developed economies like those in Europe.)

To summarize, then, in the country as a whole, illegals are not taking jobs away from Americans.  In fact, we could use about a million more workers.  We are particularly short of scientists, engineers and mathematicians.

But what about other complaints?  They don't pay taxes? Economist Lawrence Kudlow writes that Illegals have "fed $7 billion to Social Security and $1.5 to Medicare." here  "They are contributing to our wealth, not reducing it."

Kudlow continues, "...what do they take from the system?  According to Forbes Magazine, only 10% of illegal Mexicans have sent a child to an American public school.,,just 5% have received food stamps or unemployment benefits.  A U-Cal Davis study also shows that more immigrant workers leads to more economic growth.  This is standard economics.  Multiply an enlarged workforce times existing productivity, and you get more economic growth...According to 2002 Census Bureau data, Hispanics are opening new businesses at a rate that's three times faster than the national average."

Personally, I have heard complaints that illegals are dirtier, poorly educated and carry diseases.  But that was also true of our own Irish, German, Scottish, Jewish, French, Italian, etc., ancestors when they came.  They didn't stay that way long.  In America, we usually don't.

By all means, we should build a good wall.  Control the border.  Track immigrants so that we know who is in the country.  Make English the required language in schools and the official language of the country.  As Dennis Prager writes, "Americanize foreigners rather than celebrate multi-culturalism (if all cultures were equally wonderful, millions of Mexicans wouldn't be leaving theirs to live in ours.)" 

He continues, "But those of us who are very worried about the demise of American national unity, identity and security need to argue about these things, not about illegal immigrants taking millions of jobs from Americans." 

Immigration: French & Italians Coming Next?

(This is #4 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

(French Students Demonstrating Against Law Aimed at Providing More Jobs for Them)

Both France and Italy had dismal news today.  It may mark the beginning of a long-predicted out-migration, especially of their young, with the U.S. as a major destination.

France has been stuck in an unsustainable position for several years, along with most of "Old Europe."  With low birth rates and a growing "gray" population, there are increasingly too few workers to support, not only the retirement systems, but all the rest of the French Welfare-State programs as well.  The French economy has been stagnant for years, with unemployment around 10% (compare to 4.7% in the U.S.) and economic growth around 1% (compare to 3-4% in the U.S.)  The government has provided jobs, but by itself becoming the main employer in France.  About 25% of all workers are employed directly by the government.  But without a good tax base from a healthy economy, that also cannot continue.

The French government tried to take a tiny - but brave - first step out of economic slow death, with a law allowing employers to fire any new employee younger than 26, for any reason. (But only during their first 2 years of employment.)  That was to encourage more hiring of young people, 25% of whom are jobless.  At present employers do not want to hire them, because they can never be fired.  What was the response?  The youth - and unions - of France shut down the country with their demonstrations, rather than permit this law.  Finally, the government had to give it up.  The result?  No exit from mass unemployment.  And no escape from French decline.  When such efforts to turn around are late or blocked, disintegration arrives even sooner.

Italy has its own problems.  Berlusconi, a pro-capitalist free-trader, probably just lost to Prodi, with his welfare-state views, and alliance with the Marxist party.  The results can be expected to bring more French-style problems to Italy.  The election was so close that the results are not yet certain, and may leave the government hanging for months until a new election.  Or not.  Either way, it will make the economy worse off than it is now.

It is widely expected that as Europe declines because of such problems, the younger workers will not consent to keep working there.  Their small generation will face greater and greater taxes to support a larger graying population and a continually-growing welfare state.  It is predicted that they will leave for countries with stronger economies.  First a brain-drain, as the smarter ones bail out ahead of the others, then eventually a drain of ordinary workers.

Matthew Schofield writes today, in the Detroit Free Press, "As jobs vanish, the financial underpinnings of European welfare states crumble. 'To be honest, I see my future elsewhere,' said Inam Akil, 17, one of those marching in a protest last week.  'I mean, France is a beautiful country, and Paris is a beautiful city, but there's not much to look forward to here, is there?'"

How will this work out for the U.S., when they want to migrate here?  We have the strongest, most vital economy in the world.  But it is that way because it is strongly pro-capitalist and more weakly welfare-statist than Europe.  If it continues that way, we should be able to take in, and employ, a fairly large number of new immigrants.  But not if it weakens!  The new European immigrants, once they become U.S. citizens, are so anti-capitalist and pro-welfare-statist that they could reasonably be expected to vote in ways that would cripple our system.  That is what they are already doing in Europe now. 

