The American Spectator : Obama's Broken Immigration Clock

Text Size

Special Report

Obama’s Broken Immigration Clock

By Ross Kaminsky on 5.11.11 @ 6:10AM

In El Paso, it was right maybe twice — a sign of improvement!

President Obama was better than usual, but not as good as he should have been, during a speech about immigration policy reform he gave in El Paso on Tuesday afternoon. (Text of speech here.)

He correctly noted that the current immigration system is broken, that we train our own competition, break up families, and generally do ourselves no favors with the status quo. He also said — and I agree — that immigration reform is “an economic imperative.”

He gave better lip service than usual to the important point that illegals are illegal, and that people who broke the law to come here or stay here should not be rewarded, not least because of how unfair it is to people who wait years to do it the right way.

Being who he is, Obama couldn’t help but toss in a couple of jabs against the Republicans, stupidly making it far too transparent that his push on this issue is at least as much due to electoral politics as to actually caring about policy. Like the scorpion in the fable, it’s just his nature.

So why the big push now? Because Obama knows his support among white voters — at least outside of college-educated white women — has cratered (but not because of their color, mind you) and because he believes with good reason that even blacks won’t be as motivated to vote as they were in the “historic” 2008 election. After all, black turnout dropped from about 13% of voters in 2006, the last non-presidential election, to 10% in 2010 while overall voter turnout rose about 1%.

The president has also lost traction among Hispanics, not least due to the election of a few high-profile Hispanic Republicans such as Marco Rubio and New Mexico Governor Susan Martinez who while receiving a minority of the Hispanic vote nevertheless garnered far more support from that part of the electorate than had been predicted. Still, Hispanics are the biggest group that Barack Obama thinks he can and must work on when it comes to getting re-elected. After all, a recent Pew Hispanic Center report suggested that the nation’s fastest-growing minority group is lagging in election participation: “In 2010, 31.2% of Latino eligible voters say they voted, while nearly half (48.6%) of white eligible voters and 44.0% of black eligible voters said the same.”

Courting Hispanics is not a new idea for President Obama who in classic Progressive us-versus-them style encouraged Hispanics to vote in the 2010 elections by suggesting they think in terms of “We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends.” It didn’t work then, and doesn’t seem much more likely to work now, but you can’t blame Obama for trying since he has few other places to turn for support.

THE ISSUE OF IMMIGRATION is a tough one for Republicans. Obama has a strong case to make when he suggests that many Republicans who claim to be for “comprehensive immigration reform” demanded “enforcement first” or “borders first.” With a raft of statistics about how enforcement is much stronger, how the border fence is “nearly complete,” how we now have 20,000 border patrol agents, Obama worried aloud about Republicans “mov(ing) the goal posts one more time.”

It’s a strong political argument, even if transparently cynical, and does pose some political risk to Republicans whose persistent “gender gap” (even now, women support Democrats by about 7 points more than men do) is due in part to appearing (and being characterized in the liberal media) as “mean” or “heartless.”

On the one hand, Republicans do not want to give Barack Obama a political victory on an issue as big as immigration going into the 2012 campaign. On the other hand, they don’t want to be accurately portrayed as the “party of ‘no’” on this issue, or as xenophobic.

Immigration has been a divisive issue within the GOP for more than a decade with the libertarian and free-market wing of the party supporting increasing immigration while nativists and economic know-nothings opposed it. A 1996 article by Steve Moore and Aaron Harris nicely summarizes the Republican Party’s historic schizophrenia over immigration but noting that since World War II the GOP “returned to its pro-legal immigration, anti-illegal immigration stance.”

The Republican Party Platform of 1960 should be a touchstone for today’s GOP on the issue of immigration, not least for its moral component:

Immigration has historically been a great factor in the growth of the United States, not only in numbers but in the enrichment of ideas that immigrants have brought with them. This Republican Administration has given refuge to over 32,000 victims of Communist tyranny from Hungary, ended needless delay in processing applications for naturalization, and has urged other enlightened legislation to liberalize existing restrictions.

Immigration has been reduced to the point where it does not provide the stimulus to growth that it should, nor are we fulfilling our obligation as a haven for the oppressed. Republican conscience and Republican policy require that:

The annual number of immigrants we accept be at least doubled.

Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

Ross Kaminsky is a self-employed trader and investor and is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute. He is the host of The Ross Kaminsky Show on Denver’s NewsRadio 850 KOA at 11 AM on most Sundays. You can reach Ross by e-mail at rossputin(at)rossputin(dot)com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (153) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.11.11 @ 6:28AM

Do immigrants really add to the tax base or job growth?

The social security number 000-00-0000 was used by 10 million people just a few years ago.

That indicates that if you use a recent figure of 11 million illegal immigrants just put out yesterday, that 90% of them are gaming they system to avoid paying taxes, all the while using our school systems, getting free health care and receiving food stamps.

And would legalizing them help out on that score? Not very likely.

Millions of them have learned how to game the system and will continue to do so in the future no matter who does what.

Political paralysis has once again proven to be the master of all in this situation, while allowing both parties the luxury of inaction.

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 8:52AM

Yes, Yes...My thoughts exactly.

Many of these "hard working" immigrants, who "work jobs Americans refuse to do" learn FIRST how to game the system before, if at all, learning about constitutional principles, basic economics, or how to become culturally literate.

It seems to me the primary reason why we are in the current economic mess is because many of our fellow citizens feel it's perfectly fine - and ethical - to work the system. Why would we add millions more who have this same mindset?

It seems insane to me.

Occam's Tool| 5.11.11 @ 6:11PM

What we need to do is use the New Zealand point model, while simultaneously deporting illegals aggressively AFTER giving them a felony record (for easy tracking). Then hammer employers that hire illegal aliens who show up positive on a database of immigration felons.

Mutt the Hoople| 5.11.11 @ 6:36AM

Why not close the Mexican border, and open up European immigration for people fleeing high taxes and the encroaching march of Islam?

Wile| 5.11.11 @ 6:43AM

Well I'm against all immigration, at this time but your suggestion is interesting but never will happen. See, immigration is a tool used by the ruling class, to create a "new American", who is subserviant and dependent on government largess as created by Botox Pelosi, Chinless Harry Ried, Barry bin Obama, Jorge & Jeb Bush, BJ Clinton and the rest of the whores.

Besides lib/democrats again do not want caucasian immigrants, they are purposefully "browning" the USA through 3rd world immigration. Have a breakfast burrito, amigo and celebrate "diversity". LOL

Harry the Horrible| 5.11.11 @ 9:38AM

Sorta like the "New Soviet Man," eh?

Davey Jones| 5.11.11 @ 5:08PM

I think your right on the money. They just want two classes. The ruling class, and the uneducated, peasant class to serve them. Middle class folks are way too independent and need to be eliminated.

Charles Martel| 5.13.11 @ 5:13AM

Because the Europeans need to stay where they are, produce more children, and kick the God-cursed Mohammedans back to where they came from.

Deus vult.

+++

wodiej| 5.11.11 @ 6:37AM

If we put all the people on welfare to work doing what the illegals do, we would not need the illegal work force. Most pay little if any income taxes, drive without insurance or a license, get free education and school meals for their kids, free food at home, subsidized rent and utilities, free clothes at churches and other charities and free medical care. What's not to like? All the while Americans are paying the tab to support an uneducated and large class of people who have no allegiance to this country now nor a desire to be. The immigrants from the early 1900's were grateful to be here and gladly assimilated into the country as well as worked hard to pay their pay. They also didn't break the law by sneaking over.

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 9:12AM

Good point. Pro immigration illegals might learn The Law of Unintended Consequences the hard way. As is stand now, many illegals have the best of both worlds: continue the allegiance to the homeland while at the same time reap the benefits of the system in this country without paying into it. In addition, by living "in the shadows" they are not bound by our laws.

cali| 5.11.11 @ 8:58PM

What is absolutely galling is the actions, and unjustified demands of these illegals. Protesting for 'THEIR' rights? Gimme a freakin break-they a lawbreakers for God's sake, and should not be rewarded.
Those politicians pandering to them should be removed once and for all. Let the laws on the books be enforced before anything else.

Wile| 5.11.11 @ 6:40AM

Round 'em up and ship 'em out. Sorry neocons, that is the only solution - deportation.

The US needs an immigration REDUCTION for the next 10-20 years. Ever see the unemployment rate Ross baby? Duh.

Stoopid is as stooopid does and that explains the DC political "elite" in their slavish idolatry of immigration.

For the past 20-30 years, the average immigrant coming into the USA is a grade school educated Mestizo peasant. That's the way to build a nation! We'll be going back to the moon real soon with that kind of population, won't we Jeb Bush? LOL

And our Mohammedan friends are coming here in growing numbers and erecting mosques at a record pace. Gee, I wonder why they build so many mosques? LOL Maybe it's because in Islam, a mosque is not only a religious place of worship but a political center of power too! Duh.

And how many more Chinese "immigrants" are we going to admit who very curiously wind up spying for Beijing before long?

Immigration? Why we shouldn't have any borders for we are not a country anymore, just a "place" where half the world can come, 'work hard" and get their govt. social programs/subsidies.

Harry the Horrible| 5.11.11 @ 9:44AM

Rounding them up and shipping them out is awfully hard on personal freedoms, not to mention expensive. Remember, every one of those illegals gets a hearing - at taxpayer expense. And either they're housed and fed at taxpayer expense, or they don't show up for the hearing...

What we really need to do is make them so miserable that they deport themselves. Go after the employers of illegals. Make it impossible for them to get ANY form of public assistance or attend any public school. Eliminate the concept of "anchor babies." Turn the DREAM Act into a nightmare. Make being an illegal alien an aggravating circumstance for EVERY crime, every traffic stop. Etc.

That's really the only way we're going to clean out the illegals and put an end to taxpayer subsidized slave economy that they're fueling.

Dagny Taggert| 5.11.11 @ 10:47AM

A one-time cost of gathering, hearing and booting illegals (job creation?) is a lot cheaper than a lifetime of supporting them. AND DON'T FORGET: as soon as the process starts in earnest MANY will flee to avoid the heavy hand of the law, and less will be incented to try in the first place once it is generally understood that we've decided to enforce our laws already on the books.

jppc| 5.11.11 @ 6:59AM

The USA accepts more immigrants each year than all other nations in the world combined, each and every year. And still the leftists, the neocons, Mexico, India, Ireland among others, are not happy, they must have more. Why?

Basically it is "white guilt" combined with a lack of knowledge of history.

Mistake #1 - The USA was not founded by immigrants. The Founders were nearly all born here (as their parents were too).

