Deportations are a Bitter Pill

Note: Asterisks ** are used for emphasis since bold and italics don't seem to be available.

Most of us empathize with illegal immigrants and understand why they would come. We think of illegals we’ve met or known personally – they’ve seemed like decent people and cost us little in the grand scheme of things. On most days, the sky isn’t falling.

Counter-intuitively, these sentiments make the issue of immigration so existential, dangerous, and urgent. Like the free rider problem, the cost of an individual is trivial but in aggregate can cripple. Immigration’s impact is creeping, and its hidden scale is staggering once revealed. Our compassion and our commitment to compromise are exploited to silence debate, circumvent our democracy, and impose another’s will on our society.

Deportations are a bitter but necessary medicine for America. Our next President must act or else the disease will be irreversible. We must be firm in our resolve, keeping in mind that making someone go home is generally not the inhumane act like it’s cast - especially if we help that person fix his home. Could any exceptions be made? Perhaps.

Unequivocally, some immigration is positive. However, as the forthcoming arguments will make clear, immigration (of all types) should be slower and more measured, giving time for the melting pot to work its magic. We must enforce existing laws. Immigration policy should serve the interests of all Americans, as a whole, rather than special groups. It should skew towards net contributors to our society rather than net takers. Reasonable people **should** debate the magnitudes and overall importance of mass migration’s various and uncertain costs. Reasonable people would not shut down debate with personal attacks and cries of racism.

A moderate amount of patriotic assimilation is beneficial to society. At the same time, appreciation and sharing of one’s unique heritage is healthy, too. Everyone should not be exactly the same. Varying perspectives bring strength. However, to go overboard is either naive or sinister. A strong well-functioning team fosters shared principles and team cohesion. Our country is our team. Only by identifying with our fellow countrymen, seeing them as allies rather than enemies, being inclined to emphasize commonalities and mitigate differences, can we as a people compromise and govern ourselves in a somewhat civil manner.

In the US right now, some people are emphasizing ethnic identity over national identity to gain special power and privilege. This would not have been possible had our immigration since the 1960s been more ideologically diverse and at a slower rate that would have favored assimilation over self-segregation (to be elaborated in section II.C). Since the 60s, have you ever seen ethnic tensions in the US as bad as they have become under Obama?

A quick review of history gives copious lessons about the peril faced by countries with large belligerent subgroups: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, the Ottomans and the Armenians, Yugoslavia, Lebanon, most countries in Africa, Texas (when it seceded from Mexico), etc. Or even just large subgroups which emphasize their subgroup identity over the national identity: Quebec, Scotland, etc. At the least, this dynamic leads to social discord, tension, and partisanship. At the worst, bloody civil war and genocide. Is this where we want to go?

By the way, “Things We Won’t Say About Race That Are True” is a relevant and excellent documentary by the former chairman of Britain’s Racial Equality Commission, Trevor Phillips. It is available for free on YouTube.

Our Constitution is an exceptional, unprecedented document. Its framers, regardless of their imperfections, were great thinkers of their day and created a form of government whose central theme recognized that governments tend to grow corrupt. They codified so many mechanisms to limit the size and power of government to just the essentials and only those powers explicitly granted to the government by the people. This central theme is just as important today as it was then.

Consequently, Americans have the right to preserve their limited government unless three-fourths of the States justly ratify a change. Nevertheless, the proper dividing line between too little and too much government is not clear cut. Even the most intelligent and well-intentioned among us are but finite beings, having limited capacity and resources. Life’s most challenging problems confront us with uncertainty and imperfect information, from which we can arrive at different but reasonable conclusions. Our Constitution is rightly structured to default to less government given uncertainty, but it still provides for consensus change through open civil debate, persuasion, and compromise.

However, it is not democracy to overcome disagreement through the importation of votes and judicial legislation. It is tyranny. Some Americans have been importing votes (evidence given in sections II.C and II.D), thereby exacerbating partisanship and causing many Americans to fear expressing political views. Continued mass migration threatens Americans’ right to self-determination.

The following statistics come from the Department of Homeland Security’s 2013 Annual Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (2013 was the newest report available as of early 2016). I’ll quote statistics that count ONLY legal immigrants granted “legal permanent residence,” aka green cards, because green cards **officially** demonstrate and **conservatively** estimate a pattern of behavior within our government. Green cards represent a **minimum estimate** for **all** immigration because they exclude additional types of immigration such as illegal immigrants, temporary workers, etc. I welcome all legal immigrants who consider themselves my fellow Americans – especially if they pay more in taxes than receive in government benefits and services.

