Posted on 07/26/2014 5:27:55 AM PDT by NaturalBornConservative
A Never-Ending Scheme
:: By: Larry Walker, II ::
According to the New York Times, “Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.”
And, “If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises...”
What’s so wrong with this plan? It sounds a lot better than the utter chaos we have today. The pilot program proposed for Honduras would allegedly cost up to $47 million over two years, under the assumption that 5,000 refugees would apply, and about 1,750 would be accepted. What’s so bad about that?
The only flaw I can find is that because 16,500 unaccompanied children have arrived from Honduras, just since October 1st (over the last 9 months), actually up to 44,000 could apply for refugee status over a 24-month period ((16,500 / 9) * 24). That means this pilot program could actually wind up costing upwards of $413.6 million (($47 million / 5,000) * 44,000). Oops!
Furthermore, since the population of Honduras (under the age of 15) is around 2.8 million, assuming they all want to exit, the program could last for upwards of 127 years, with a total cost of around $26.3 billion ($413.6 million * 63.5 two-year periods). With an acceptance rate of 35%, we could wind up with around 981,584 Honduran refugees over the next 127 years. But that’s not the end of this proposal.
Since the program would then be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador, which have populations (under the age of 15) of 6.0 million, and 2.0 million, respectively, again assuming all want to join us, the program could last for upwards of 270 years (concurrently), with a total cost of around $101.0 billion, assuming similar costs in all three countries.
All in all, we could wind up taking in 3.8 million refugees, at a cost of around $101 billion, over the next 270 years. But keep in mind; this only includes the cost of processing and transporting them to the United States. It does not include the cost of feeding, educating, housing, etc… And then where does it end? How many other countries could declare worse crises?
Does this still sound like a great plan? Not so much.
The Hype
The hype involves all the stupid comments I’ve been reading from so-called Conservatives, across the web, such as the following:
“Obama is not stupid; he is a very smart man that has the backing of his money people. He wants to overpower the voting system to get as many people into the USA so that the Democrats can stay in office for years to come. Therefore they can have full control of everything in this country.”
“One thing it means is that an immigrant will be automatically registered as a demoRAT with full voting privileges. You and I have to actually fill out a form, the immigrants, being illiterate (no-speaky Inglés), get a pass.”
Really? Do you all really think these kids are thinking about which political party devised the plan to let them in? As far as I can tell, all they see right now is America the Beautiful. But anyway, why are Conservatives worrying about some election ten or twenty years from now, instead of focusing on this year and 2016? Do I need to spell out why the above is nothing but hype? Alright then, because of the following:
Children cannot vote.
Even Permanent (aka. Legal) U.S. Residents are not citizens and thus cannot vote.
One must be over the age of 18, and have been a permanent resident of the U.S. for 5 years before he or she can apply for citizenship.
Once citizenship is applied for, and one passes the test and pays the $700 fee, then, and only then, is he or she eligible to vote.
Assuming citizenship is attained, how such a person chooses to vote is a matter of personal preference, influenced by individual life experiences.
Perhaps it’s time Conservatives forget about some fantasy election decades away, and focus on things that really matter, like the potentially ridiculous overall cost of this never-ending scheme.
Obtaining citizenship is not just a matter of living here for 5 years, I know people who have been legal residents more than 20 years and are not yet citizens. One has to learn the English language, maintain a clean criminal record, and study U.S. History to be able to pass the test, something not everyone can or is willing to do. I have helped someone close to me study for the citizenship exam, and can say that most Americans wouldn't be able to pass.
We are still a nation of laws, and most of us, including those here legally, are trying to follow it. The solution for those who have already come illegally is simple. Deport them all, and deliver the message that the U.S. has a zero-tolerance policy toward those who break our current laws by coming here illegally.
Does this still sound like a great plan? Not so much.
Of course it is a terrible plan. We are not only facilitating the entry of more legal immigrants into the country, but we are setting a precedent that could apply globally. Why must only Central America benefit from being able to send their children out of such conditions. Africa and the Middle East could qualify for such a program along with any other place on the globe where the "children" are threatened. The numbers could be in the hundreds of millions.
