Illegal immigration.

There is something to be said for removing the welcome mat! Illegal immigration across the southwest border is down more than 60 percent under President Trump even before the first new agent is hired or the first mile of his promised border wall is constructed.

For probably the one hundredth time I will state that I am not opposed to immigration. I am opposed to ILLEGAL immigration. However, there is far more to “illegal immigration” than meets the eye at first glance.

The “open borders” activists like Hillary Clinton (footnote 1) want us to believe that illegal immigrants are desperately poor Central and South Americans who are fleeing miserable conditions. They see these people as succeeding in the USA despite the fact that Americans opposed to illegal immigration are both simultaneously exploiting and harassing them and plan to deport them by the millions. (Of course, that there are “millions” of them doesn’t seem to enter their calculus.)

[Sources: The Labyrinth of Illegal Immigration, by Victor Davis Hanson; Illegal immigration plummets after Trump inauguration, by Stephen Dinan]

Let’s check a few “motivations” for “welcoming” illegal immigrants:

  • Employers have long sought to undercut the wages of the American underclass by preference for still cheaper imported labor.
  • The upper-middle classes see themselves as “aristocratic” because they can hire inexpensive “help” to relieve them of domestic chores.
  • The Mexican government is able to keep taxes low on its “elite” by exporting, rather than helping, its own poor.
  • The Mexican government likes the $25 billion in remittances sent from Mexican citizens working in America – money they do not need to supply.
  • Mexico’s central bank reported that these “remittances” overtook oil revenues as a source of foreign income.
  • Where does much of the $25 billion come from? It is often subsidized by you through generous U.S. social services.
  • The Mexican president and ambassador do not want to pay for The Wall, but have you heard them explain why their own programs cause their citizens flee exploitation?
  • Have you heard them defend their own draconian approach to immigration enforcement along Mexico’s southern border?
  • Mexico has long had an ethnocentric approach to all immigration (not wanting to impair “the equilibrium of national demographics”) that is institutionalized in Mexico’s constitution.
  • The Democrat Party investment in illegal immigration is patently obvious. After 8 years of elections that have seen the Democrat Party decimated they are worried that its current agendas cannot win in the Electoral College without new constituents who appreciate liberal support for open borders and generous social services.
  • Legal immigration would end up balancing the ethnicity of Americans – and the Democrat Party would NOT LIKE THAT!
  • Groups like La Raza understand that influxes of undocumented immigrants fuel their membership.
  • An increasingly large contingent of “illegals” are neither “poor” nor from “impoverished” countries, but instead overstay their legally obtained visas (footnote 2).
  • Let me ask you what you would expect to happen if:
    • You were caught stealing someone else’s identity
    • The IRS caught you falsifying a government document – even though you were “poor” and lived in “miserable” conditions
    • You were caught driving without a valid license
    • You were receiving welfare benefits illegally
    • Do you think your public defender could successfully argue that these were not “real” crimes – and, by the by, guess who is paying for the public defender.

The reason I am a laissez faire capitalist is that, as such, I can depend on the the most basic human trait; one that is shared by all. What is that, ask you? Self interest, answer I. If you don’t believe me, just look at the list of “altruistic motivations” of the open border crowd.

Roy Filly

Footnote 1:

In a May 2013 paid speech to the Brazilian bank Banco Itau (revealed by WikiLeaks), Hillary Clinton  said, “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders…

Footnote 2: (There are counter arguments to the magnitude of the problem stated below, but no one argues that “it’s not a problem.”)

The Center for Migration Studies issued a research document co-authored by Robert Warren, prior head of statistics for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now ICE). They found that the share of overstays among new illegal aliens has been rising steadily since the 1980s and surpassed border infiltrators in 2008. The paper’s most recent estimate is for 2012, when nearly 60 percent of new illegal immigrants are believed to have entered legally on some sort of visa and then just stayed on after their time expired.


About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Illegal immigration.