Mistake #2 - The Statue of Liberty was given to our country by France in 1876 as a tribute to LIBERTY, not to immigration. It only decades later had the sappy poem bolted onto it at the time of the mass immigration of the early 20th century. The Statue had nothing to do with immigration until then. In other words, the story of the Statue is usually misreprented in pop culture and even history books.

Mistake #3 - Historically, the US has went through cycles of high immigration followed by periods of low immigration. Immigration was low from 1925 - 65. We've been in a more and more period since 1965. We need a time out from immigration.

Places like Mexico want to send tens of millions more of their peasants here. Is that what you and your family want? Did you father and grandfather fight and bleed for a place where native born Americans are being replaced by foreigners, often loyal to their countries of origin more than any love they have of the USA?

MAINER64| 5.11.11 @ 7:10AM

Excellent post; this country is rapidly going from a majority white Christian nation of European heritage to a clearing house for the dregs of the world.

Elliot| 5.15.11 @ 10:40PM

Mainer: Please specify, in as polite as a manner as you are able to, what exactly you mean by "dregs of the world."

Davey Jones| 5.11.11 @ 6:00PM

It's safe to say both parties and many businesses have been complicit in this over the years. The big loser has been the American people who are paying the bill (in more ways than one) for this mess.

James - Texas Panhandle | 5.11.11 @ 7:13AM

Third world nations have too many mouths to feed and educate. Bear and pack and ship to the USA is the motto.
Stop immigration as it exists: Welcome. Vote for me. Resembles handing out flyers at the voting place.
Seal the Borders against illegals and drugs. [The two go together.]
Return to the low immigrantion and with papers.
Do not INS have anything to do with it. Put a state in charge. Big Government is unable to achieve any goal except employee retirement.

btims| 5.11.11 @ 7:29AM

It may not be nice to say in public but race does matter. Culture, which is made up of race/ethnicity combined with language and religion (and political system to an extent) matters.

If the USA was founded by Latinos or Blacks or Arab/Muslims or Asians, it would not be what it became. Those peoples/cultures are usually group oriented, collectivist, tribal in nature.

If white Americans lose their majority, we will (already are) see the USA dumbed down to a simple majority rule "democracy" full of group rights, huge, powerful unions (govt unions for the most part), a few large companies subsidised by the govt. and a ruling class of Ivy League educated lawyers in control for ever, passed down through their families - Bushes, Clintons, Obamas, Kennedys, Kerry's, etc. The Ruling Class. We will have become like a 3rd world Latin American banana republic.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.11.11 @ 7:39AM

Comprehensive immigration reform should not only guarantee the Right to Work, but it should (1) shut the border to illegal immigrants and narco-terrorists, (2) allow temporary visas for seasonal workers who pay FICA taxes as a privilege for working in the US, but are NEVER eligible for Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, (3) seasonal workers who would like to become US citizens must comply with US immigration laws, (4) deny unionization of foreign born seasonal workers, (5) deny or strictly limit visas to persons from Muslim countries, (6) actually increase the Border Patrol [Senator Obama voted against it and has actually cut it during his tenure] and (7) increases visas for European and/or skilled workers.

Having acknowledged my support for comprehensive immigration I recognize now is not the time, because we cannot work with a cynical and crass politician like Barack Obama who is trying to play on Hispanic Americans emotions and ethnicity for his own political expediency. Republicans should look at the successful Eisenhower model (rejecting the Reagan model) that controlled the border and allowed for legal immigration . . .

But what I really want to tell the SOB doing absolutely nothing for the victims of the Texas fires, North Carolina tornadoes or flooding in the Mid-South stay the HELL OUT OF TEXAS YOU BASTARD!!!!

btims| 5.11.11 @ 8:08AM

But my friend, "comprehensive" approach will never work because........

1) politicians will not enforce the rules because they curry favor with ethnic minorities in order to receive their voting allegiance.

2) "Comprehensive immigration reform" is therefore, meaningless and in actuality, is just a way to not enforce the law while pretending to do so.

The real issue is cultural and economic. The open border enthusiasts are gulit ridden white liberals (of both parties) who feel we must "brown" our nation in order to become more noble. Rubbish.

Mexico is a corrupt hell-hole. It always has been and likely will always be. But it's their problem, let them fix it, if they can. I do wish them well but it's not my problem, nor do I want half of Mexico coming here.

Plus, most illegal immigrants are not picking fruit and veggies. Only a small percentage are. Most are working in jobs that Americans would like to have, especially with our high unemployment these days.

Deportation is the only solution, it's just liberalism that prevents us from implementing it.

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 9:01AM

Yep. Read Victor Davis Hansons' "Mexifornia". An excellent primer on immigration. The author has been battling this issue for many decades as a resident living in Central California.

btims| 5.11.11 @ 10:22AM

Have read it. VDH offers some of the best opinion on this topic, from a cultural point of view.

Paul| 5.11.11 @ 9:41AM

btims, I would also say that there will be a day when we will have to pay for having 30 mil or so illegals in this country that have no allegiance to the USA. I don't know what the price will be, but something real bad will come from this.

LiveFreeOrDie| 5.11.11 @ 2:27PM

I agree. Furthermore, the laws to control illegal immigration successfully already exist and are not enforced. Go ahead, pass another law requiring a fence that never gets built. Put more agents on the border but keep refusing to pick up illegals detained by local law enforcement and burden them with a 72 hour hold before they are released. Beds at the local jail, along with 3 meals and medical care are not free.

Lawlessness when practiced by the feds not only gets a pass from the "watchdog" media they support it wholeheartedly. I sure would like to pick and choose which laws I follow.

Davey Jones| 5.11.11 @ 6:09PM

Thats right. Many of them are in good paying construction jobs and other trades. Jobs that American workers would certainly do.

Paul| 5.11.11 @ 9:14AM

Michael, don't forget about changing the law so that anchor babies will go with the parents when they are returned to the slum south o' the border!

Michael Tomlinson| 5.11.11 @ 9:32AM

Paul good point no illegal or guest worker child born here should get citizenship. I don't want legal residents children getting citizenship either. I'd even throw in English as the official language too.

Paul| 5.11.11 @ 9:44AM

Yeah, the last thing this country needs is millions and millions of welfare cases that do not speak English and have no loyalty to the flag.

Intelligent Design| 5.11.11 @ 8:09AM

Millions of illegals continue to infiltrate the U.S. from Mexico, making a mockery of the rule of law and our national sovereignty. They have added $billions to the cost of schools, health care, and the criminal justice system. Among the millions who have already entered, how many are terrorists whose locations and plans are completely unknown?

Let's have about 25,000 U.S. soldiers posted along the border with Mexico, instead of having them in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Pecos Pete| 5.11.11 @ 8:11AM

Michael, WOW, let it all hang out!

PS: Could I add ... King O, stay out of New Mexico.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.11.11 @ 9:37AM

Pecos no President (Democrat or Republican) has behaved like Obama when Americans are suffering from natural disasters.

The little punk sent money and planes to help Mexico, but refuses to help his fellow Americans in Texas. His behavior is that of a petty little s**t.

Melvin| 5.11.11 @ 8:35AM

This Country already has a Immigration Plan, but the lack of will to enforce it.
Having a personal insight to this. First we don't need a Comprehensive Immigration Plan. But what the government needs to do is get the Immigration and Naturalization Service up to speed. Like with any governmental entity, it needs to be taken apart and rebuilt to operate efficiently.
It is set up or has evolved into a bureaucratic maze of rules and regulations ran by top level bureaucrats who have established little fiefdoms and will fight tooth and nail to protect them.
The producers in the INS are simply overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of humanity that applies for legal entry into the United States.
If Comprehensive Immigration Reform is like Socialized Health Care, "We have to vote on it before we know what's in it." The White House is simply overwhelming an already overwhelmed system.
There already is laws on the books for seasonal and construction workers. But the problem with that is. Uneducated workers used to come over the border, work the harvest or Construction and go back home to their birth Country, but Politicians got involved saw these people as an easy vote, and started granted these seasonal workers benefits, which in turn caused them to stay and not go home. Hence the immigration mess we have now.
Another problem that has befallen those with Phd's and Doctorates who want to stay in this Country, but due to this, that, and the other thing are unable to do so, so all this brain drain leaves the US and goes to China, or India. This mostly effects the engineering and Information Tech. field.
It doesn't make much sense to allow some uneducated worker and his family into the United States in mass, who will burden the Social Service sector and not allow a US educated and trained engineer with a PHD or Doctorate who will contribute, by creating more jobs.
Hmmp, but we're dealing with politicians and not common sense.

Davey Jones| 5.11.11 @ 6:16PM

Nice explanation of one of the big problems. Thanks.

Elliot| 5.15.11 @ 10:43PM

The problem isn't just the bureaucracy, the problem is that the laws/regs don't serve the national interest. If an immigrant isn't a security threat or a risk of being a public burden they should be able to come and work in this country. Citizenship is a separate question.

Louis Jenkins| 5.11.11 @ 8:47AM

The immigrants from south of the border have no vested interest in the United States other than what they can get! Our local health dept. is an example. Some days it is hours before an English speaking person comes through the doors. They must hire interpreters to facilitate communications. As alluded to above, Obama may panzie to the Hispanic crowd, but he will not offer one bit of relief to the victims of fires, or tornadoes in Texas or North Carolina. (And that's odd considering NC is the highest taxed state in the SE.) Obama's effort is to garner votes from the brown ones, and for us to think anything else is a dream. A new campaign slogan for 2012- Anyone but Obama!

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 8:49AM

An eye-opening first group of comments this morning, to which I'll offer just a couple of responses:

First, because of the problem of illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico and secondarily from elsewhere in Central America, too many of you filter everything you read about immigration through that lens.

I am not talking primarily about immigrants of that type. Indeed, I would suggest that most of them have no intention of being "immigrants". They would prefer to be migrant workers, and we should make some provision for that.

More important are the immigration restrictions on higher skill level workers, such as engineers we train here and then refuse to let to work here. That is a big long-term problem for the US.

I do not support allowing illegal immigration, nor amnesty that rewards that activity. But there are some interesting arguments to be made about the whole subject, such as here:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12302

Immigration of many low-skill workers is not without its problems, as Borjas noted fully 15 years ago:
http://www.theatlantic.com/pas.....borjas.htm

But even Borjas, no supporter of wider immigration, admitted then (and I believe still admits now) that "immigration raises per capita income in the native population, but this does not mean that all natives gain equally. In fact some natives are likely to see their incomes greatly reduced."

More broadly, so many of your comments and so much of the discussion about immigration in America strike me as focusing on what is seen rather than what is unseen, as Bastiat warned us against.

