Amnesty Or Mexico Gets It
Print Friendly and PDF

National Lampoon

In a replay of the famous National Lampoon cover, a so-called conservative has allied himself with the Treason Bar and is threatening Americans with communist revolution in Mexico and the rest of Latin America unless we give the 11 million or so illegal aliens, many from non-Latin America countries, amnesty. So, do we just deport Indians and Chinese? Couldn't China use a revolution?

ILW February 20, 2012 by Robert Gittelson

Conservatism vs. Restrictionism: The Unintended Consequences of Self-Deportation

As the Co-Founder of the Conservatives for Comprehensive Immigration Reform coalition, I often have occasion to explain the true conservative philosophy behind a comprehensive solution to our nation's broken immigration system. In principal, conservatives believe in the rule of law, but more significantly in the moral and compassionate framework of values that form the foundation of the rule of law. Restrictionists tend to often be conservatives, but on the issue of immigration, they have an ideology of lower immigration levels, and adhere only to the rule of law arguments, forsaking the idea of striking a balance with the moral and compassionate foundation that our nation has been built upon. Therefore, there is a fundamental difference between those that argue for a conservative and comprehensive solution that will solve our immigration crisis, and the restrictionists that fundamentally want to deport or "attrite" all 11,000,000 undocumented immigrants and their legal or citizen relatives, regardless of the moral, economic, and geo-political consequences to America. Most conservatives are not restrictionists.

Typical blather and lies from the Open Borders crowd. And unsurprising from Gittelson, who long ago as an employer replaced his American workers in his garment business with peons from south of the border.

But then the treat. Amnesty or Revolution!

Putting aside for a moment the horrific moral and ethical ramifications of his theory, (i.e.: "poverty, hunger, joblessness, mindless cruelty and injustice"), what would be the net result of this foolish exercise? Mexico and the other Latin American nations would be monumentally adversely affected not only by the addition of millions of starving self-deportees, but also because of the loss of remittances, due to the return of their millions of expatriate breadwinners, now unemployed, broke, and harboring fresh ill will towards America. Millions of disenfranchised self-deportees in a Mexico left economically ruined through the loss of their 2nd largest source of revenue, (remittances), would push Mexico over the edge, and it would become the 10th Latin American country to be toppled by what can only be described as the alarming trend of Latin American socialism or communism. Furthermore, the net effect of this geo-political transformation would be to embolden influential communist strongmen such as Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega right on our southern border.

Hmmm, Ortega was elected during the Obama Regime Administrative Amnesty. Nicaragua has been enjoying the benefits of TPS for tens of thousands of its citizens for decades. How did our immigration policy get him elected? While Brazilians are a presence in California and Massachusetts, as a source country they aren't that important. How did Bush's hands off policy and Obama's Amnesty get two successive dirty Reds elected President there over the last decade? Ditto for the Andean communists. Not many of those here. American immigration policy was a non-issue in Andean victories of various commies. And the old man of the left in South America, Hugo Chavez, was, of course, elected during the early Bush years, when deportations were quite a bit lower than they are today.

But then we get to the truth. American businesses, in a time of massive unemployment, are dependent on illegal aliens for their productivity and profitability.

In terms of the economics of a self-deportation plan, I would like to look at the consequences that this scheme would have on our economy. I want to caution readers that the modern global economy, and specifically the American economy, is a little more complicated than these attrition-through-enforcement enthusiasts would have you believe.

The approximately 7-8 million undocumented workers are employed predominately in small to medium sized businesses, (which are exactly the business segments that will produce the new jobs that America will need to pull itself out of our current high unemployment recession). Governor Romney would have you believe that it is in the best interest of our economy to fire and "attrite" these workers, and give their jobs to unemployed citizens. Let me explain why this is an untenable economic plan.

The undocumented that still have jobs, are employed because they are among the most productive workers at their respective companies. During this deep recession, virtually all companies have cut back their workforce to their best and most productive workers, and by doing so, hope to weather the economic storm and survive. Again, at this point in time, almost all American companies are struggling to stay in business, and are employing the minimum amount of employees that will enable them to stay afloat. These remaining workers are experienced, productive, and have proven their worth. The self-deportation enthusiasts would have us fire good, experienced, and proven - albeit undocumented workers, and replace them with citizen trainees that cannot find jobs in their respective fields, and are theoretically willing to take jobs picking fruit, making hotel beds, or manufacturing products, until the economy expands, and they can get a better job.

Finally the truth. But the problem is apparently no available American workers. Perhaps finally curtailing endless unemployment benefits, not more immigrants, would be the answer.

The Fiscal Times February 19, 2012

8 Things You Didn’t Know about Payroll Tax-Cut Deal

The unemployed will be able to claim between 63 weeks and 73 weeks of unemployment benefits, depending on how hard the recession has hit their states...

The legislation reauthorizes the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program through the end of the fiscal year, a move that will preserve a lifeline for families in dire circumstances. TANF replaced the old federal welfare system that was gutted in the late 1990s. The new law also creates a data standardization process to simplify reporting requirements, prevents use of TANF assistance at certain establishments and makes technical legislative corrections.

Remember the Joads. They picked fruit because they had no choice. But the choice in today's welfare state is between unemployment and "disability."

Fox News February 19, 2012

Millions Of Jobless File For Disability When Unemployment Benefits Run Out

Being unemployed for too long reportedly is driving people mad and costing taxpayers billions of dollars in mental illness and other disability claims.

The New York Post reported Sunday that as unemployment checks run out, many jobless are trying to gain government benefits by declaring themselves unhealthy.

More than 10.5 million people — about 5.3 percent of the population aged 25 and 64 — received disability checks in January from the federal government, the Post wrote, a 18 percent jump from before the recession.

But then we reach the real reason for the attack on Romney and his accidental arrival to the immigration enforcement camp. Attrition through enforcement will work. That is the real fear.

Finally, to circle back to the moral or human argument, what does the restrictionist "attrition" scheme really mean? It means that if were successfully able to withhold any means of employment from the millions of undocumented workers here in the United States, they would be faced with few if any viable choices. If they were to stay here, they would starve themselves and their families, and would be left homeless due to their inability to pay rent. They would wander around looking for work for as long as they could hold out, and then, faced with no prospects for survival here in the U.S., many of these good people would be forced to return, defeated, broke, angry, and with their tails between their legs back to their countries of origin, assuming that they could survive that difficult journey back, without any means to pay for it.

Illegals will have to go home, perish the thought. A lot of people stand to lose. Businesses loose cheap labor, illegals have to go home, Democrat community organizers have to get real jobs, bishops will have to start addressing the crisis of faith and morality, and Gittelson might be just a little bit poorer from having to pay his servants and workers a little more.

Print Friendly and PDF