Why They Want Open Borders
There is an established elite in American politics – in both parties – that believe in deficit spending, unlimited debt and big government. They believe that government is a force for good and that it can keep the order and maintain the American dream. Some even believe that the American dream of democracy and prosperity should be spread to every corner of the Earth. The Clinton legacy, the Bush legacy and the Obama legacy all depend upon using the resources of government to achieve grandiose goals. The problem is that their ambitions threaten to bankrupt America. Now that they've realized this glaring truth, they've moved towards finding ways to pay America's monstrous $20 trillion debt while still increasing their ability to spend even more.
The new Clinton clan, the Bush family and Obama's future heirs all intend to further expand the size and cost of America's government. Like George Bush Sr., George W. Bush and Barack Obama did before them, the Hillarys, Jebs, O'Malleys, Kerrys and Rubios all plan to spend more. In order to do so, they will need to increase the size of the American treasury. The only way to expand the size of the American treasury quickly enough is to create millions of new, instant taxpayers. This policy is misguided beyond belief and based on fantastical economic theories, but they won't let reality stop their ambitious plans.
In 1992, when Bill Clinton defeated George Bush Sr., the national debt was $4 trillion. It barely found its way into conversations around ordinary American dinner tables. At the time, the debt had only risen per year by $400 billion. The Clinton administration was eventually able to bring that annual growth down to an average of $250 billion by 1999. Coincidentally, the Clinton administration had an immigration policy that would have made Donald Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric sound liberal.
In 1996, Bill Clinton helped pass the Illegal Immigration And Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) into law. The act has since been responsible for the deportation of thousands of illegal aliens convicted of crimes. Among many things, the law forced illegals charged with crimes to pay for their own representation. The act also allowed undisclosed evidence to be used against illegals in court, increased penalties for employers who employed illegal immigrants and barred illegals who had been in the United States for one year from re-entering legally for ten years. Some of the law's provisions were struck down and rewritten by the Supreme Court in 2001.
There was no need to rapidly expand the size and bloat of the American treasury between 1992 and 1999 in order to pay down the national debt and spend more. Taxes were moderate, illegal immigration was not tolerated and national spending was smaller than it ever would be again. That was Bill Clinton's centrist – at times, right leaning – administration. Hillary Clinton has shown no intention of copying her husband's fiscal policies.
Amnesty and open borders are not just liberal dreams today, they're still dreams for the Republican establishment. The administration of George W. Bush strongly supported failed immigration reforms that would have granted citizenship to 12 million illegal immigrants and created a temporary workers' program. It was called The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, but it was never voted on or passed into law. The law had striking similarities to Barack Obama's DREAM Act.
The reason for all of this open border and amnesty talk is simple. Both Democrats and Republican establishmentarians believe that rapidly increasing the number of American taxpayers will instantly increase America's spending power, whether it be on more social safety nets or more military adventurism. The belief stretches even further into the idea that a dramatic increase in taxpayers could slow the growth of the country's monstrous debt.
Democrats and Republicans alike know that most refugees and immigrants take up to two or five years to enter the workforce and go off of government assistance. Or so the theory goes. The hope on both sides is that immigrants will eventually enter the workforce within the shortest possible time span. In order for the open borders idea to work, immigrants must enter the workforce sooner than later. According to the Center For Immigration Studies, more than half of all immigrants in the United States are on some sort of welfare. The time span that most immigrants will spend on welfare, whether it's food stamps or Medicaide, varies between two and ten years. In some cases, immigrants could spend over a decade on some kind of government assistance. The biggest problem facing immigrants and refugees is their lack of education, which makes them unable to compete with America's native workforce.
More information from the Center For Immigration Studies shows that welfare numbers for immigrants with children is much higher – at 76% compared to 51% of immigrant households without children.
The idea that most Americans are out-growing low quality jobs with their higher educations is partly driving the belief that more unskilled workers should be dramatically increased to fill the vacancies. However, current welfare and immigration statistics prove it's not happening. Instead of filling vacancies, unskilled immigrants are choosing to live on food stamps, Medicaide and in subsidized housing with low rental costs for long periods of time. To complicate the idea even further, it was reported last month that over 94 million Americans are not in the labor force. This means that America's labor force participation is at a 38-year low.
To flip the debate, most Democrats and Republicans make immigration, amnesty and the refugee crisis about compassion. For Hillary, the Bush family and some other Republicans, open borders are about the economy, the national debt and bigger spending. The compassion argument is nothing more than a way to make a dangerous idea sound like a good idea to the American public.
What makes open borders and automatic citizenship for millions of illegals dangerous is not only the untested economic consequences, but the concept of national security. If 94 million unemployed Americans weren't enough of a ticking time bomb, reports have recently surfaced of Syrian refugees showing up at the US/Mexico border. What's wrong with this is not the refugees, but the fact that if Syrian refugees have shown up at the Mexican border, others will eventually show up as well. This brings us back to the day when guerrilla journalist, James O'Keefe dressed up as Osama Bin Laden and crossed the US/Mexico border without being stopped.
According to the former Mexican ambassador to the US, there are currently 30 million illegal and undocumented immigrants in the United States. If this is true, it means that 30 million people found a way into America across the US/Mexico border, just as James O'Keefe did. In a time of ISIS and Islamic radicalization, this should be considered one of the most dangerous problems facing America.
There is no justification, neither economic or social, to treat border security as a distraction or an unimportant debate. There is no smart reason in subverting American laws to grant millions of illegal aliens free citizenship, to bring in 100,000 poorly vetted Syrian refugees or to send the message that America's borders are nothing more than an unenforceable idea. One reason for the existence of 30 million undocumented immigrants – and a continued inflow of millions more – is the message that crossing the US/Mexico border is absolutely possible. If the idea of crossing the US/Mexico border was nothing more than an impossible fantasy, our country would have fewer problems with illegal immigration. Sending the message that millions of illegal immigrants will be granted automatic citizenship – or amnesty – only causes a flood of hopefuls to show up at our borders.
As we've seen, policies offered by Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, many Republican senators and the Democratic establishment have no economic or social justifications. The idea on both sides, that an influx of new taxpayers is somehow a benefit to the economy, is completely false. The idea that there is no risk to national security and the safety of American citizens is also false. The idea itself is dangerous. To mitigate the security risks, some Republicans would spend more on security forces and agencies like the NSA and the DHS, making the cost of immigration even more expensive and less economical.
In conclusion, I'll leave you with some Republican presidential candidates and their pro-amnesty quotes and history.
Jeb Bush – Told Telemundo in Spanish, “For the 11 million people [illegals], they must come out of the shadows, receive a work visa and start paying taxes.” He also told Florida's NBC-6 that he could persuade conservatives to accept amnesty and that Republicans should “encourage young, aspirational people to come to our country”.
Marco Rubio – Was a member of the “Gang Of Eight” that sponsored the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, And Immigration Modernization Act of 2013. The act would have legalized millions of illegal immigrants while making it easier for more skilled immigrants to gain citizenship. At a judiciary review, Dr. Ron Hira criticized the bill for trying to make it cheaper for corporations to outsource American jobs. Others, including Republican rivals, have called Rubio a corporate and “donor class” puppet hired to support legislation for special interest groups.
Lindsey Graham – In May, he said, “If I were president of the United States, I would veto any bill that did not have a pathway to citizenship.” In this video, Graham suggests that people who oppose amnesty are bigots.
John Kasich – Told CNN in August, “I prefer for them [illegals] to be legalized once we find out who they are.” In October, he told the Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce, “The idea that we are going to pick these people up and ship them out. I mean, that is just unbelievable. The thought of it.”