Namely, low-skill American workers do have competition from immigrants, but these days it's largely from illegal immigrants, and that problem should be dealt with as best as possible. If the immigrants were legal, the wage competition would be somewhat less.

That said, wage competition does mean that every American consumer can buy that product cheaper, whether it's a house or a t-shirt (not that many textiles are made in the US anymore). It means you can get menial work done for $20 less than it would have cost, leaving you $20 more for something else...and that $20 can go towards something that help create another job.

For me the biggest problem is the welfare state. Milton Friedman noted that you can't have open borders and an open welfare system. We need to curb our welfare state for lots of reasons, including this one.

Perhaps a path to citizenship should include, if possible, exclusion from welfare for some number of years, or some other way to minimize the appeal of welfare benefits as a draw to the US (although since other nations have more generous systems, I'd think the immigrants who are really motivated by that are going elsewhere.)

We also need to do something about illegals using and not paying for health care services. Hospitals should at least be allowed to turn people away -- though they probably wouldn't.

Finally, I do think there are moral components to the discussion: On the one hand, we want America to remain the place of the fundamental principles most of us (even if not our president) hold dear. On the other hand, even our own founding documents note the universality of all men being created equal. Furthermore, many of the rights in our constitution apply to anyone who is in the country, whether citizen or not, and that's not by accident.

I find the nativist "close the borders" crowd to be naive, small-minded, and economically ignorant. It's that simple. I'm not saying we should have no borders nor that we should have amnesty. But we do need a much more rational immigration system which punishes true law breakers and allows a place for people seeking liberty and economic opportunity to come. Those people are good for all of us.

PolishKnight| 5.11.11 @ 9:10AM

These arguments often game the system by ignoring the impact on the welfare system and other government benefits (or just fudging the numbers so that everything appears to still be a net gain.) In addition, the economic arguments for illegals and even migrant workers ALMOST ALWAYS ignores the impact on infrastructure. If housing prices go up because of more migrants living in the area, is any net "benefit" to the locals enjoyed? (Note: Real estate bubble lovers: This only works if you're able to SELL your house without the government spending a trillion a year to prop up the market.)

Calling the closed borders crowd "ignorant" and "small minded" is, well, ignorant and small minded. It's quite trivial to close the border and drive out illegals. For the first objective, set up the virtual fence (for real) and have actual border agents patrol it. Will it stop ALL illegals? (Rhetorical question). No. But it will drive the illegals out into desert areas where many of them will die and this will provide an incentive for the remaining to not risk it.

Then on the other side, it's trivial to dry up economic incentives. As the mass protests and media coverage of such initiatives show, they are VERY effective. Track down illegals via their children enrolled in schools. If the kids are NOT in schools and seen outside of the home, have the police run them through immigration. Fine employers of illegals severely.

What about all the "important" work these illegals do? Indeed, if it's important they should get paid a fair wage and that's the other end of the scale. Why is it that small businesses who hire illegals and help contribute to crime and welfare burden on taxpayers are cut slack while big companies that dump toxins in the water villified? If you need your grass cut, pay a local $12 an hour for crying out loud. It's not that much more expensive. And for the worker who doesn't want to do that kind of job, that's a whole seperate issue that illegal immigration is a symptom of: the welfare state paying people NOT to work. This is what's happening in Germany and Europe: People don't want to work but live on the state and then they're called lazy by the same politicians (hello Obama) who bring in immigrants. In the meantime, ordinary workers (you know, the lazy ones) who actually DO work are punished both by paying higher taxes and seeing lower wages.

All so that some RINO, crony capitalist, can save a few bucks on a hotel room. F' you. I CHEERED when McAmnesty McCain lost!

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 9:41AM

Knight,

I did NOT support McCain. I did not vote for him. And I made that quite clear on the radio and in my writing before the election.

PolishKnight| 5.11.11 @ 10:58AM

Taxicab confession: I voted for McCain. My wife cried for me to vote for him. It was like drinking bad milk that I felt I had to because I had paid for it and didn't want it to go to waste. It was a dirty, ugly feeling.

Not again.

We've been eating RINO pie ever since Reagan left office (and even then, as the amnesty proponents love to point out, Reagan made a lot of political compromises). So if Reagan made compromises, what does that say about the Bushes and McCain and Dole? Sheesh.

One has to give credit to the left for really believing in their principles. Granted, it's a 1984 style worship of political power for it's own sake but you have to hand it to them: They know what they want.

alice moore| 5.11.11 @ 11:29AM

One thing I've learned in 2010 is that the Primary System can be put to effective use in weeding out RINOS. Yes, they may take revenge by supporting the Dem, that will only have a short term benefit at best. Remember that.

Just to avoid having a RINO in 2012 vote and campaign in the Primaries and State Conventions. It works!

Occam's Tool| 5.11.11 @ 6:15PM

Again, Ross, might I suggest the New Zeakland approach coupled with very aggressive deportation, no anchor babies, etc.

Myself, I have no problem with immigration of thousands of entrepeneurial millionaires or hard science PhDs.

Occam's Tool| 5.11.11 @ 6:17PM

Sorry, New Zealand approach. Seriously, folks, it's one of the few things that Kiwis do well.

l5j6f7| 5.11.11 @ 9:14AM

Ross - we're not here to insult you and I usually enjoy and agree with your commentary but it's just we Americans, here in "Middle America" have had our fill of the political class ,preaching how stupid and racist we are.

No one is against legal immigration in reasonable numbers (lower than today's numbers). As stated by others, the country is not merely and purely a place for immigrants. Many (most I believe) American families have roots here for many generations. Historically, immigrants have been 8-10% of the US population, today I think it's about 13% and rising.

Outside of DC, NY and Hollywood, we have high unemployment, Spanish language is everywhere, Islamic religion, culture, traditions are being advocated and implemented into our school systems, town civic centers, etc.

Illegal aliens are probably breaking several laws simultaneously - just being here, social security fraud, income tax evasion, driving without a license, insurance, registration, etc. But if a native born American tried these things, we'd wind up behind bars with no ethnic pressur group and lawyers volunteering to represent us.
We are not obligated to admit half the world here. Reasonableness should prevail.

Louis Jenkins| 5.11.11 @ 9:39AM

Amen!

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 9:34AM

Ross, the bottom line is we need to de incentivize low-skilled workers entering this country as the demand for their services are in decline and will be for the foreseeable future.

By granting amnesty you are proposing the incentive will accelerate.

Part of the moral equation you failed to include is the bankrupting of our country by adding millions more to a system that is on the brink of collapse. Is is "nativist" and "small-minded" to be concerned about those issues?

Your last paragraph was very insulting.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 9:43AM

Bob, you and others are putting words in my mouth that I explicitly said the opposite of.

I am not supporting amnesty.

And again, despite my comments, all the commenters here are focusing only on illegal immigration from Mexico which is indeed a huge problem but far from the only problem with our system.

It is nativist to assume that our culture is doomed if we allow immigration.

It is not nativist or small minded to worry about bankrupting the country, which is why I addressed the welfare state.

Davey Jones| 5.11.11 @ 6:45PM

"It is nativist to assume that our culture is doomed if we allow immigration."
I am not against legal immigration. I think legal immigration is a good thing when done in an orderly fashion. I am against open borders with millions coming across illegally and expecting free health care, free schooling etc. and not willing to assimilate. I don't think most people on this site feel we are "doomed if we allow immigration." Maybe I fail to see your nuance but I do get the impression you view most anti open borders people as nativists.

tatosian| 5.11.11 @ 10:05AM

"Perhaps a path to citizenship should include, if possible, exclusion from welfare for some number of years, or some other way to minimize the appeal of welfare benefits as a draw to the US (although since other nations have more generous systems, I'd think the immigrants who are really motivated by that are going elsewhere.)"

First, the illegals are already availing themselves of our taxpayer funded social programs. Like welfare. According to a CIS report, "Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent)". You may not be talking about those members of your highly touted foreign work force, but we are. Where's the net gain for the economy there?

Second, you think someone who can stroll across our southern border is going to haul himself to Great Britain or France because they have a more generous system? Why. Clearly the numbers in the CIS report indicate that the foreign work force can get whatever taxpayer funded help they want by coming here. It helps you and them. Not American citizens.

Third, "even our own founding documents note the universality of all men being created equal. Furthermore, many of the rights in our constitution apply to anyone who is in the country, whether citizen or not, and that's not by accident" Indeed. And your foreign workforce knows this and knows you and your ilk will fight tooth and nail to insure the illegals every administrative and bureaucratic maneuver so as to continue to drain the public coffers while working, cheap, for you. And what effect do these actions have on that moral component you mention?

Fourth, "But we do need a much more rational immigration system which punishes true law breakers and allows a place for people seeking liberty and economic opportunity to come." True enough. There is liberty and economic opportunity here. But the United States is not a Home Depot parking lot for day workers. There is an American culture and lifestyle and morality that you and your foreign workforce happily ignore to save a few bucks. You and your libertarian/republican friends don't care a whit for the citizens and our society. For you clowns, a Guatemalan basket weaver is an American already because he yearns for freedom and dreams of riches. If he can just get here, well his noble dreams will be realized. And you'll help him. Happy happy joy joy huh?

Third party time.

John M| 5.11.11 @ 12:09PM

I too am weary of being lectured to by the enlightened, right-thinking pro-immigration lobby. It is cheap and lazy to frame your position in moral terms; it permits you to cast your opponent as immoral, at worst and naive at best. That is a time-honored tactic of the campus left and unworthy of such an important question.
Your thesis focuses exclusively on imagined economic benefits of amnesty, and completely ignores that which must go unstated - the undesirable cultural and political effects. If the very bottom of a failed third-world system is such a potent economic boost for our system, why is there no similar economic boost from their continued presence in their home country?
At least you're right that there is a Mexico/Central America problem. But that problem is such a dominant part of immigration that it must be the lens through which we the little people who actually pay taxes have to view the problem. I live in Southern California, where Latin immigrants are the left's tool of choice for distorting domestic politics.
There is no effort by the immigration shills to ensure that these people will be acculturated to our social norms in this or even future generations. And I see no indication that our racial spoils system (which was supposed to assuage liberal white guilt about sins committed inside these borders in prior generations) would not be used to benefit the newcomers, irrespective of their at best tenuous connection to victims of white racism in past generations. Unlimited third-world immigration into the existing racial spoils system only saddles my children with a burden that they do not deserve.

WJ| 5.11.11 @ 8:00PM

I find the open borders, illegal alien adoring crowd to be overly emotional, illogical and basically ignorant of human nature and the laws of supply and demand.

Massive illegal immigration is not compatible with our welfare state of excessive goverment benefits.

