I have concluded that the open borders crew has been perpetuating an elaborate scam on the American middle class and working class. The perpetrators include politicians of both political parties, although truth be told, they are more prevalent on the Dem side of the aisle, plus their allies and supporters in the media and elsewhere. They would have you believe that if you want to secure the southern border you are cold-hearted, immoral, racist, or some combination of all three. As we know, when someone with whom you are debating calls you a racist they are telling you they have no facts to support their position. Hence, they have already lost the argument. What is the basis for this provocative opinion? Read on, and you shall see.
First, let’s examine the open borders “(OB)” arguments, which are disingenuous, at best:
1. Walls don’t work and are immoral to boot. This is Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s favorite argument, and it is being repeated by other pols and media supporters. The fact of the matter is that walls do work and have worked whenever they have been and are being used. They worked for the Chinese 1,000 years ago, for the Vatican from the last days of the Roman Empire and for Israel and the US southern border presently. Are they foolproof? No. Do they secure the border by themselves? No, again. But, they are an effective deterrent, especially when used in concert with other means, such as humans, drones and modern technology. Don’t just take my word for it. Mike Morgan, former chief of the Customs and Border Patrol under President Obama, endorses them as do many other agents and law enforcement personnel. These are the experts who live it every day. They know.
I ask you, if walls don’t work, why do we continue to build them around exclusive gated communities? You can be sure that Nancy and many of her allies live in gated communities with 24X7 security. As far as being immoral, that is not fact, just opinion. Nancy is entitled to hers, but does that mean she views the Pope as immoral?
2. Most drugs enter via ports of entry, not over the border. That may be true, but that shouldn’t mean we ignore the border. That’s like saying heart disease kills more people than cancer, so there’s no point in trying to cure cancer. Why can’t we address both?
3. Illegals will just climb over it or tunnel under it. Again, why should that prevent us from making it more difficult for them. Try to imagine a migrant lugging a 200 foot ladder 1,000 miles so he can scale a wall. LOL. In addition, the wall is not intended to be the sole deterrent. It would be used in conjunction with the other means, as mentioned above.
4. It is expensive. Really? The government that wastes money continually, that readily funds border walls and other security measures in foreign countries, and that has run up a $21 trillion debt is telling us that $8 billion for a wall on our southern border is expensive and wasteful. Does anyone really believe that?
5. More undocumented immigrants overstayed their visas than entered over the border. First of all, that statement is supposition, not fact, since we don’t even know how many illegals are living in the US. Estimates run as high as 22 million, but your guess is as good as mine. Secondly, see #2 above. Why can’t we address both.
6. Illegals commit fewer crimes, proportionally, than Americans. I am not aware of any survey that supports this assertion. But, even if it were true that does not mean we shouldn’t try to eliminate those crimes by controlling our border better.
The OB advocates will not tell you the real reasons for their position. I have mentioned this before, but it bears reviewing. The real reasons are economic and political.
Until the last few years US pols were strongly, if not uniformly, opposed to illegal immigration. For example, in the 19th century Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which restricted immigration of Chinese. In the 1960s the renowned activist, Cesar Chavez, who organized the union of the migrant fruit pickers in Cal, and, who, to this day, is revered in the state, strongly opposed illegals. Despite having only a 7th grade education, he was astute enough to recognize that an increase in the supply of unskilled workers would be detrimental to his union members. Chavez coined the derogatory term “wetbacks” to describe the illegals and even organized border patrols of union members to intercept illegals. (He also coined the term “yes we can,” which became the slogan for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign.)
Up until the last few years liberal politicians such Obama, both Clintons, George McGovern and CA Governor Jerry Brown, Sr. expressed opposition to illegal immigration. For example, in 2006 Congress passed the Secure Fence Act, which I have discussed in a previous blog, with bipartisan support. Among those who voted “yea” were Senators Biden, Boxer, Schumer and Clinton. Since then, the Dem party has undergone a radical transformation on the issue. It would be interesting to ask them why they changed their minds, but then again they would probably lie.
As I said the real reasons for advocacy of OB are political and economic. Below please find a brief summary:
1. Political. The Dems have determined that illegals, who utilize a disproportionate amount of services, are more likely to vote Dem when and if they are given the right to vote (and make no mistake, that is their objective). This conclusion is supported by most polls. Also, even though common sense tells you that OB is bad for the country on many levels, they despise Mr. Trump so much they would rather harm the country than approve the wall and give him a “win.”
2. Economic. The first law of economics is the law of supply and demand. The greater the supply, the less the demand for the product or service being offered and the lower its value. Thus, business owners want to create and perpetuate a large supply of cheap unskilled labor as exemplified by illegals. Regardless of the pay and working conditions it figures to be better than where they came from. So, who benefits? The wealthy and the elites who hire these workers. Who is hurt? The middle and working class who compete for many of the same jobs. Don’t fall for the fallacy that illegals only take jobs Americans don’t want, such as dishwashers, gardeners, and nannies. Some do, but many take other jobs, such as construction, service, and manufacturing. Ironically, those that are hurt the most are disproportionally African Americans and Hispanics, which are the very people that Dems purport to look out for. Chavez understood this and fought against it. Where are today’s unions?
Despite the extreme seriousness of this issue I have to laugh when I see people try to defend OB on TV. OBs are so illogical, arguments in favor are often ridiculous and based on opinion, not fact. For example:
1. Rick Wilson labels supporters of the wall as “inbred, not bright and not sophisticated.”
2. Don Lemon scoffs that a wall is a 5th century solution to a 21st century problem.” Sounds good, but it’s a silly and disingenuous argument.
3. In the Dem rebuttal “Chancy” said President Trump was “manufacturing a crisis” regarding the border. This was mimicked uniformly by various other politicians and media commentators, such as Tim Keane, James Carville and many others who, miraculously, used the same exact “manufactured crisis” term. By the way, “Chancy” looked like they were posing for a remake of Grant Wood’s “American Gothic.” They inspired many memes on social media. My favorite was by Greg Gutfeld, who said they looked like they were about to sell him a reverse mortgage.
4. While fact-checking President Trump the “Washington Post” took exception to his statistic that 266,000 illegals were arrested last year. They said it was “accurate” but “misleading.” Huh? If it’s “accurate,” it’s factually correct. “Misleading” constitutes “opinion,” not “fact.”
5. In particular, I enjoyed Dem commentator Jonathan Harris’ humorous attempts to parse the difference between a “fence,” which was approved in 2006 and a “wall,” which he opposes.
So, when pols spout their disingenuous justifications for OB recognize it for what it is. You may dislike Mr. Trump for his personality or even his politics. Fair enough. You’re entitled. But, on this issue the facts support him.