In short, if they are not willing to assimilate to our system, they could help kill it.  This is why we must begin to look at which immigrants from what countries are most likely to be assimilable.  Europeans like the young people from France do not look like very promising prospects for assimilation!  To start with, they disdain Americans and feel superior to us.  They object to how our system works.  And we have just seen how little they want to work.  They are very different from the majority of Americans - irreligious, dependent on government and do not show much initiative, except in street protests.  Youth from Italy would not have as many of these characteristics, but might be more anti-capitalist than most Americans.

We must begin to think carefully about future immigrants and how hard or easy they would be to assimilate.  Immigrants are attracted here by our wealth, power and stability.  But that wealth and stability is not automatic or guaranteed.  It can be lost.  America is like the goose in the fairy-tale story of "the goose who laid golden eggs."  In the story, the greedy farmers, not satisfied with the eggs of gold laid by the goose, slaughtered the goose. trying to capture the great gold they hoped to find inside the goose.  But there was no gold inside.  And the dead goose could no longer produce the golden eggs.  Immigrants who do not understand how to protect and nurture the American goose could kill it.  Then neither the new or old Americans would any longer prosper.  So how well any group of immigrants assimilate is absolutely crucial to the future well-being of all of us.

On this score, Mexicans might assimilate better than, say, young people from France.  Mexicans are more like the great majority of us than the French - religious, strong family values, and harder working.  (Not to mention how much we like their food!)  The French are better educated.  But unfortunately, their education is primarily designed to teach them to be government bureaucrats.  And we already have all of those we need.  They know little about how capitalism prospers, about entrepreneurship, or about the rewards of hard work.  Mexicans are worse educated, but most of them know these things better than the French.

Still, Mexicans also bring their own special problems of assimilation, which we need to take into account and consider.  But more on that next time.

Immigration: A Wall Plus Amnesty

(This is #3 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

                        (image from Stratfor)                                          

There is a huge, messy, angry snarl of immigration controversy in the country.  Students clamor to parade in pro-immigrant protests.  The U.S. Senate had an immigration bill, then it didn't.  It didn't match the House bill anyhow.  The House bill is mostly a wall, the Senate bill is mostly near-amnesty.  In all this turmoil, Columnist Charles Krauthammer offers his usual clarifying way to untangle messes.  Writing in the Washington Post on April 7, he reduces the needed solutions to two: a wall along the border, and near-amnesty for the present 11 million illegals, here.  He starts with the second first, the near-amnesty.

Why do we need a near-amnesty?  Because no one of good will wants to see those 11 million suffer, says Krauthammer. But when we arrange that, we also arrange for a fresh flood of illegal immigrants.  He says "...the obvious problem is that legalization creates an enormous incentive for new illegals to come.  We say, of course, that this will be the very last, very final, never-again, we're-not-kidding-this-time amnesty.  The problem is we say exactly the same thing with every new reform...What do you think was said when in 1986 we passed the Simpson-Mazolli immigration reform?"

As for getting rid of the 11 million by employer sanctions, we tried that in 1986.  It didn't work.  And as for ejecting some 11 million, everyone who has looked at the logistics is in agreement that it is an unworkable fantasy.

Krauthammer believes "...there is a silver bullet that would not just solve the problem but create a national consensus behind it."  That those who "...oppose legalization and fear new waves of immigration would change their minds if we could radically reduce new - i.e. future - immigration."  How?

"Build a barrier...If one fence won't do it, then build a second 100 yards behind it.  And then build a road for patrols in between.  Put cameras. Put sensors.  Put out lots of patrols.  Can't be done?  Israel's border fence has been extraordinarily successful..."  He admits "...no barrier will be foolproof.  But...it simply has to reduce the river of illegals to a managable trickle..."

He concludes, "A solution requires two acts of national will: the ugly act of putting up a fence and the supremely generous act of absorbing...those who broke our laws to come to America."   

Finally, for any still unwilling to give up on getting rid of the 11 million, re-read #2 on demography.  We do not have enough native-born American workers to take their places.  Think: what does our current low 4.7% unemployment rate mean?  (Remembering that "full employment" is 5.6%?) It simply means that everyone who actually wants to work is already working.  We do not have enough workers - even at higher wages - to replace 11 million.  That apparent option does not exist.  Acting as if it did is a waste of time.

(Next time: what does all this mean for the health of our economy?)

Immigration and Demographics

(This is #2 in a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

                                          (Image from Stratfor)                            

Demographics - the study of populations, their growth and decline - has everything to do with the issue of immigration.  Here is what needs to be remembered about Demographics and Immigration.  They are shaped by two basic facts: fewer babies and more retirees.