Anyone that argues that illegal aliens raise my income is not a credible person worthy of my consideration.

Why don't you write for the Daily Kos?

Bob K.| 5.11.11 @ 8:54AM

ATTENTION EVERYONE:

What we really should be asking ourselves here is why a Professional Derivatives Trader like the author here, Ross Kaminsky, is so interested in continuing the immigration of low wage, poorly educated and unskilled laborers into the United States economy?

And we should also ask ourselves the question of why "The American Spectator" has given him a forum to make his argument?

Have we all forgotten how involved the Derivatives Industry was in the recent melt down of our economy and the bankruptcy of many banks?!!

What is going on here with our favorite Conservative Web Site? How does this guy even get in the door? Come on RETJr. and Wlady! You owe your readers here an explanation!

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 9:04AM

Cui Bono?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 9:47AM

Bob K,

First of all, what do you know about what I do for a living, Mr. Genius? Please tell me just what you do know, such as what I trade or who I work for or who my clients are.

Second, even if I had anything to do with the part of the "derivatives industry" which you reference (which I don't) how would that be relevant?

I would bet that I've studied far more politics and economics than you have.

Instead of questioning how I try to earn a living, why don't you address an actual argument. Your current approach makes you sound like a liberal, in other words someone with no clue whose best idea is therefore to attack the messenger.

Bob K.| 5.11.11 @ 12:48PM

For pete's sake man! Look at the bottom of your article. It say's right there that you are a Professional Derivatives Trader.

Somebody is making money off these immigrants otherwise our government policy would change in a hurry!

Now why don't you tell us how Professional Derivative Traders can make money from our current open border policy? Don't give us soft soap about how it will help our economy overall. Tell us how it helps your own economy. Go into detail about it because most of us here do not know how derivatives trading works. Shed a little light on the subject from your own experience and tell us how this influx of immigrants from south of the border can also help everyone else's economy. Hell, we can't even get 4% interest from our Bank Savings and CD Accounts!

Heat and Light are the best disinfectants.

Mike W| 5.11.11 @ 8:02PM

Hats off to Bob K. Well done.

John Bowman| 5.11.11 @ 11:35PM

Good points Bob. I noticed his occupation immediately also.

PolishKnight| 5.11.11 @ 8:57AM

It's sad to see an article on spectator buying into the left's strawman arguments such as "the party of no" or "extremism" (granted, the term extremist wasn't used in this case, but it's similar in thinking.)

Very simply, disagreeing with a leftist is the act of a wrong, stupid, uncool person and "moderate" republicans don't want to not be cool or smart, so they go along. Which is really stupid because all they are then are just followers like a bunch of girls dressing like Paris Hilton because it was on MTV.

The author is wrong outright that there's only one way to grow an economy: more population. Apparently, he's never worked in private industry and seen LAYOFFS. If companies can improve their bottom line by cutting out fat, why can't countries? And how "productive" is it to have workers who save a few cents on menial tasks and then later, when they get their amnesty, er "reform", will then go on welfare and then social security disability?

How many of the farmworkers who got amnesty during the Reagan era still in the fields?

As the author agrees, this is just a cynical ploy by Obama to get votes by pushing one set of voters (the white male) in front of the bus to buy others. It's that simple.

Regarding college educated white women: They're the last of the traditional democrat voters from the early 20th century to break down and realize that the Party or the Socialist State matters more than they, or anyone really, do. Once the pretense of democracy is eliminated via stuffing the ballot box via "recounts", redistricting, or setting up the primaries (much of this is already done), then the left won't care about any common people at all. At that point in time, they'll do it like the Chinese: exploit common labor to make a buck for them and then get rid of the excess babies by having them aborted or dumped into the trash.

Obama's attempt to sell amnesty, oh, wait, "immigration reform", in THIS economy with $5 gas is laughable. Either he's really desperate or stupid or both.

In the meantime, Arizona's economy is starting to boom as the schools empty of illegals and they don't have to pay as many $120K/yr unionized teachers.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.11.11 @ 8:58AM

Folks,
the forgotten truth is that the individual workers are not the problem...no matter how many there are.
First, their remittances to mama back home are one of Mexico's chief economic planks. Without them, Mexico would crash as a failed state and the peons would boil over....again.
Second, the workers are thrilled with a border. On the Mexican side is total corruption causing crushing poverty.
On our side of the border...the rules are tough but comparatively straight forward and predictable.

Third,
"anchor babies" are the wedge we need to remove, period. They are the demographic game changer.

Set up a reasonable and enforceable "guest-worker" program.
We don't need no steenking "comprehensive"!

PolishKnight| 5.11.11 @ 9:49AM

Better yet, put the welfare recipients to work. The "anchor babies" in their case are children born on welfare to unwed mothers.

Take away the babies, give them to an orphanage, and tell the welfare mothers that they'll pick lettuce and go to school until they get their skills up to snuff to get their kids back. If they don't, then they'll pay "child support" to the state, forever.

Oh, wait, our chivalrous right wingers probably wouldn't agree to that. Give it up folks, this country is GONE!

Michael Tomlinson| 5.11.11 @ 9:53AM

Ken comprehensive is not a bad idea if it keeps narco-terrorists out of the US (unless we send them to GITMO), denies benefits to guest workers, cuts the "anchor" baby wedge, stops unions from extorting funds from these guests, lifts the number of skilled workers from Europe getting visas and bans Muslims (a religion that is in one form or another at war with US and the West).

Occam's Tool| 5.11.11 @ 6:19PM

Exactly right, Michael. Although, keep in mind that Taiwanese immigrants and Asian subcontinent Hindu immigrants are also well educated and fine.

John Navratil| 5.11.11 @ 9:13PM

Ken,

I was born in Baton Rouge in 1956 to a Czech refugee from the communist takeover and an English woman whom he met in London in 1948. What should have become of me? England conferred citizenship based on the nationality of the father as did Czechoslovakia. Should I have been deported to Czechoslovakia to join my uncle in prison (he was a political prisoner for his anti-communist activism and his father's political role in the free government)?

My father went on to fight the INS who wished to deport him to Czechoslovakia (and that prison) and was ultimately granted citizenship by act of Congress.

That's a lot for a two-year-old, don't you think, and his father who spent WWII in the resistance against the Germans.

davelnaf| 5.11.11 @ 9:05AM

The author is wrong in asserting that ‘immigration reform’ is an economic, as well as a ‘moral,’ issue. In regard to the former he refers to the desirability of bringing in immigrants who are above a certain education and ability level. He must not be referring to Mexicans. These people have a serious, serious problem with education. If the author doubts this he can go to any school district in the country with a large Mexican attendance and candidly (and carefully) question teachers—off the record, mind you—about their students’ educational values and attainments. I believe he is in for a big surprise.

JimP| 5.11.11 @ 9:11AM

"Republicans need to find a way to participate honestly in the discussion and to turn it into at worst a political neutral and perhaps even a winner. etc"

I am unaware of any Republican dishonesty going on. We need to control the border, period. Then kick out the illegals and make them get in line. Then and only then after all that is accomplished we can have a discussion about legal immigration to help the economy grow. To try and do all this at the same time just shifts the focus from the two primary present day needs. Do this and kick out the statists in D.C. and the economy will take off. Increasing legal immigration, if it indeed needs to be increased, will take care of itself AFTER the illegals are gone.

alice moore| 5.11.11 @ 9:14AM

Ross, you lost me when you used the ad hominem term Know Nothing for those opposing the Ruling Class's version of immigration reform. All we ask is enforcement of EXISTING federal and state laws.

Other things that could be done:

1. Ruinous fines for those who knowingly hire illegals or don't look too carefully at their 123-45-6789 SSN. The existing fines and punishments in place are only a slap on the wrist and are considered a low cost of doing business.

2. Cut off ALL federal and state funding to Sanctuary cities. Those cities claim to have principles. Up until now they really haven't had to make any hard trade offs for those ideals. Even the most Loopy Liberal urban dweller might vote to lift the Sanctuary status of their city.

3. NO federal or state tax payer funded benefits for non-citizens.

4. No Right of Abode to those born to illegals. Whatever you may think of that constitutional amendment Right of Abode for the infant and the family is not in the Constitution.

5. Restricting visas for foreign Muslims and citizens of those of Islamic states.

In short removing incentives coupled with stiff penalties for enablers can keep illegal immigration at a low level.

Michael Tomlinson| 5.11.11 @ 9:54AM

Amen Alice!!!

Anthony| 5.11.11 @ 9:17AM

The Muslim Marxist president, fresh off his Osama victory tour, mocked Americans who want border security by telling "friendly" audiences that perhaps we also want moats with alligators.
The only reptile that is stirring things up, as community agitators are wont to do, is Obozo. Lord knows, he needs every illegal vote he can get in 2012, if he is to finish the job of finishing off America.
This cold blooded reptile is truly a POS. He takes delight in mocking Americans who seek to do what is right. If 2012 doesn't do the job of restoring American, we'll just have to do it ourselves another way.

PolishKnight| 5.11.11 @ 9:52AM

It's kind of funny that even as Obama laughs at the idea of border security, airport security regularly forces people to strip, go through full body scans, and invasive searches to keep airplanes "safe."

On the other hand, criminal illegals walking across the border is A-OK.

Let's take this one step further: Should it surprise us that we found Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan? The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is porous and there's plenty of people there willing to hide him. Just like we have with illegals here. How can we criticize Pakistan for letting terrorists in when we have a wecoming comittee at the border?

Louis Jenkins| 5.11.11 @ 11:31AM

Amen to that too, Polish Knight!

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 2:09AM

Nicely done, PK.

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 11:13AM

Hear hear.
He DOES seem to relish mocking law abiding citizens while at the same time creating chaos and confusion by awarding lawlessness. The list of examples is too long for this post but we are all well versed.

The truly evil and destructive common motivator is pure politics.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 2:09AM

Mr. Grant:

Obama's laughter (see his response to the poor schlub worried about higher gas prices) at law abiding citizens' pain and frustration is well known. Obama is a pompous ass.

tatosian| 5.11.11 @ 9:19AM

"the libertarian and free-market wing of the party supporting increasing immigration while nativists and economic know-nothings opposed it."

Nativist: A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants.

I see nothing wrong with the interests of Americans being favored, in all ways, over immigrants. Legal and certainly illegal. That's what a nation's government is for isn't it? Protecting its citizens?

Seems pretty clear to me. We're born here. We play by the rules set down in the constitution. We, and/or our sons and daughters, go off to fight and die in wars, conflicts, overseas contingencies or what have you. In return we enjoy the privileges of citizenship.

Legal immigrants can work and live in the this nation provided they give it the respect it deserves. When the visa expires, leave.

