Tuesday, May 18, 2010

20 Million Illegals: A Minor Infraction


This blog excerpt confuses "liberty" with ignoring the law of the land:

Conservatives claim to endorse family values. Why, then, do so many conservatives tolerate or endorse immoral immigration laws that split up families over minor technical infractions? [read more]
Many bank robbers feel the same way.  Well, they need the money and it is immoral for the wealthy banks to keep it locked up when the need for that money is so great.  How can a nation that values liberty and freedom cause such hardship from immoral laws that split up families due to minor infractions like taking some paper from a fat-cat's storage room?

Apparently, it is immoral to restrict entry into the U.S. from people who want to be here.  Besides, all of that cheap labor is going to waste in Mexico and Central America.  Our problems stem, not from 20 million illegals, but because we have a system that makes them illegal.  

All we need to do is make legal the activities that are presently illegal and all of the crime goes away [here the prohibition argument comes roaring to the fore].  Legalize all drugs and crime goes away.  A compelling argument for mass abortion: if no babies are  born, the infant death rate plummets.  How many more people have to come from Mexico before the problems associated with them disappear?  Or do we have to legalize all drugs from Mexico.  How about all violent gang activities... as long as they are from legalized Mexicans?  Do the problems disappear if we say "all is forgiven?"  

It works... as long as one does not consider carefully the ancillary changes that take place.  Millions of unskilled, under-educated, people who require a wholly separate set of social support mechanisms in their own language [at the expense of the communities which they have invaded illegally].
The wants of the few outweigh the needs of the many. - Mr. Spock on a  bad day.
My response was essentially, "If you don't like the present immigration laws [and many don't... but not in the same way you don't like them], then convince enough people and their representatives in Congress to eliminate those laws.  But if more citizens believe those laws should not only be enforced, but strengthened, you as a citizen are obligated to accept those laws.  Even the other NAFTA countries do not accept massive influx of workers into their economies.  Perhaps that is because a certain amount of order is necessary for any society to survive.

Liberty and freedom are not the same as lawlessness and anarchy.  In fact, they are quite the opposite.

The author of the article refused to accept my comments opposing his viewpoints [apparently, he doesn't believe in freedom of speech either... supposing an argument against his position is a personal affront], but he is welcome to comment here.

Timothy Charles Brown, a Hoover research fellow who believes illegal workers can positively benefit American business, calls for regulation of illegal workers. “We need a holistic approach that looks at illegal immigration not as a political problem but as a business opportunity,” Brown explains. “By transforming illegal immigration from a large-scale, off-the-books, black-market operation into a revenue-producing program that manages the movement of workers in and out of the U.S. economy, we could maximize its benefits to all four major stakeholders—the workers, their employers, the countries the workers come from, and the American taxpayers.”
Conversely, Victor Davis Hanson, the Hoover Institution’s Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow, argues, “by closing the borders, the U.S. would stop subsidizing Mexican failure.” Hanson states Mexico must rid itself of the corruption, elitism, and cronyism that has continued to stagnate its economy and forces its citizens to cross the border in search of opportunity. The solution to ending illegal immigration, Hanson believes, lies in the hope that someday, “Tijuana might become as prosperous as San Diego.” The goal of the United States, Hanson explains, should be to help Mexico by providing the “tough love” it needs. According to Hanson, closing borders, but also offering favorable trade incentives, will spur Mexican citizens to seek employment at home and demand more from their own government.
So, is illegal immigration just a "business opportunity" or are we simply "subsidizing Mexican failure?"  Or is it an uncontrolled social disruption that could create [more] massive problems for the United States?

The answer is far simpler than reforming immigration laws.  The answer is to annex Mexico as the 51st state and let the Obama administration "fix" it.  That will keep the Obama administration busy so it can't continue to screw up the 50 states on which they have been focusing.  Call it a win-win.  Oh, and of course the new "State of Mexico" will have to provide bi-lingual services for all of the non-Spanish speaking citizens who come in from the other 50 states.

What could possibly go wrong?


For those who argue there are great economic advantages in two official [or an additional unofficial language] CLICK HERE.




Can"t Find It?

Use the SEARCH BLOG feature at the upper left. For example, try "Global Warming".

You can also use the "LABELS" below or at the end of each post to find related posts.