The author misses the real costs of this Mariel-boatlift type tidal wave of "children." Most are teenagers and two-thirds are accompanied by family members. The real costs from this invasion come from the medical, educational, and incarceration costs that are mostly absorbed at the state and local level. Immigrants, legal and illegal, use welfare programs to a greater extent than the native born.
And if we have an amnesty, these additional "children" will add to the estimated $6.3 trillion it will cost the American taxpayer assuming their are only 12 million illegal aliens.
The author lays out why these "children" are not an immediate electoral threat. True enough, but LEGAL IMMIGRATION IS. We bring in 1.1 million legal immigrants a year, two thirds of whom will eventually vote Democrat. 87% of legal immigrants are minorities as defined by the USG, We have just had the two largest decades of LEGAL IMMIGRATION in our history with more than 27 million entering during that period. In 1970 one in 21 was foreign born; today it is one in 8, the highest in 90 years; and within a decade it will be one in 7 the highest in our history. By 2019 half of the children 18 and under will be minorities and by 2043 we will be a majority minority country.
Projections and graph courtesy Population Environment Balance, Sources: U.S. Census Bureau; Statistical Yearbook4 Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services-- Average 195,000 per year from 1921-1970
This has electoral consequences. Immigrants and minorities vote Dem two to one. In 1970 there were 9.7 million foreign born in this country; today there are 45 million. In 1970 we had a national population of 203 million; today it is 320 million. Every cohort that turns 18 annually is more and more Democrat. The demographics of the US in 2050 will look like that of CA today. Immigration's Impact on Republican Political Prospects, 1980 to 2012
The one statement in the article that was the most outrageous and uninformed was: Assuming citizenship is attained, how such a person chooses to vote is a matter of personal preference, influenced by individual life experiences.
I have no idea on what planet the author lives, but how anyone can make that statement is unbelievable. Does he really believe that the Democrats would be supporting these huge immigration levels, legal and illegal, if they weren't future Dem voters? Demography is destiny. We are being colonized by the Third World.
The real big hype is illegal immigration. While the public is being distracted by the shiny bauble, over a million LEGAL IMMIGRANTS are streaming into the country annually changing the composition of the electorate. They will vote legally. And they are mostly poor and uneducated. They are destroying our social welfare net and our schools.
In 2010, 23 percent of immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) lived in poverty, compared to 13.5 percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their children accounted for one-fourth of all persons in poverty. The children of immigrants account for one-third of all children in poverty.
There are 10.4 million students from immigrant households in public schools, accounting for one in five public school students. Of these students, 78 percent speak a language other than English at home. Overall, one in four public school students now speaks a language other than English at home.
In 2010, 29 percent of immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) lacked health insurance, compared to 13.8 percent of natives and their children. New immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for two-thirds of the increase in the uninsured since 2000.
One of my neighbors is a resident alien from Canada and he’s lived here for some 30 years. He recently started the naturalization process.
He works for a Canadian company here and is paid out of Canada and has held the alien status for tax purposes and something to do with getting his Pension from Canada when he retires.
LOL. Do you really think these laws are being enforced? There have been hundreds of such cases alone in FL where green card holders voted. Nothing happened to them. Obama granted a backdoor amnesty to the so-called Dreamers up to age 30. So far 560,000 have been granted DACA status, given work permits, and SSNs. Some states are giving them drivers licenses and in-state tuition. The approval rate is 99.5% for those applying. And guess what, the federal government has said that it will not go after the illegal parents of DACA applicants thereby expanding the pool of those being given de facto amnesty.
Obtaining citizenship is not just a matter of living here for 5 years, I know people who have been legal residents more than 20 years and are not yet citizens. One has to learn the English language, maintain a clean criminal record, and study U.S. History to be able to pass the test, something not everyone can or is willing to do. I have helped someone close to me study for the citizenship exam, and can say that most Americans wouldn't be able to pass.
There are approximately 15 million green card holders at any one time. Except for voting, they have all the rights and privileges of a citizen. And their American born children are automatically citizens thru birthright citizenship.
We are still a nation of laws, and most of us, including those here legally, are trying to follow it. The solution for those who have already come illegally is simple. Deport them all, and deliver the message that the U.S. has a zero-tolerance policy toward those who break our current laws by coming here illegally.
No, I would not say the solution is "deport them all." It is a trap that the other side will spring on you by saying it is impossible to round them all up and deport them.