Illegals are entitled to nothing.

Because libertarian and free-market republicans cast aside allegiance and loyalty to their fellow citizens to shave a few pesos off their labor costs should tell us all we need to know about the republican party.

In fact, we won't find anyone in the republican party to fight for Americans in this particular battle. They believe the United States will whither and die without a strong and growing foreign labor force. That's why hundreds of thousands of illegals still flow across our southern border.

As Kaminsky gushes, " Immigration has historically been a great factor in the growth of the United States, not only in numbers but in the enrichment of ideas that immigrants have brought with them."

Americans need another option. Another political organization that will put our interests first and foremost.

Republicans won't. Why waste time with them?

hunter| 5.11.11 @ 9:38AM

Obomba has every country's interest at heart, save for the United States. I wonder why? The last thing this country needed was a professor for president. What a sham! I say round up illegals for deportation, then put bounties on them, raising the amount every few months. That will get people back to work, plus the money would be spent in this country, not sent back to relatives in foreign lands enticing even more illegal entry into this country.

old white guy| 5.11.11 @ 9:39AM

most of the suggestions and ideas in the comment posts are right on the money. unfortunately nothing will be done about immigration. liberals are not going to allow any change without another american revolution. i for one do not see enough patriots out there to accomplish what is needed.

Clint| 5.11.11 @ 9:47AM

"Ron Paul’s six point plan on illegal immigration:

Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals.
Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas.
No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws.
No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services.
End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
Pass true immigration reform. The current system is incoherent and unfair. But current reform proposals would allow up to 60 million more immigrants into our country, according to the Heritage Foundation. This is insanity. Legal immigrants from all countries should face the same rules and waiting periods."

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 10:03AM

Again, it is remarkable to see smart conservatives go so far out of their way to misconstrue and misquote me.

I made it clear I am NOT for amnesty.

I made it clear that this is about a lot more than just illegals from Mexico, but none of the comments that I've seen so far go beyond that question.

I've made it clear I want to wall off taxpayer-funded benefits.

I haven't yet said, but I do believe, that would-be immigrants should have to learn at least some English. (And I oppose having most government documents printed in other languages.)

Some of you are attributing quotes to me which were quotes of others. Some of you are leaving out half of a sentence to twist my words.

As I said earlier, it's quite eye-opening and it proves to me that there won't be any movement on this issue in Congress, even just to address immigration of higher-skill workers rather than seasonal or menial workers.

I can't say it makes me happy to see conservatives argue like liberals, as many of you are doing, by which I mean claiming that the other guy (me) says or means something he neither says nor means.

So many of your arguments seem fueled by emotion rather than analysis. I understand the emotion to a degree. I see murders and other crimes committed by illegals here in Colorado with distressing frequency.

But my saying the immigration system is broken does not mean I'm saying that I think the current illegals should be made legal, as so many of you are implying.

Just as an example, see this piece on my own web site where I went after Lindsey Graham for supporting amnesty:
http://rossputin.com/blog/inde.....-has-to-go

My view remains consistent: I want MORE legal immigration and a much smaller welfare state.

By the way, when I complained about the "close the borders" crowd, I meant those (like my friend Tom Tancredo) who want to cut off ALL immigration, legal and illegal. That is economic suicide.

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 10:24AM

"By the way, when I complained about the "close the borders" crowd, I meant those (like my friend Tom Tancredo) who want to cut off ALL immigration, legal and illegal. That is economic suicide."

Well. Talk about taking someone's words out of context!!!!

I believe Tancredo pushed a "cooling off period" of immigration until an real, serious, and enforceable immigration was in place. He never pushed to cut off "ALL immigration" for an indeterminate amount time.

Occam's Tool| 5.11.11 @ 6:22PM

The problem, folks, is that our native birth rate is somewhat below replacement. This will lead to an aging of our population and a diminishment of our economy. Legal, appropriate high talent immigration is a very good thing.

tatosian| 5.11.11 @ 10:43AM

"So many of your arguments seem fueled by emotion rather than analysis."

Sir? We are getting screwed out here, okay?

The United States, which up until very recently was a nation of one language and one people, and where immigrants assimilated to the prevailing culture and society, has been turned into a polyglot of cultures and languages. This has divided us. Division is not strength. Division breeds conflict and misunderstanding. And as a result of this division, the American citizens, not the illegal and legal immigrants who cone here and refuse to assimilate, are vilified as racist, bigoted and xenophobic.

You don't see a problem with this? You don't see this as cause for a certain emotionality? You think we should just shut up and analyze this destructive and horrific vilification in silence?

You insist that immigration is a good thing and assure us all that you do not favor amnesty. No doubt you are sincere. But we have heard this and like statements before: no amnesty, secure the borders, workplace enforcement, no social benefits for the illegals. Meanwhile, the illegal tidal wave continues.

We did not initiate our marginalization. Business and the politicos did and continue to do so.

We have been betrayed sir. I for one will not suffer this betrayal in silence.

You and yours differentiate between legal and illegal immigration but refuse to stop this injustice. And you complain about emotional responses?

Give it as break and do the right thing. or just say you (not you specifically but that amorphous, generalized beltway you) think we deserve to be abandoned by our own government and stop pretending.

JimP| 5.11.11 @ 10:44AM

If you are being misunderstood, perhaps it is the way you word your arguments. When the vast majority don't understand you, it's time to look in the mirror.

tatosian| 5.11.11 @ 10:50AM

Excuse me?

tatosian| 5.11.11 @ 10:51AM

Never mind. My bad.

alice moore| 5.11.11 @ 11:46AM

Again it is when you used the term "Know Nothings" ,applied to those Conservatives that disagree with you, that lost me on this one.

I've read your columns before. I agree with you more than disagree with you.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 4:15PM

Alice, I take your point on "Know Nothings", though I have to say that I'm stunned by the lack of economic argument in these comments considering how much of my article was devoted to economics. (And how much of Obama's emphasis was on economics as well.)

It remains disappointing and troubling to me that I can't write an article about immigration without having 90% of the comments or more focus only on illegal Mexicans.

There's a lot more to the situation, but it's not going to be resolved while we have blinders on.

ttatosian| 5.11.11 @ 5:22PM

Interesting.

Pointing out the negative effects of illegal and legal immigrants practicing their own cultures and ignoring our own, including the imposition of foreign languages where once there was only English, is equal to to wearing blinders?

Ah. Culture and nationhood are secondary. I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

Occam's Tool| 5.11.11 @ 6:23PM

Again, legal immigrants are forced to learn English or fail Citizenship tests.

However, Mr. T, we have been a polyglot society for a long time. Note the Army of the United States in WWII.

tatosian| 5.11.11 @ 9:05PM

Speaking English can't hurt the legal immigrant, but one can be a legal immigrant and have no intention of attaining citizenship can't one?

For example, there are entire crews hanging drywall, laying asphalt or roofing who speak no English at all. Their foremen do, but not the laborers. Also kitchen crews. Are those guys legal immigrants? Illegal? Who can say. But they don't have to speak English to work.

A polyglot society whose members were committed to the American culture and society and conducted their business in English.

Is that still the case?

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 10:39PM

In Victor Davis Hanson's book "Mexifornia", he explains how entire communities within cities of central California thrive with their entire "citizenry" unable to speak English. They are able to shop, dine, bank, listen to radio, watch television, and acquire all necessary governmental services without speaking a lick of English. In some cases, they are able to open businesses and move up the social strata. They live lives their brother's and sister's back home can only dream of. They have no concept, or appreciation of, constitutional principles or American culture. They simply brought their geography from their country of origin.

You tell me this will not be a HUGE problem for the stability of our country in the years to come.

tatosian| 5.11.11 @ 11:59PM

Well, we've been marginalized and vilified for demanding immigration laws be enforced in a "nation of laws."

We're called nativists and economic illiterates for calling for a more reasoned and considerate approach to legal immigration and we're nothing less than racist xenophobes for not welcoming illegals.

Given that we're the designated bad guys in this scenario, one can expect the future to resemble some sort of living nightmare. For us that is.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 2:00AM

Mr T,

No, to a large degree it is no longer the case. I just simply like to point out that there's a lot to be said for legal immigration for people who want to be loyal US citizens.

On our Southern Border, though, it should be patrolled by lawmen with a "Cool hand Luke" mentality. Shoot to kill.

John Bowman| 5.11.11 @ 11:33PM

Maybe you should have painted a clear difference between legal immigrants and illegal aliens, instead of basically lumping them all together.

l5j6f7| 5.11.11 @ 10:03AM

I too see nothing wrong with "nativism" or "nationalism" (in the good sense - patriotism).

I do believe we should favor Americans over non-Americans, with respect to hiring for employment, benefits, etc.

That's the way it was for centuries until about the 1990's when "globalism" began to rule and lawyers/politicians quietly changed anti-discrimination laws to include "nation of origin" in hiring practices. Before then, Americans were favored (like most nation around the world still practice today).

Mass immigration is just another manifestation of big, nanny state government. Lower immigration across the board for at least ten years then we can re-evaluate.

l5j6f7| 5.11.11 @ 10:06AM

I have never read or heard Tancredo or Buchanan say we should stop all immigration. I have heard them say we should lower the numbers, which I agree with.

It is very, very difficult to delineate between legal and illegal immigration. In other words, when legal immigration is high, you usually also have high illegal immigration. The two are symbiotic.

AgentRose| 5.11.11 @ 10:06AM

Obama Brand Coffee

Instant Democrats

Just add water, food stamps, social security, housing, tax free wages and free schooling.

Available now at a border crossing near you…..just in time for the November elections.

Anthony| 5.11.11 @ 12:33PM

Good one, AgentRose.

btims| 5.11.11 @ 12:37PM

And don't forget the laughable school lunch (and also breakfast) programs. A huge percentage of school kids today use one or both of these govt programs. Where are these children's parents???

Politicians create social programs in order to curry favor with ethnic groups in order to win their voting loyalty. So many kids in school today are either illegal themselves or the children of illegals. Thats' what these school food programs are mostly for.

G.S. Patton| 5.11.11 @ 10:14AM

Illegal immigration is the securing of a voting block for the democrat party. Pure and simple. It is one of the fundamental components now, in building a power base on the backs of the "under-privileged".... propped up with charges of racism and promises of entitlement. The King needs serfs..... charges of racial improprieties, economic theft and inequality... for it is the source of his power. The United States of America needs to wake from her slumber, and realize the parasite is killing the host. Dear Mr. and Mrs. self-righteous, progressive liberal..... you are slitting your own throats and don't even realize it ? You champion a "revolution" and ideology, that as of to this date, you don't have to live under its end results here at home ......... yet. Please explain your guilt, and your complicit destruction of our Republic. I for one, do not choose to work 12 hours a day, to subsidize Mexico. They can stay at your place.

l5j6f7| 5.11.11 @ 10:21AM

We dont' have to deport 15-20 million......that's a red herring.