  1. Starchild says:

    A passing comment about a “dream” in a speech to a Brazilian audience several years ago does not Hillary Clinton an “open borders activist” make! In her various positions of power over the last couple decades, has she ever taken any *concrete actions* in support of open borders? None that I’m aware of, unless you want to count complicity in drug smuggling through Mena, Arkansas (something her husband was credibly suspected of being involved with while AR governor, though not conclusively proven).

    As to motivations of people supporting freedom of movement, that cuts both ways. If you’re saying Democrats support it because they think it will help their party (I’ve seen scant evidence of such support among Democrat politicians, FWIW), then the same logic obviously applies to Republican supporting Big Government border controls, which they think will help their party. Just one more in the endless series of issues on which you have pots and kettles on both sides of the partisan elephant/donkey divide questioning each other’s integrity while pretending their side isn’t equally guilty.

    There’s little doubt that the Mexican government and others can be hypocrites when it comes to protesting U.S. border control policies, or Trump’s bellicose rhetoric, while practicing similarly anti-freedom policies themselves. THAT would be something to sit down and talk with them about in negotiations, but with the aim being to embarrass/pressure them into showing more respect for human rights, not to use their human rights violations as an excuse for U.S. government human rights violations.

  2. Starchild says:

    Migration to the United States isn’t the only thing that’s down, by the way. Tourism from people visiting the United States is down as well, which hurts the U.S. economy and costs the jobs of people who depend on those tourist dollars. As Time Magazine reports (March 7, 2017):

    “The rise of Trump, and specifically his policies on immigration and the Muslim ban, appears to be causing some foreign tourists to rethink plans to visit the U.S. Search engines reported a steep decline in international travelers looking for flights to America immediately after Trump issued a controversial order banning refugees and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries in early 2017. Many overseas-based tour operaters noticed a sharp dip in bookings to the U.S. around this time as well.

    A large slump in international travelers would cause harm to America’s tourism industry, and its economy in general. “Closing borders risks jobs,” said David Scowsili, president and CEO of the World Travel & Tourism Council, a private industry group, in a speech directed at the administration in mid-February. “The livelihood of millions of Americans depends on people being able to use planes, trains and automobiles to spend their tourist dollars.”

    How big could the falloff in international travelers truly be? On Tuesday, the New York Times cited a forecast from the international firm Tourism Economics stating that the number of foreign travelers in the U.S. could drop by 6.3 million annually due to Trump rhetoric and policies. America welcomed about 77 million international visitors in 2016, so that would mean a decrease of 8.2%.

    What could such a drop mean in terms of dollars? According to U.S. Travel Association data for 2015, “each overseas traveler spends approximately $4,400 when they visit the U.S. and stays an average of 18 nights.” A more recent estimate from the Global Business Travel Association holds that “each overseas traveler spends approximately $5,000 when they visit” the U.S.

    Multiply that spending by a theoretical decline of 6.3 million foreign visitors, and what you get is a potential loss of $27 billion to $31.5 billion annually. That would be a devastating slump indeed.

    However, according to Tourism Economics president Adam Sacks, the impact wouldn’t be quite so bad. He says that because the decrease in travelers would draw disproportionately from Canada and Mexico, whose tourists spend less on average than overseas visitors, the likely economic loss would be more like $10.8 billion per year.

    Still, Tourism Economics’ forecast only focuses on leisure travel. It doesn’t include potential losses from decreases in people traveling to the U.S. for education or medical tourism. Both of these groups tend to spend far more than the average foreign tourist while they’re in the U.S.
    (from )

    Finally, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, if the concern is really about so-called “illegal” immigration (not really illegal per the highest law in the United States, but certainly in violation of various unconstitutional statutes), there is a very simple and straightforward way to address that concern: Repeal or reform those statutes so that fewer people are criminalized for peacefully entering the United States and make their paperwork (visas) good for a longer period of time. The result will be far fewer “illegal” migrants in the country.

    Unless/until you’re willing to embrace that solution, expect to have to protest 100 more times that you are not opposed to immigration, because those protestations won’t be any more credible than they are now.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s