The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 20 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 20 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Arizona proving that it does.
Sorry, I should have qualified that, by "all", I was referring to the illegal children who have been invading our border over the last year or so, not the 12 to 20 million who were already here, that's another issue. I know some of them, and it's quite a mess with children who are citizens by birth and so forth.
Do you really think these laws are being enforced?
The laws are being enforced, here in Georgia at least, because the citizens demand it. This post was about child refugees, not voting-aged residents.
Unfortunately, that's the plan on the table at the moment, and some people actually think it's good. I fail to see how that's missing the issue. I guess it's a matter of perception. I did state, "But keep in mind; this only includes the cost of processing and transporting them to the United States. It does not include the cost of feeding, educating, housing, etc…" The post was meant to be brief. I am responding to the current proposal, not every last detail of the illegal immigration problem. I purposefully did not provide all of the associated costs, I've got other fish to fry, but thanks for filling in the blanks.
The one statement in the article that was the most outrageous and uninformed was: "Assuming citizenship is attained, how such a person chooses to vote is a matter of personal preference, influenced by individual life experiences."
I have no idea on what planet the author lives, but how anyone can make that statement is unbelievable. Does he really believe that the Democrats would be supporting these huge immigration levels, legal and illegal, if they weren't future Dem voters? Demography is destiny. We are being colonized by the Third World.
I think I live on planet Earth, but I sometimes wonder. I am a Black Conservative. living in Georgia, who is engaged to a Mexican Immigrant. I am Conservative based on my life experience, not by birth or ethnicity. In fact, most of the immigrants I know (a lot of people) are either Conservative or up for grabs (independents), and are hard working, proud, and refuse any form of welfare. Your glass seems to be one-quarter empty. You worry about the 25% of immigrants living in poverty and forget about the 75% who are not.
You seem preoccupied with America losing its whiteness, or something, whatever that's about, and seem to forget that we already are a nation of immigrants. Race really has nothing to do with it. Again, I will reiterate, "Why are Conservatives worrying about some election ten or twenty years from now, instead of focusing on this year and 2016?"
The costs you cite are chump change compared to the real costs of illegal immigration. In 2010 it was estimated that illegal immigration costs $113 billion a year in just education, health care, and incarceration. This does not include crimes against Americans including murder and robbery. And the costs of legal immigration are exponentially higher. 80% of our population growth is driven by immigration.
I think I live on planet Earth, but I sometimes wonder. I am a Black Conservative. living in Georgia, who is engaged to a Mexican Immigrant. I am Conservative based on my life experience, not by birth or ethnicity. In fact, most of the immigrants I know (a lot of people) are either Conservative or up for grabs (independents), and are hard working, proud, and refuse any form of welfare. Your glass seems to be one-quarter empty. You worry about the 25% of immigrants living in poverty and forget about the 75% who are not.
Your personal experience and anecdotal evidence doesn't square with the facts. Most immigrants, legal and illegal, are natural Democrat constituents. They favor Big Government. I suggest you read this study, "How Mass (Legal) Immigration Dooms a Conservative Republican Party"
Immigration, legal and illegal, is hurting American workers, taking their jobs and depressing wages. Blacks and other minorities are the hardest hit. The figures on unemployment are devastating.
US Civil Rights Commission Members: Amnesty Will 'Disproportionately Harm' Black Community
I worked on and participated in the DC March for Jobs, which was sponsored by the Black American Leadership Alliance We cannot continue to bring in 1.1 million legal immigrants while 21 million Americans are unemployed or underemployed.
You seem preoccupied with America losing its whiteness, or something, whatever that's about, and seem to forget that we already are a nation of immigrants. Race really has nothing to do with it. Again, I will reiterate, "Why are Conservatives worrying about some election ten or twenty years from now, instead of focusing on this year and 2016?"
First, we are not a nation of immigrants. 85% of us were born here. People who say we are a nation of immigrants use it to advocate even more immigration at higher rates. Every nation is a nation of immigrants if you really want to look at the facts. The migration from the Great Rift valley in Africa over 20,000 years ago is where we came from. Even the so-called native American crossed over the Siberian land bridge.