All that you do is this: Deport 5,000, then 25,000, then, 100,00.........and millions of others will self deport.

Problem solved.

Derek Leaberry| 5.11.11 @ 10:21AM

Berthold Brecht mused in the 1950s that the East German communists needed to vote themselves a new "electorate" because the Germans were resistant to communism. And so the modern day Democratic Party in America follows the Brecht solution. As the Democrats have lost the white vote, it wishes to import an electorate to ensure political victory. Oddly, certain elements of the Republican Party(eg. the Bush family) and big business(eg. The Wall Street Journal, the Chamber of Commerce) wish to assist the Democrats in racially transforming the country so that the Democrats would have a permanent electoral majority. What fools.

PolishKnight| 5.11.11 @ 10:53AM

Not necessarily Derek.

If you look at banana republics south of the border, they're usually run by white elites in machine gun enclosed compounds (kind of makes Obama's crack about the alligator moats relevent, doesn't it?)

In this future utopian paradise, there's a VERY small upper, mostly white, class that have bodyguards accompany their children whereever they go. Then there's the middle class, connected mostly white bureaucrats, who sometimes are kidnapped or attacked on the street, then the monstrously large lower class working for pennies.

You're right that is is foolishness. A large middle class also means a larger upper class. There are certainly more wealthy people here, per capita, than there are in south and central America and this probably applies to Europe as well. Hence, the claim that the Bildeberg is about super smart elites planning a perfect future appear rediculous since if they were smart, they wouldn't seek to destroy the middle class.

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 11:24AM

Hmm... When I think white elite, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Fidel Castro, and Manuel Zelaya always come to mind.

PolishKnight| 5.11.11 @ 11:54AM

And the Democrat party is currently "run" by Obama...

Butch | 5.11.11 @ 4:25PM

PK was right. Status and power among the Hispanics is closely associated with "whiteness," which is more important there than here. Think Vincente Fox. Chavez has more native Indian in him and is a lower class "revolutionary" leader, although he used the democratic process to ascend. All the South American golfers are white Europeans by ethnicity, because golf is an elitist sport there. Chavez closed the golf courses in an act of spite.

VBMax| 5.11.11 @ 10:54AM

All the talk about whether illegal immigration benefits the country or not is just obfuscating the actual moral principle involved:
Do American citizens have a right to control who comes into their country? If we don't, well we don't really have a country.
Also, I couldn't care less what color or ethnicity my neighbors are as long as they are law-abiding. I'm pretty certain the vast majority of Conservatives think as I do.
1) Secure the border
2) Indefinte moratorium on immigration until under control.
3) Immediately deport any illegals currently in the criminal justice system and any arrestees going forward.
4) All illegals to register by a certain date or immediate deportation when apprehended.
5) All those who registered and are gainfully employed, their situations taken up on a case by case basis taking into account length of time in the country, contributions etc.

jppc| 5.11.11 @ 11:49AM

Reasonable proposals, all.

Your first point about if we can't control who and how many foreigners are admittted into the country, then we don't really have a country, is well said. It's a question of sovereignty as well.

The elites of both parties have pushed the "party line" that all that defines an American is someone who wants to come here and work. That is only a small part of being an American. That is also insulting to the vast majority of Americans who were born here, as were their parents and their parents, etc, etc, etc......

Melvin Udall| 5.11.11 @ 11:18AM

"while nativists and economic know-nothings opposed it. "

Wow. Some deep thinking and thoughtful analysis. Way to reach out to political ALLIES of a possibly differing view. Now that you've characterized them with as much empathy, thoughtfulness and fairness as Obama usually displays they'll be sure to seriously consider what you have to offer.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 4:18PM

Melvin,

As I said to Alice above, perhaps those were slightly too aggressive words. Yet I have yet to hear a solid economic argument against my primarily economic arguments. Meanwhile so many comments bristle at a perceived insult while offering nothing of substance to any part of the discussion other than illegal alien Mexicans.

I have to say I've learned a lot from these comments about the political risk to the issue. I mean, I knew it was high, but this is incredible.

Butch | 5.11.11 @ 4:48PM

Ross, I think I see your side and theirs. You are talking about high-potential immigration, people with technological skills. I am a Professor (Business), and, believe me, I see how our K-12 educational system has failed us. We are years away from being able to develop internally the technological skills we will need.

Drop Mexico and think Eastern Europe: since the iron curtain fell, we have had an influx of superior students from there--Bulgarians, Hungarians, Slovakians, Czecs, Macedonians, even Russians--who speak fluent English, have excellent math skills, get degrees in Finance, Accounting, Computer Science, Management Information Systems, Marketing, and who often go on to get MBAs. They uniformly love this country, want to stay here, and want to be a part of the country. Since their parents were oppressed, their home ties are familial, not nationalistic. They are actually more conservative than many of the domestic students, because they learned mistrust of socialism from their parents. They would be ideal citizens and bring the job skills we need, but they have the torment of the damned trying to get permanent status from the powers that be. There are also many high-potential Indians, Koreans, and southeast Asians. So on the one hand, we make legal admission of desirables extremely difficult.

On the other hand, we allow hoardes of unskilled, illiterate, un-assimilatible Mexicans to cross our Southern border, and strive to give them blanket citizenship for reasons of naked political power.

You are right about high-end immigration; the readers on this thread are right about low-end immigration. Our immigration policy is bass-akward, and has been for years. Isn't that about what this discussion is about?

Joe| 5.11.11 @ 5:40PM

"perhaps those were slightly too aggressive words." Slightly to agressive? Your insults are childish - very teenager.

Let's talk economics. Not economics from economists who can never seem to get any of their economic predictions correct but let's use real world numbers.

The following numbers are approximates.

In my county:
Average cost of educating a student: 12K/year
Assume # children in illegal family: 2.5
Cost of eduction of family == 30K/year

Assume both parents work at 15.00/hour
12oo/week == 4800/month ==~60K/year
Taxes paid == maybe after deductions 6K
federal and state (many pay no taxes at all)

30K - 6K == 24K deficit
24K/year deficit does not include taxes required for roads, police, fire, food stamps, etc.

Economic reality: The country is broke. 15 million AMERICANS (NATIVES) need work. The last thing this country needs is more people taking more from the system than they put in; take jobs when 15 million AMERICANS (NATIVES) need them; and drive down middle-class wages.

If you are serious about immigration, prove it. Personally sponsor 10-15 illegal immigrants - take them into your house. pay for their food, health care and education. Don't expect others to fund them.

One more math 101 example. Let's assume that an american town has 100 families and 1 illegal family (1% of the population) with two children. it costs 12K per year per child for school. The illegal family pay virtually no taxes so the 100 families have to fund the 24K. Therefore, each of the 100 familes have to pay 24K/100 == $240 a year just to pay for the illegal children's education.

Now let's say 4 new illegal families moved into the town. The cost to the 100 families is now 1200 a year.

Economically, there is a point when tax payers can no longer afford to suppliment illegals or - by that matter - other people who take more from the syste than they put in. This is why this country is broke today.

thethinice | 5.11.11 @ 11:55AM

If Mexicans were interested in becoming Americans I'd be more sympathetic to their plight. The problem is that they are not interested in becoming Americans. They want to be Mexicans in America. They are here for the economic benefits not because they believe in our way of life or form of constitutional government. Mexicans are for Mexicans. Mexicans are for Mexico. They are poor, illiterate, have low graduation rates, and because they cluster together, do not integrate into greater society. If this makes me a racist then I guess I'm a racist. Borders, Language, Culture.

PolishKnight| 5.11.11 @ 1:23PM

Good observation, thethinice. I'll expand on it if I may: The difference between the previous immigrants that the amnesty apologists compare the current ones to is that 120 years, there wasn't a welfare state or racial preferences system. Just the opposite: many Polish and Irish immigrants came here to work and expected to pay their own way even if they suffered some discrimination. In addition, they valued freedom and the statue of liberty meant something to them.

The modern illegals view America as a beacon for them to come and get special privileges and entitlements. They already have the victim-PC-thinking before they enter the border knowing that rather than victims, they're getting special privileges. This is what draws them to the country. It's like winning the lottery for them. Instead of treasuring liberty, they view it with disdain and want a socialist regime like the one they left only with white males as peasants and then as masters. If you debate with one of them or with a leftist, they'll sometimes blurt out this thinking.

If you want to see how THEY would enforce immigration law, go south of the border sometime and reveal yourself as a gringo. Expect special "foreigner prices" on things (higher) and for the police to be slow to respond to your complaints.

Joe| 5.11.11 @ 5:56PM

exactly right!
immigrants from 100+ years ago did NOT come to this coutry expecting americans to support them or to accomodate them. They did not get welfare, food stamps, etc so they did not burden tax payers. They wanted to assimulate. They did not show up in the thousands, draped in their native county's flags, protesting and demading that americans support them. They did not demand that americans learn and accomodate to their native language.

Immigrants today demand americans support them and accomodate them. They do not understand liberty. They are the sort that will destroy this country because they will vote - if allowed - with their hands out demanding more benefits from tax payers.

As one person once said, "this country will collapse when more people are in the cart than people pulling the cart", i.e. The country will collapse when more people take than give. This country is just about there.

martin j smith| 5.11.11 @ 12:11PM

Hey Ross: We are in a really bad economic situation.
On some parts of the border with mexico there are drug cartel's that are killers who have taken over parts of not all of Mexico. I really do not think that Obama has done anything about THAT. The issue is NOT if the REPUBLICAN PARTY is in trouble but more that our COUNTRY
is and will be in trouble. More people who are poor, illiterate will CONTRIBUTE NOTHING but
MORE DEPENDENCE PERIOD. The issue of immigration "reform" or is it REFORM IS MOSTLY POLITICAL. I am all for immigration but how about lets find out WHO IS COMING IN ? HOW ABOUT REALLY SECURING THE BORDERS, AND HOW ABOUT DETERMINING WHAT WE CAN DO ECONOMICALLY ?
THUS I say this: If we are lookg for MORAL IMPERATIVES WHAT ABOUT OUR CURRENT UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS ? WHAT ABOUT OUR DEBT LEVEL WHAT ABOUT OUR OWN NATIONAL SECURITY. ROSS you and others who post depress me. It appears you are so taken in by Obama's smooth talking that you do not sufficiently stress HIS MORAL FAILURES. That gets me pissed and makes me feel that your thinking is very warpt.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 4:24PM

Martin, I write (and talk on the radio) about the immorality of Obama's views more than anybody I know.