Blog Archive

Cost of Gasoline - Enter Your Zipcode or Click on Map

CO2 Cap and Trade

There is always an easy solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.
Henry Louis Mencken (1880–1956)
“The Divine Afflatus,” A Mencken Chrestomathy, chapter 25, p. 443 (1949)
... and one could add "not all human problems really are."
It was beautiful and simple, as truly great swindles are.
- O. Henry
... The Government is on course for an embarrassing showdown with the European Union, business groups and environmental charities after refusing to guarantee that billions of pounds of revenue it stands to earn from carbon-permit trading will be spent on combating climate change.
The Independent (UK)

Tracking Interest Rates

Tracking Interest Rates


SEARCH BLOG: FEDERAL RESERVE for full versions... or use the Blog Archive pulldown menu.

February 3, 2006
Go back to 1999-2000 and see what the Fed did. They are following the same pattern for 2005-06. If it ain't broke, the Fed will fix it... and good!
August 29, 2006 The Federal Reserve always acts on old information... and is the only cause of U.S. recessions.
December 5, 2006 Last spring I wrote about what I saw to be a sharp downturn in the economy in the "rustbelt" states, particularly Michigan.
March 28, 2007
The Federal Reserve sees no need to cut interest rates in the light of adverse recent economic data, Ben Bernanke said on Wednesday.
The Fed chairman said ”to date, the incoming data have supported the view that the current stance of policy is likely to foster sustainable economic growth and a gradual ebbing in core inflation”.

July 21, 2007 My guess is that if there is an interest rate change, a cut is more likely than an increase. The key variables to be watching at this point are real estate prices and the inventory of unsold homes.
August 11, 2007 I suspect that within 6 months the Federal Reserve will be forced to lower interest rates before housing becomes a black hole.
September 11, 2007 It only means that the overall process has flaws guaranteeing it will be slow in responding to changes in the economy... and tend to over-react as a result.
September 18, 2007 I think a 4% rate is really what is needed to turn the economy back on the right course. The rate may not get there, but more cuts will be needed with employment rates down and foreclosure rates up.
October 25, 2007 How long will it be before I will be able to write: "The Federal Reserve lowered its lending rate to 4% in response to the collapse of the U.S. housing market and massive numbers of foreclosures that threaten the banking and mortgage sectors."
"Should the elevated turbulence persist, it would increase the possibility of further tightening in financial conditions for households and businesses," he said.

"Uncertainties about the economic outlook are unusually high right now," he said. "These uncertainties require flexible and pragmatic policymaking -- nimble is the adjective I used a few weeks ago."

December 11, 2007 Somehow the Fed misses the obvious.
[Image from:]
December 13, 2007 [from The Christian Science Monitor]
"The odds of a recession are now above 50 percent," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's "We are right on the edge of a recession in part because of the Fed's reluctance to reduce interest rates more aggressively." [see my comments of September 11]
January 7, 2008 The real problem now is that consumers can't rescue the economy and manufacturing, which is already weakening, will continue to weaken. We've gutted the forces that could avoid a downturn. The question is not whether there will be a recession, but can it be dampened sufficiently so that it is very short.
January 11, 2008 This is death by a thousand cuts.
January 13, 2008 [N.Y. Times]
“The question is not whether we will have a recession, but how deep and prolonged it will be,” said David Rosenberg, the chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch. “Even if the Fed’s moves are going to work, it will not show up until the later part of 2008 or 2009.
January 17, 2008 A few days ago, Anna Schwartz, nonagenarian economist, implicated the Federal Reserve as the cause of the present lending crisis [from the Telegraph - UK]:
The high priestess of US monetarism - a revered figure at the Fed - says the central bank is itself the chief cause of the credit bubble, and now seems stunned as the consequences of its own actions engulf the financial system. "The new group at the Fed is not equal to the problem that faces it," she says, daring to utter a thought that fellow critics mostly utter sotto voce.
January 22, 2008 The cut has become infected and a limb is in danger. Ben Bernanke is panicking and the Fed has its emergency triage team cutting rates... this time by 3/4%. ...

What should the Federal Reserve do now? Step back... and don't be so anxious to raise rates at the first sign of economic improvement.
Individuals and businesses need stability in their financial cost structures so that they can plan effectively and keep their ships afloat. Wildly fluctuating rates... regardless of what the absolute levels are... create problems. Either too much spending or too much fear. It's just not that difficult to comprehend. Why has it been so difficult for the Fed?

About Me

My photo
Michigan, United States
Air Force (SAC) captain 1968-72. Retired after 35 years of business and logistical planning, including running a small business. Two sons with advanced degrees; one with a business and pre-law degree. Beautiful wife who has put up with me for 4 decades. Education: B.A. (Sociology major; minors in philosopy, English literature, and German) M.S. Operations Management (like a mixture of an MBA with logistical planning)