You can pull the race card, but you are missing the point. We are Balkanizing our country along racial, ethnic, and cultural lines by introducing huge, unprecedented numbers of immigrants in a very short period of time. This persistent stream of immigrants, mainly from Latin America, who are not assimilating will have consequences. We have entered an era of tribal politics where 95% of blacks, 73% of Asians, and 71% of Hispanics vote Democrat. They favor Big Government with more services, which we can't afford.
Obama lost the non-Hispanic white vote 59%-39%. So you tell me who is voting more along racial and ethnic lines?
Again, I will reiterate, "Why are Conservatives worrying about some election ten or twenty years from now, instead of focusing on this year and 2016?"
Take a look at the electoral map and tell me what states Hillary will lose that Obama won? Do you think the Reps have a shot at winning CA? Demography is destiny.
Well we all know Obama’s not deporting anyone. Just how many immigrants illegal or otherwise have been prosecuted for voter fraud?
I am from CA. When I last lived and voted there, Reagan carried the state (twice). So are you saying voters can't be persuaded? If all Republican's feel the way you do, then the party has pretty much sealed it's own fate. Many voted for Obama simply because he's black, not because they agreed so much with his or the Democratic platform. G.W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 and 2004, and now suddenly you're saying it's impossible to win again unless we stop all immigration (legal and illegal)? Sorry, but that's nonsense. What matters most is having a message that's genuine, and that the majority of American's agree with.
Like I said before, I agree. However, the $101 billion I cited is around 214,949% greater than the $47 million teaser offered by the authors of the proposal I wrote about.
Demographically and politically CA is no longer the same state as when you lived there. The Democrats dominate the state and local government and the CA congressional delegation is becoming more and more Democrat. That is a reality.
If all Republican's feel the way you do, then the party has pretty much sealed it's own fate.
I am not delusional. I provided you with facts of how immigration and changing demographics are changing electoral politics. Limited government, lower taxes, and fiscal prudence don't resonate with these new voters. They vote on the basis of who has a D after their name.
Many voted for Obama simply because he's black, not because they agreed so much with his or the Democratic platform
As I said, we have entered the era of tribal politics. It is a reflection of the changing demographics.
G.W. Bush won the presidency in 2000 and 2004, and now suddenly you're saying it's impossible to win again unless we stop all immigration (legal and illegal)?
GW Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 and barely won in 2004 despite being the incumbent President and a terrible Dem candidate in Kerry. Obama won overwhelmingly in 2008 and 2012 garnering more votes than any President in history. The Democrats are in the process of becoming the permanent majority party. No matter who they nominate in 2016, the nominee will be the odds on favorite to win. You just have to look at the electoral map to see what any Dem candidate starts with in terms of guaranteed electoral votes.
Where did I say, "it's impossible to win again unless we stop all immigration (legal and illegal)". We definitely need to reduce immigration levels down from the current 1.1 million a year to around the historical average of 200,000 to 300,000 a year, mainly because there is no correlation between our immigrant intake and our job needs. But certainly, reducing the numbers will help the current immigrants (including my wife) assimilate.
What matters most is having a message that's genuine, and that the majority of American's agree with.
Yes, and that message should be the one articulated by Jeff Sessions. " Becoming the Party of Work How the GOP can help struggling Americans, and itself. An excerpt:
When Americans went to the polls in 2012, the following was true: Work-force participation had sunk to its lowest level in 35 years, wages had fallen below 1999 levels, and 47 million Americans were on food stamps. Yet Mitt Romney, the challenger to the incumbent president, lost lower- and middle-income voters by an astonishing margin. Among voters earning $30,000 to $50,000, he trailed by 15 points, and among voters earning under $30,000 he trailed by 28 points.
And what did the GOP’s brilliant consultant class conclude from this resounding defeat? They declared that the GOP must embrace amnesty. The Republican National Committee dutifully issued a report calling for a “comprehensive immigration reform” that would inevitably increase the flow of low-skilled immigration, reducing the wages and living standards of the very voters whose trust the GOP had lost.
Over the past four decades, as factories were shuttered and blue-collar jobs were outsourced or automated, net immigration quadrupled. Yet the corporate-consultant class has pronounced that an insufficient level of immigration is the problem. A more colossal misreading of the political moment has rarely occurred.