If you listen to my radio interview of Paul Ryan this coming Sunday night (see http://backboneradio.net on Saturday for more info) you'll hear me mention morality in a way you've probably never heard a radio talk show host ask of a politician.

As far as your specific issues:

I agree: Secure the border!

If you are implying that immigration increases unemployment, I would not agree, at least not in the long run. Keep in mind that I'm not talking only, or even primarily, about low-skill migrant workers. Looking at ALL immigration (particularly legal immigration since I don't support illegal immigration), it's a clear economic benefit to the nation on balance. That said, the welfare state we have makes immigration somewhat perilous to taxpayers, especially with presidents of both parties making the tax system more "progressive".

As far as debt levels, LEGAL immigration is critical to propping up our various entitlement Ponzi schemes until government fixes them, again separate from the welfare question which is a big one.

As for national security, of course that is job number one of the federal government and I could even go along with a few years of moratorium on immigrants from any country which has had any terrorist participate in an attack on US interests (with the possible exception of true political refugees.)

Again, my policy solutions and those of the many angry commenters are probably quite close on most issues. It's just amazing that I can't even bring up the topic of increasing LEGAL immigration (particularly at high skill levels) without this incredible outpouring of anger about illegal Mexicans.

Pat| 5.11.11 @ 12:56PM

Amusing, Obama talks about immigration policy, the pundits on both sides of the ideological aisle debate the relative merits of his speech but nothing is going to change – most of us know and accept that. Our government’s policy on immigration, like its “policy” on so many other issues, is to employ more people to deal with it, to pay these people generous salaries and pensions, to consistently justify the annual appropriation of their respective agency like a mother grizzly defending her cubs. Does all this speechifying, regulating, studying the problem and pursuing enforcement represent the direction the American public wishes to go with immigration reform – absolutely not, and like so many other federal actions, it has nothing to do with serving the voters – it’s a self-serving activity with the primary goal of continuing the self-serving status quo.

Like a frazzled mother trying to control six children all under the age of 12, the Feds are tasked with solving every problem imaginable, they know they won’t satisfy the voters, the tasks are too diverse, the efforts required too monumental. As an example of this problem solving farce, look at the reaction to Obama’s speech. We are judging the quality of his song like a panel of judges on one of those “American Idol” type shows – is his voice pleasing, can he hold a note, does he have range, etc.. Obama knows he must sing and sing very well to be re-elected, but only the hopelessly naïve among us believe his songs are intended to create real world solutions. Elected for a second term, the Obama’s personal fortune will increase, millions are at stake for the First Family relative to the next election, but solving the “immigration problem” is hardly the real purpose behind this latest song.

Conservatives are convinced that limited government is best and for good reasons. Our government annually takes more and more of our personal wealth for the stated purpose of solving problems they have no ability or intention of solving. Every issue is an excuse to grab more appropriations while entertaining the taxpayers with songs and intricate dance routines. But try to name one major problem our government has actually solved? Tomorrow, a new song will be sung to a different melody, perhaps a reform Social Security ballad, or rythmically chanting some defeat terrorism rap lyrics, or a soaring aria aimed at curing unemployment - and we, the weary and involuntary contest judges, can once more vote on the next contestant’s efforts.

Pat| 5.11.11 @ 12:57PM

btims| 5.11.11 @ 1:52PM

Well put. You correctly point out the purpose of government - that being, to create more govt. jobs and thus more people dependent on the govt for their livelihood, as well as citizens dependent on govt social programs, which create a loyal voting constituency.

Central planning doesn't work (for proof, see the USSR and Red China).

ADM| 5.11.11 @ 1:34PM

In my opinion, the entire immigration issue would be best re-framed to the right's advantage by emphasizing assimilation and the importance of English as our common language. The economic arguments about a larger population are fine but I think what irks many people most is the cultural issue. As long as people who come here are willing to learn English and embrace melting pot - which means accepting the common culture including its Anglo-Saxon roots - most Americans would be welcoming of some increases to immigration. Absent those things and people will continue to feel that our culture, national identity and possibly even political unity are being assaulted or endangered and the country balkanized.

Politically, too, this approach would give the Republicans something to push back on. Attempts to smear the right as heartless would then invite attacks on one of the left's biggest weaknesses: its emphasis on multiculturalism and diversity at the expense of a common American identity (and indeed the belief that the left does not like or value our American heritage and identity). Better still, it would attack the identity politics so beloved of the Democratic party and, if they had to compromise on this, would be less able to pander to ethnic group s. Here would be an opportunity for the President to put his "We're not Red State or Blue States but the United States" rhetoric to the test.

martin j smith| 5.11.11 @ 1:45PM

Ross, I hate to say this but I will--the possibility of a "rational" policy on ANYTHING is NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL. The crucial matter is to admit that the Obama administration and his supporters are essentially NOT POSSIBLE TO DEAL WITH BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF BACKING DOWN FROM THEIR GOALS. AND THOSE ARE TO DESTROY THIS NATION AS WE KNOW IT. THYE WANT TO IMPOSE DIFFERENT SYSTEM-SOCIALISM ON US. Until YOU AND OTHER WRITERS GET THIS IDEA YOU WILL NEVER GET IT.

Redstateboy| 5.11.11 @ 3:22PM

Jee-zus-Christ!!!! It's a matter of freak'n Principle!! I-L-L-E-G-A-L means: Illegal! If we only had a Candidate that during a Debate, look straight in to the bloody camera and ask America a question which would be: "How do Parents, Here illegally, instruct and teach their children be law abiding participants in this Society?" Children may be ignorant but they're Not Stupid.

Lew Dunbar| 5.11.11 @ 3:49PM

A wide open immigration policy combined with a large welfare state and a declining manufacturing base is national suicide. The great immigration waves of the late 19 and early 20th century that open borden enthusiasts point to didn't have the same welfare and manufacturing situations we now have in 21st century America.

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 4:31PM

Thanks to all the commenters, including those who perhaps properly chastised me for the use of "Know Nothings". While many Know Nothings exist, it's unfair to even imply that those who oppose increasing immigration must fall into that category.

That said, I wish there were more economic argument about the issue, in addition to the valid points about sovereignty and security.

My point is NOT pro-amnesty; I've been consistent on this for years.

My point is, I repeat, economic and moral.

Keeping in mind that I did not intend the whole debate to be about illegal alien Mexicans, I do believe that LEGAL immigration of people who WORK is not just good but necessary for our future economic health.

Europe is in big trouble because their populations are not growing among the native-born and their immigrants population growth has a huge percentage of Muslims.

I'd rather have people from south of our border than people from the Arab world be the growing part of our population as long as the prior residents are, like Europeans, cutting back on the number of kids.

Again, I'm not calling for amnesty. But I think that the opposite extreme, closing the borders to LEGAL immigration, even for 5 minutes is indeed a "Know Nothing" policy, economically speaking. I've told Tom Tancredo that directly, perhaps saying "economic suicide" rather than "know nothing".

What I've learned most from all these comments is that no Republican politician is going to even stick a toe into the water of immigration reform for fear of a primary challenge.

This means that the Democrats can pretend to actually care about the issue rather than the politics and they're going to keep bludgeoning the GOP with it.

I maintain my view that the GOP should participate in a good-faith discussion that keeps faith with the values expressed by so many of you today but also looks for a more economically rational immigration policy, especially for higher-skill workers and foreigners who graduate from college in the US.

Again, thank you all for the discussion. Sorry for any offense. And I hope you will consider my points as I consider yours.

Derek Leaberry| 5.11.11 @ 5:00PM

Then it will have to be open war on the issue between the open borders gang and main street conservatives. America needs no Third World immigration. America is diminished by Third World immigration already. Go to any bar outside Manhattan and Washington and you'll be told that.

Perhaps a combination of Democratic presidents, low economic growth and even recession, budgetary cataclysms and Republican Congresses who support Red America is the best medicine to keep the country from experiencing demographic revolution.

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 5:41PM

Ross, Thanks for expanding on your article and at least making an attempt to address each poster's concern. I believe most people here are frustrated that Obama is even spending time on this issue when there are a least 5 issues which require Obama's full attention because of their historic importance: chronic unemployment; the mortgage crisis; unprecedented federal debt and associated devaluation of the d0llar; state bankruptcies; and our involvement in THREE wars in the middle east. Not to mention the unprecedented natural disasters in the south.

These problems should occupy his time. Not another "landmark" issue that most Americans don't care to address. They have more pressing needs.

You claim the republicans are out of touch because they can't come to an agreement on immigration. I say Obama is out of touch because he refuses to acknowledge and address the issues concerning most AMERICANS.

How about writing an article about that!!

PolishKnight| 5.11.11 @ 5:52PM

What's annoying about all the "foreigners are needed because USA workers are lazy and uneducated" arguments is that part of this is caused by the left's (and the right's tolerance) of the affirmative action racial preferences. There are a lot of foreigners in US schools because there are monetary interests in them getting admissions (perhaps they don't pay instate tuition) and quotas.

Nobody has talked about sealing the border. That's a total strawman. However, it's not a strawman to observe that amnesty proponents want an almost totally open, porous border and that amnesty is not going to change that. Just as after RR's amnesty of 1990, more illegals flooded in, the same will happen again and again.

If only... it were possible to give them directions to go to Canada and enjoy all those great welfare benefits. Canada is such a better nation than the USA, according to liberals. Why can't they all go there?

Regarding the anemic birthrates of Europe (and the white population in the states for that matter) Thank feminism and ponzi pension schemes. Women were given preferential (not equal, preferential) university placement and hiring and then griped that men were "bums" and not living up to 1950's breadwinner standards. So now we have an economy where working women have only a few if any kids because they're so busy working and a welfare state with black unemployment and incarceration higher than the Jim Crow era. Also, the pension system cannot work when it continually provides more and more benefits paid by future beneficiaries. Didn't Bernie Maddoff try to pull that one off?

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 6:11PM

Males - of all ages - have taken a huge hit recently and a major cause is the immigration problem. Not too long ago when I grew up, it was very easy for an able bodied male to find a job, even at an early age. If he so desired, he could at minimum wash dishes at a local restaurant, paint houses, lay sheet rock, build fences, or if he was really good, out-right join a construction crew. They were not great paying jobs but more than sufficient for a 16 or 17 year old living with his parents. They were great as a gateway into the work force. Those jobs are almost off the table for most American males. Businesses simply consider Americans too "high maintenance" for those jobs and would prefer to find an expendable illegal to fill such a position. Females are not so much affected by this problem.

tatosian| 5.11.11 @ 9:30PM

True.