1.  People in the U.S. are barely replacing themselves (which takes 2.1 children per woman.)  What does this mean for immigration?  It means that, because we did not have enough babies, we need immigrants to fill the jobs that the missing babies did not grow up to do.  As I have written before, if we got rid of all 11 million illegal immigrants, we would have to import 11 million more to replace them.  We simply do not have 11 million unemployed native-born Americans to take their places.  And rapidly vacating 11 million jobs is not an option - it would totally devastate the U.S. economy.

2. The U.S. population is graying because people are living longer.  The retired population is growing in relation to the size of the working population.  What does that portend for immigration?  Since it will take 4 or more workers to support each retiree, we are in trouble - unless we import workers to make up for the children we did not have.  Simply replacing ourselves (2.1 children per woman) would only supply about half as many workers as we need.  Our own low birthrates, coupled with a growing retired population, requires immigrants to make up the difference.  Meanwhile, we have to hope that the children per woman would go up to at least 4.  That would help, but some years down the road.  (We can't evade the problem of a growing retired class solely by turning from Social Security to more individual saving.  The basic need will still be to have enough workers per retiree.  If not, fewer workers per retiree will make goods more scarce, then prices will go up, and fixed-income retirees will eventually not have enough to live on.)

3.  If American women begin to average 4 or more children each (in order to support a growing retired population), then one parent will need to be at home most of the time.  With this size family, there will be little choice.  Also, if these children are neglected instead, society will pay in increased dysfunction and crime when they grow up.  Yet - a parent at home most of the time will subtract another group from the size working population needed to support a growing retired population!  That will mean either more children per woman - 5 and up - and/or more immigrants added to the working population.

4.  There soon will be increasing competition between countries for immigrant-workers in order to support their growing retired populations.  Most developed countries are graying much faster than the U.S., so they will soon begin to compete for immigrant workers.  At present the U.S. has the advantage as the most desired destination of most immigrants, because of its wealth, freedom and stability.  But there will increasingly be a shortage of available immigrant-workers all over the world.

5.  As more countries develop economically, their economies will change from "static" to "dynamic."  In "dynamic" economics, the more workers, the more jobs!  And the more jobs, the more production and the more wealth.  This means that the competition for immigrant workers between developed countries will swell even more.  Each developed country will try to have the maximum number of workers it can gainfully put to work, in order to increase the wealth and income of all its citizens, to support its retired populations, and to increase its power and influence in the world.  The developed countries with the highest birth rates, and the most success in attracting immigrant-workers, will be the ones to prosper the most.

6.  For all these reasons, we need to be more forward-looking in thinking about immigrant-workers, and about having higher birth-rates, along with more stay-at-home parents.  Even with higher birthrates, however, immigrant-workers would still be needed to "fill the gap" until the additional babies grow up into additional workers.  It would be wisest to retain the immigrant-workers we already have, then, and also to plan ahead to have more later, when we are certain to need them.

(Next time - War, drugs and the need for border security and immigrant-tracking)

Immigration: The Mexican-American Reaction

(This begins a series on immigration.  My purpose is not to support any given political view or legislation.  Rather, it is to lay out the basic issues that must be tackled, regardless of what any particular partisan view may be.)

                                  (Image from Stratfor)

Today one of my favorite bus drivers, a Mexican-American mother and wife, was in a stew.  "What do you think of all this immigration stuff?" she wanted to know.  Before I could answer, a torrent of words came out. "Why do they treat us this way?  We are good citizens.  We work hard. We go into the military.  Why do they act like this?"  She was angry, hurt.

Absolutely none of the immigration dispute was about her or people like her - born in this country, Mexican-American citizens, good, decent hard-working people.  But that was how she felt it.  She felt people like herself were under attack because illegal immigrants were coming under fire.

It has been this way for years.  That is why, even though the Prop 187 initiative passed overwhelmingly in California a few years back, with even 35% of the Hispanic vote, Gov. Pete Wilson was finished.  Mexican-Americans were offended then by attacks on illegal immigrants and still are.  It may not be logical.  But there it is.  It can bring down political parties, and has.

Even Florida Gov. Jeb Bush declined to address the issue today, saying that he and his Hispanic wife simply found it too painful.  As wealthy and well-educated as they are, they still felt the same as less educated, working-class Hispanic-Americans.

Try as we may to make them understand our anger is not about them, it has only little effect if any.  Reasoning with them may bring a few apparent gains.  But that is only their politeness.  They do not want to be rude.  But in the privacy of the voting booth, they will vote their hurt and anger.

Whatever we decide about illegal immigration, there will be a price to pay.  And one price will be the alienation of decent law-abiding Mexican-Americans.  However it goes.  Most likely it will be at the cost of the Republican Party this time.  The best we can do is choose carefully among policies.  It will be a case of choosing the least-bad over the worst choices.

Hopefully, this series will point to some essentials, and help lead away from the more harmful choices.

(Next: Demographics of immigration)