Perhaps the most important political development now unfolding in the U.S. is the public’s growing loss of faith in our political and financial elites of both parties. To open the ears of disaffected voters, the GOP must break publicly from the elite immigration consensus of Wall Street and Davos. Republicans have a clear path to building a conservative majority if they free themselves from the corporate consultants and demonstrate to the American public that the GOP is the only party aligned with the core interests, concerns, and beliefs of everyday hardworking citizens.
If we have an amnesty, it will cost $6.3 trillion. And by amnesty, I mean any legislation that allows the lawbreakers to stay and work here. Citizenship is just the cherry on top.
Yes. We have firsthand knowledge; my better half has treated many of them. I was referring to the voter ID laws being enforced here.
No, and I didn't say that you were, but many Obama voters are, and now disillusioned as well, after seeing his policies in action for the last five and a half years. Obama won't be on the ballot in 2016, and there probably won't be another Black candidate, so I don't believe 2008 and 2012 set an irreversible trend.
Where did I say, "it's impossible to win again unless we stop all immigration (legal and illegal)".
I had a question mark behind that, because you cited stats for legal and illegal immigrants as if both are the problem. It sounded like you were saying we need to stop all immigration, otherwise everyone we let in will vote for the Democrats, or something. I understand you better now.
Becoming the Party of Work: How the GOP can help struggling Americans, and itself. - "Perhaps the most important political development now unfolding in the U.S. is the public’s growing loss of faith in our political and financial elites of both parties."
I agree with that message. But, I too have lost all but a thread of faith in politicians on either side of the isle, as have many of my associates, on the left and right.
Obama rode the demographic change. It really won't matter if the next candidate is Black or not. The Dems are gaining the upper hand demographically. They are becoming the permanent majority party. As I indicated previously, what state in 2012 that Obama won will Hillary or a Dem lose in 2016? Hillary will be another historic President, our first woman President.
I had a question mark behind that, because you cited stats for legal and illegal immigrants as if both are the problem. It sounded like you were saying we need to stop all immigration, otherwise everyone we let in will vote for the Democrats, or something. I understand you better now.
We need to reduce legal immigration substantially. We are importing poverty and surplus labor. Our immigration needs must have some correlation with our job and skill requirements. That is not the case now.
I provided you with multiple links and charts. Did you even bother to look at them?
I agree with that message. But, I too have lost all but a thread of faith in politicians on either side of the isle, as have many of my associates, on the left and right.
We have two wings of the same party. There is a serious disconnect between our political and corporate elites and the people. Sessions is making a case for the Reps to ditch the corporate elites and direct their efforts to the American worker who has been abandoned by both parties.
I don't know, we're still human and rebellion is in our nature. In other words, trends are made to be broken. It really depends on who's actually running, but who knows, maybe Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan.
We need to reduce legal immigration substantially. We are importing poverty and surplus labor. Our immigration needs must have some correlation with our job and skill requirements. That is not the case now.
(1) We have a problem with 12-20 million undocumented residents, that we've yet to solve, (2) now we have tens of thousands of unaccompanied children claiming to be refugees pouring over our border, and (3) you're talking about limiting the number of legal immigrants? That's where you lose me. We'll be lucky to deal with #1 and #2, if we could fix all three at once that would be great, but I don't think that's going to happen.
I provided you with multiple links and charts. Did you even bother to look at them?
Yes, I looked over the links and charts. Again, thanks for adding to the discussion. However, I don't necessarily buy all of those stats, for example, what is cited as welfare really isn't, at least not in the sense of cash and housing assistance. In other words, accepting Medicaid and Food Stamps, which is the bulk of what the authors call welfare, doesn't imply that these are non-working deadbeats, it's more an indication to me of how un-affordable health insurance still is in spite of Obamacare, and how easy government policy has made it to get food stamps (even encouraging people to apply). And, identifying non-citizens with political parties is at best speculative, the same kind of hype I was talking about, since they are not even eligible to vote.
We have two wings of the same party. There is a serious disconnect between our political and corporate elites and the people. Sessions is making a case for the Reps to ditch the corporate elites and direct their efforts to the American worker who has been abandoned by both parties.
That works for me, as long as small business owners are still considered American workers, and not everyone else's whipping boy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
