Progressive Perspective: Is America's Immigration Disaster A Side Effect Of Decadent Elite Drug Abuse?
Print Friendly and PDF

The post-1965 policy of non-traditional mass immigration is so obviously suicidal for the historic American nation that it’s impossible not to wonder how it could happen. My suggestion: perhaps it actually isn’t a policy choice. Perhaps it is just a side effect of drug addiction in a decadent ruling class.

Recently, David Nutt, a leading British expert on psychoactive drugs, pointed out the truth many of us working in finance have known for years: the notoriously widespread problems throughout the banking system are partially caused by cocaine use. [Financial meltdown was caused by too many bankers taking cocaine, says former government drugs tsar Prof David Nutt. By Rob Williams, The Independent, April 15, 2013]

This is something I’ve long been familiar with in my career as a computer professional addressing financial fraud. I worked on the investigation that put Bill Griffin, the sugar daddy of Katherine Harris (the woman who gave us George W “Open Borders” Bush) in prison. [Man behind Riscorp failure linked to new collapse, By Paige St. John,, October 15, 2009]. Previously I helped develop the early database integration of what later became the world's most popular credit card fraud detection system.

Indeed, I started writing for when I came to see US immigration policy as just another example of financial fraud—this time, directed at the historic American nation. However, it wasn’t long before I started making connections between the kind of substance abuse problems I saw among the so-called Masters of the Universe in the financial industry and the sociopathic behavior of our so-called political leaders.

Is Mass Immigration A Side Effect Of Drug Addiction In A Decadent Ruling Class?

To be clear: as a progressive, I believe The “War on Drugs,” specifically the policy of mass incarceration, has failed. I favor decriminalization of simple possession of most drugs and legalization of lower-harm drugs like marijuana. There should also be a mass presidential pardon of all prisoners now incarcerated for doing what both Presidents Bush and Obama did when they were younger.

But this doesn’t mean that drug abuse doesn’t have real effects—especially for those in positions of responsibility. The association of cocaine use and financial fraud is now known, but what is often overlooked is the specific effect of that stereotypically upper class drug on elite behavior. Cocaine appears to make abusers lie more effectively and easily. It’s also not always obvious when someone is impaired.

Sound like any politicians we know?

Even though alcohol is a legal drug, we regulate activities like drunk driving. Many cases of legal malpractice involve drug and alcohol abuse [Substance Abuse and Attorney Discipline, by John P. Ratnaswamy, The Bencher, September/October 2011]. I've come to the personal conclusion that all licensed legal, healthcare and financial professionals should be tested. The goal would not just be to identify impairment on the job, but chronic use likely to cause health and behavioral problems.

Just as most Americans would not sit in a car with a drunk driver, most Americans should not accept chronic alcoholism among their political and business leaders. Drug and alcohol abuse has continuing effects for managerial ability in the same way it does for driving a car.

I suspect that our post-1965 immigration disaster has roots in serious drug and alcohol abuse among decision makers. President John F. Kennedy, who paved the way for the 1965 Immigration Act with his 1964 book A Nation Of Immigrants, was also, not coincidentally, also accused of being involved in abuse of methamphetamine. [The Kennedy meth, By Larry Getlen, April 21, 2013] Senator Ted Kennedy was a key figure in the eventually passage of that nation-breaking 1965 Act: his alcoholism was public knowledge. He also was accused of being a cocaine addict by a former aide. [Ex-aide's Book Alleges Kennedy Used Drugs, Philadelphia Inquirer, September 27, 1992] President Lyndon B. Johnson, who actually signed the 1965 legislation, was prone to severe binge drinking.

Wall Street is a major force behind the current Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill. Leading financial leaders have played a huge role in expanding US immigration quotas—and this is the very class David Nutt has accused of chronic cocaine abuse.

Is US immigration policy just a symptom of drug/alcohol abuse-induced lack of empathy towards fellow citizens? Until we actually do the tests on leaders and decision makers, how can we really know? Do we really know that Barack Obama is really a “former” cocaine user as he claims in his book Dreams From My Father?

The founder of Alcoholics Anonymous pointed out that drunks tend to instinctively help out other drunks. Harnessing that tendency was part of the basis of AA. Users of other drugs do something similar. I find it interesting that the drunk drivers Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush both promoted policies to greatly aid importation of drunk drivers. Were they following some kind of strange, unconscious psychological drive?

Has anyone asked groups like Mothers Against Drunk Driving what they think of a program of Amnesty that includes a huge number of folks with DUI records or tendencies? ( answer: MADD is AWOL—its professional bureaucrats want to remain part of the Beltway Liberal Coalition).

Even in a world of decriminalized drugs and mass amnesty of illegal immigrants, do we really want to give visas to folks with chronic drug or alcohol problems? We know that some groups of immigrants have a high rate of substance abuse. If Congress chooses to give more work visas, shouldn't employers be required to purchase insurance to avoid passing the costs of their impaired workers onto the public?

Drug and alcohol testing should be a part of any program that decides who gets to live and work in what is, after all, our country.

But the real testing program should on our own political leaders. We have random testing for low ranking members of the military, government employees, and even school children. But we give those with power over our lives a free pass. We should make them live by the same standards as the rest of us.

Once we have a broad testing program in place, then we can look for the same patterns of mishaps, like financial fraud or catastrophic political misjudgment, that we find with accidents among obviously impaired drivers.

And even before that, if results of elected officials and officers of public companies were known, citizens could make informed voting and investing decisions.

The history of mass immigration and public policy over the last several decades shows that we do not have a responsible ruling class. But it may be worse than we think. Their inability to govern the country comes from their inability to govern their own lives.

Randall Burns [email him] holds a degree in Economics from the University of Chicago. Burns has been active in furthering the introduction of immigration, trade, and tax realities into the progressive agenda. In 2004, he helped create the Kucinich campaign’s position paper on H-1b/L-1 visas.

Print Friendly and PDF