THE CARAVAN PART II

This is a follow-up to my blog of last month on the caravan. The “Phantom” caravan, the caravan that many Dems, such as former President Obama, insisted didn’t exist and was a GOP ruse to rouse its base for the mid-term elections, has arrived at the US border. Some 5,000 of them are presently in Tijuana, which is right across the border from San Diego. This is just the advance group. There are reportedly thousands more coming.

Most of them are being housed inside the local sports complex as the city has nowhere else to put them. According to “The Guardian” conditions are primitive, e.g. inadequate food, water, medical care and shelter, and waiting as much as 30 minutes to use the bathroom. “The Guardian” also reported that Tijuana’s mayor, Juan Manuel Gastelum, has characterized the situation as a “humanitarian crisis.” He told the “Guardian” that the city’s resources are inadequate to deal with the situation. Local churches and some private citizens have been supplying food and other necessities, but that is merely a drop in the proverbial bucket. The sheer numbers have overwhelmed the city.

Gastelum has accused the Mexican federal government of providing inadequate assistance, and he has requested the UN to intervene. (Does this indifference make the Mexican government racist against Guatemalans and Hondurans? Just asking.) It is likely that the crisis will worsen as more “caravanners” will arrive soon, and those who are already in place will likely have to wait for months to be processed. The US cannot possibly assimilate all these people in an orderly and expeditious manner.

The open borders crowd would have you believe that all of these people are refugees, families fleeing war, oppression, natural disaster or economic depression to make a better life for themselves in the US. To be sure, some of them may fall into that category. However, many others do not. Experience has shown us that imbedded in amongst this horde are criminals, MS-13 gang members, terrorists and other undesirables and ne’er-do-wells who would do us harm. Additionally, experience has shown that many of the minors are unaccompanied by their real parents or other family members. Instead, they are being “escorted” by drug cartel members who are just as likely to rob, rape and enslave them as help them. The point is we don’t know who they are. Even if 90% of the “caravanners” are legitimate refugees, a very high number, that would still leave 1,000 or so gang members, terrorists or other undesirables. Do we really want 1,000 of these people let loose in the country?

The US’s archaic immigration laws state that once a person sets foot in the country and claims asylum he or she gets to stay. Yes, they have to appear at a hearing in the future, but few of them actually do so. Many of them are forced to wait in detention centers under dubious conditions. Others somehow manage to roam free throughout the country.

You may ask, where did all these people come from? How did it happen that they all decided to march north at the same time? Good questions. I’m not sure, but it seems more than a little suspicious to me. Common sense tells me that it was not a spontaneous decision that 7,000 people made independently. The only logical explanation is that it was an orchestrated, organized plan hatched, funded, and supported by various open borders groups.

CONCLUSION

In my view, the impact of unfettered immigration is dire for the future of the country. It will impact us economically, socially and security-wise for many years. I think this is a matter of common sense and empirical evidence. Just look at the impact of unfettered immigration on the EU countries – France, the UK, Germany, any of them. Take your pick. A recent article in the “Washington Post” explains, in some detail, how this issue has even threatened to collapse the governments of some of these countries. It specifically mentions Angela Merkel’s government in Germany, but hers is not the only one.

Back to the US:

1. Economically – Most of the immigrants are not well educated, and, therefore, will be seeking unskilled labor jobs (and they’re not all going to be working as nannies or gardeners). They will be competing against unskilled laborers who already reside here. Many of them are AAs, Hispanics, teens, or women, seeking to re-enter the workforce. Ironically, these are the very constituencies that the open border crowd claims they want to help.

The first law of economics is the law of supply and demand. Therefore, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that an influx of cheap labor will depress wages for everyone. I can understand how large corporate executives and business owners would favor this, but how can any politician that fancies himself as a champion for the working man (Dem or GOP) possibly be in favor of it?

2. Socially – Assimilation is a must for any immigrant. Learn the language, accept the customs, make sure your kids go to school and get a good education. All ethnic groups have followed that pattern for 300 years. I would hope that this new wave of immigrants would do likewise, but I have my doubts. Some groups, notably Muslims who insist on being governed by Sharia Law, have resisted assimilation. This is not just my opinion. Just look at the situation in France, the UK, Germany, or virtually any other European country. Years of an open border policy has done severe damage to these countries’ social, political and economic fabric, as noted above. We should observe and take heed. Don’t ignore the empirical evidence. Why should we expect to be able to avoid the problems that every other country has suffered?

3. Security – It is imperative that immigrants be vetted satisfactorily before gaining entrée to the country in order that we can ferret out gang members, criminals and other undesirables. Those politicians who support unfettered immigration, such as Dems’ Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Andrew Cuomo, label anyone who opposes them as “racist.” In my opinion, that is absurd on its face. Yes, there are a small minority of racists in this country, but the vast majority of us who want to control our borders are not racist; they just want to be safe and prudent. Calling someone a racist shuts off any meaningful debate immediately, and nothing gets resolved. As the president has said: “if you don’t have a border, you don’t have a country.”

Obviously, the solution to the present problem would be a compromise immigration law that gives something, but not everything, to all parties. But, that would require cooperation among all the political factions. Don’t hold your breath.