The obscene part of that scenario is that that boss (who won't take a chance on the kid cause he's got himself that expendable illegal) will justify hiring those illegals by claiming those illegals are doing the jobs Americans won't do.

Foul, but very effective.

Bob Grant| 5.11.11 @ 10:10PM

Yea, it's disgusting considering many of those business owners and contractors gained entry into their fields by working said positions early in life themselves. Don't they realize they are killing off potential career paths (or, at least job opportunities) to millions of young AMERICAN males? Quite possibly a neighbor's son? ...Oh well, it's all about the money. I find most business men are very short-sighted and have no idea what their actions cause long term.

PolishKnight| 5.12.11 @ 9:50AM

My wife is an immigrant and observed that many businesses try to exploit the ignorance and desperation of immigrants or even lower working class Americans. They try to get out of paying time and half overtime, put workers on 33 hour schedules and then not give them FT benefits, and fire them when they get sick. It's straight out of Dickens or even Das Kapital. It makes me ashamed as an American.

Fortunately, she has me and I told her to tell them off and sometimes she got fired for it and sometimes not.

Indeed, as Ann Coulter points out in her latest column, the left has totally abandoned the average worker (immigrant or citizen) and doesn't mind seeing them exploited provided they have political cover and/or making a buck. The left's main citizen voters are in it for race entitlements or government union jobs. The right just expects their electorate to show up (and is shocked like McMaverick McCain when they stay home. "All I did was tell them that they were stupid and racist and to hell with my own electorate! I'm the Maverick! I can do whatever I like including stab my own constituency in the back! They're such jerks!")

I take a lot of flack here for being a commie (not really a commie) but in their eyes I am because I don't think that businesses should treat their workers like scum and expect us to show up and defend them.

Regarding the construction crew: I wouldn't buy a home made in the last 10 years if you (or the Treasury) paid me. Two words: Chinese drywall.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 2:05AM

Dear PK,

and Zbig thinks I am a big governemnt Liberal because I am in favor of beating the crap out of terrorists.

You can't cure stupid. I like your stuff.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 2:06AM

Sorry "government." Night, all.

Occam's Tool| 5.13.11 @ 2:03AM

Again, Ross, I think you should look at the New Zealand point system closely and model your arguments on their approach.

martin j smith| 5.11.11 @ 4:46PM

Ross: you sound like a nice person. I think that it is not possible to engage in any meaningful work with Obama or his ilk. his behavior in Texas and of course his speech says it all-arrogant--hostile-defiant and denial of real problems for this country. I would also add, that many or even the vast majority of Mexicans we see are POOR AND IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE. DO WE HAVE THE MONEY FOR THIS ? AND THEY ARE ILLEGALS ? AND SOME MAY EVEN BE TERRORISTS POSING AS MEXICANS --THAT IS POSSIBLE . Ross: considering the tims we are in, Obama does behave as a person we can deal with on a rational level. He needs to be challenged and debated till the truth comes out.,

Ross Kaminsky | 5.11.11 @ 5:23PM

Martin,

I agree with your fundamental premise about Obama. I have nothing good to say about the man. He is probably the worst president in our history and certainly the worst in my lifetime.

So here's my question: If the president were a Republican or a tolerable "moderate" Democrat (bear with me while we assume the existence of such a creature), where would you want to go in terms of immigration reform? And again, I'm NOT trying to focus just on low-skill immigrants, though I do think they add more value than some people suggest, which is to say they add some value rather than none.

John Bowman| 5.11.11 @ 11:21PM

Do you really think a Mexican illegal with a 5th grade education, an 85 IQ, a minimum wage job, and six children is making a positive contribution to the USA? Or 10 million similar illegal aliens?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.12.11 @ 10:06AM

John,

Not in the current structure, no, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be a net positive.

I'm sure people said the same things about the Irish or Italians or Jews during prior waves of immigration. That said, those waves were legal, and were people who wanted to assimilate and become legal, which is an important difference.

I'm not an apologist for illegals. I just want our nation to make smart economic decisions and it annoys the hell out of me that reforming immigration policy for high-skill workers is held hostage to the emotional issue of illegal aliens from south of our border.

John Bowman| 5.12.11 @ 11:13AM

You are wrong, past Americans did not make all the same complaints about Jewish, Italian, and Irish immigrants because they were not paying to educate, medicate, and house their half dozen children, nor were those immigrants comitting multiple felonies.

Norman Matloff who represents high skilled Americans disagrees we need more high skilled foreign workers: http://sciencecareers.sciencem.....t.a1000069

The only reforms needed are reducing the waiting times for the immigrants we do need/want, increasing the per county limit from 7% to 15% so more educated Chinese and Indians can come here thus making these countries less competitive, and imposing education and English requirements on family immigrants.

Elton Gallegly, Republican head of the House Immigration Subcommitte, supports these reforms. But the anti-American press won't tell you that.

John Bowman| 5.12.11 @ 11:29AM

I should have said: "increase the per country limit so higher quality educated Chinese and Indians can permanently move to and live in the USA, instead of lower quality temporary H1b workers."

martin j smith| 5.11.11 @ 4:48PM

I left out the word NOT IN REGARDING OBAMA BEHAVING AS A PERSON WE CAN DEAL. He toys with us. that is Obama.

Davey Jones| 5.11.11 @ 5:44PM

Is it just me or does this article come up short in distinguishing between legal and illegal immigration? There is a huge difference. Hard working people who want to come to this country legally and become part of the American fabric are both needed and welcome. Those who want to come en masse and become parasites, while proclaiming their "rights" to more benefits, while waving their Mexican flags and screaming reconquista need to be strongly encouraged to leave. There are many tools available to encourage illegals to leave, not the least of which is fining and jailing employers who knowingly hire illegals.

On a lighter note, maybe we could make a deal with Mexico to export a bunch of our liberal arts college professors down south. Many of them hate this country anyway and they could put their talents to use down there fomenting a new revlution.

Who Knows?| 5.11.11 @ 6:07PM

Right on, brother Ross!

LEGAL immigration, especially by educated and/or moneyed PROVEN WINNERS, is a win win win.

THEY win, by getting a chance to do their best here.

WE win, that is, the USA, wins, by gaining vital and productive people who WANT to be here---and, this country has lots of open spaces.

China, Islam, North Korea, et al win, TRULY---not their slave master dictators---because a stronger and growing USA makes it much harder for them to make trouble: peace through strength, a la what Reagan accomplished by wasting the USSR.

Another thought arose--

remember the whole Population Bomb concern, that too many people would be impossible to feed, house, and clothe?

However, after growing up, humans ALSO bring hands as well as a mouth, so they aren't JUST helpless---indeed, winners such as the types America SHOULD legally seek and entice to come here, more than provide for themselves.

For all those who still worry about overpopulation, here's a checkable factoid---

You could put ALL the humans on earth into Texas, and the population density wouldn't be more than that of London. At least this was true, back when there were around 6 billion of us.

These days, probably, we'd have to add another state, to make the density come out the same.

Also, I just wonder if anyone has done a pure and simple summing up of the weight, in pounds, of all humans.

Let's see, about 300,000,000 Americans, these days, exist. What with obesity, etc, even in 6-month old babies, maybe the total weight is so large it will SINK the country!

Actually, relative weights are more interesting, to me.

I'll bet going from 200 to 300 million humans, America DOUBLED its weight, while only increasing numbers by 50%.

Solyent Green.

vinh le | 5.11.11 @ 11:12PM

Ross,
Before writing about immigration you should become more familiar with it. A good place to start is www.immigrant rights foundation.org.

Another thing you should do is read the book La Raza Cosmica, to understand the mentality and mission of Latino political activist groups, and what they plan for your future. This includes the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

vinh le | 5.11.11 @ 11:13PM

Sorry, the link is: www.immigrantrightsfoundation.org

kimberoflee| 5.11.11 @ 11:44PM

So, I have been reading this site for about 3 - 3 1/2 yrs? A little history? Born in Feb of 71, a 'latch key kid' (my father left when I 2yrs old also), a byproduct of the "30 second sound blip-culture" & we cannot make jokes about flying "bombed or un-bombed" anymore. I feel we are in a sad state of repair. Now, I am a born & breed texan & we have a 'special' relationship w/mexico, just do not like the 'jihaidis(sp)" coming across the border. that is all for now....K

Dee See| 5.12.11 @ 1:13AM

"---We are using MASSIVE third world
immigration to destroy British culture
once and for all ---forever."
-TONY BLAIR
(Daily Mail cited by ALAN WATT)

-----------------Likewise Europe, America.

"It's no secret folks, FOX Newscorp's been
funding La Raza projects like the film 'Machete'
--that Rockefeller/Carnegie are the money behind
ReConquista and La Raza. You are being
betrayed."

"Understand, the globalists are, almost to
a man, inbred, intergenerational, INTER-national
genocidal psychopaths. There are NO
politics at the top ---only 'the agenda' ---so
also NO morality or loyalty whatsoever.
Absolutely NONE."

"Globalism, 'Free Trade' and EUGENICS
(---and TREASON) are always intertwined.
ALWAYS. Understand that----"
-ALAN WATT
(Cutting Through the Matrix online)

AS America has been hijacked in broad daylight

AND

AS the greatest world nuclear disaster of all
time is meanwhile being covered up by the
corporate monopoly eugenics media
--------------------DO UNDERSTAND.

June| 5.12.11 @ 2:16PM

Our immigration system isn't broken - it's just rusty from misuse. If our laws were truly obeyed, and if we had a government who wasn't addicted to cheap labor and votes, every illegal alien in this country would be on his/her way home.

Ali999| 5.16.11 @ 10:04AM

Don't kid yourself. Obama's in a tough position with DEMOCRATS on immigration. I'm a lifelong labor Democrat and oppose amnesty, as does my blue collar brother. Now, just how does Obama think he'll convince Rust Belt workers to support him if he pushes amnesty? What justification is there for legalizing 20 million illegal alien job thieves when 20 million Americans are out of work?

Latest Headlines

Obama’s Assault on the First Amendment

George Neumayr|150 comments

Damage Control for Dummies

Matt Purple|84 comments

Time to Go for the Kill

Peter Ferrara|64 comments

Restrain the Abusive Administative State

Doug Bandow|23 comments

Disabling American Sovereignty

Iain Murray|13 comments

The Other Gosnells

Jordan Gonzalez|13 comments

Can He Unite Virginia’s GOP?

Carten Cordell|31 comments

Undoing the Brainwashing

Thomas Sowell|25 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Steven Crowder: Jesus vs. Muhammad

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Kaminsky’s Corollary to I, Pencil

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?