For the nearly two hundred years **prior to 1960**, immigration to the US was much different than it is today. Legal immigrants from Europe, Canada, and Oceania (ie, mostly Caucasian-majority countries) received 92% of green cards. Even with relatively similar cultures and vast elbow-room, even Caucasians discriminated against one another. Gradually the melting pot worked its magic, and most of those perceived ethnic boundaries melted away. There was also no giant welfare state. Immigrants had to hustle, overcome disadvantage, contribute, or perish. In contrast, our government is highly redistributive today. Even when we pay taxes on a modest income, we might still represent a net fiscal deficit if we receive more in benefits than we pay in taxes.

In the 1960s, US immigration policy began to change drastically. **Subsequent to 1970**, the difference is striking. Legal immigrants from Europe, Canada, and Oceania (ECO) received a paltry 17% of green cards, Latin America (LA) received a whopping 44% of green cards, and Asia and Africa (AA) split the remaining 39%. Based on global population at the turn of the century, if all regions had roughly the same average education and wealth, then a meritocratic policy would have given green cards to the ECO, LA, and AA regions at about 18%, 9%, and 74% respectively. In that case, Europeans received about the right amount of green cards, but Asians were really cheated. However, since education and wealth are not distributed evenly among regions, Europeans and **especially** Asians were really cheated; our policy has not been a meritocracy. Furthermore, given history’s copious lessons on countries with large competing subgroups, the Caucasian-majority people of America seem even less likely to have knowingly voted to build large underprivileged subgroups. A recipe for disaster.

Corroborating a lack of meritocracy for the decade through 2013, legal immigrants who had “Extraordinary or Exceptional Ability,” or were “Outstanding Professors, Researchers, Multinational Executives, or Professionals with Advanced Degrees” received only 8% of green cards. That 8% also includes their spouses and children. In contrast, legal immigrants with “Family-Sponsored Preferences” or who were “Spouses, Children, or Parents of US Citizens” moved to the front of the line and received 65% of green cards. Although our immigration policy should give some precedence to legitimate family reunification for Americans, reading between the lines suggests that it is highly abused.

Recall that the above trends in green cards estimate just the **minimum** impact of immigration policy on American society. Since 1980 that minimum impact has averaged 3.2% of the total US population per decade. Once we account for illegal immigration, temporary visitors, and high birth rates, the **total** impact is easily double 3.2% and accelerating. Since these other factors skew even more strongly against Europeans, so does the total impact. The prevailing general trend is a policy to flood our country with predominantly poor, third-world, unskilled immigrants, who because of their economic status or cultural background are highly likely to support big government. Especially at a time of soaring deficits and debt, does this sound like a democratic and meritocratic policy beneficial to Americans as a whole?

As extreme as the official statistics through 2013 appear (likely worse since then), reality is probably even more extreme. The DHS report contains plenty of fine print and unusual behavior that make a critical reader suspicious. As one example, in 2007 there were 12 million “temporary” visitors (distinct from and in addition to green cards) from Latin America. Under Obama, the annual increase of temporary visitors from Latin America more than doubled the rate of the preceding 4 years. By 2013, total Latin American visitors reached 26 million. That’s a fourteen million increase over just six years! Furthermore, the fine-print DHS footnotes state that temporary visitors "exclude the majority of short term admissions from Mexico.” How temporary is “temporary”? How short term is “short-term”? Do these visitors and short-term admissions always go home when they should? While in the US, do they ever have any children, who automatically become US citizens? Do they take precedence for green cards because their children are US citizens?

Under Obama through 2013 (likely much worse since then), the annual rate at which illegals left the country plummeted by about half - about 600,000 illegals annually. However, you would not recognize this massive drop unless you account for Obama’s deceitful reinterpretation of what constitutes a deportation. Here’s the rub. The DHS report never actually gives statistics for the term “Deportations”. Rather, it gives statistics on “Removals” and “Returns.” In the report’s footnotes, the report defines a Removal as “the compulsory and confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States based on an order of removal.” When Obama or Pew Research tout how Obama has been the “deporter-in-chief”, they are quoting ONLY Removals from this report. They conveniently do not mention Returns, which the report defines as “the confirmed movement of an inadmissible or deportable alien out of the United States not based on an order of removal.” Returns clearly encompass self-deportation due to an unwelcoming atmosphere and other effective policies, which are arguably a gentler alternative to forced deportation. Returns plummeted as a direct result of Obama’s open arms. Obama and the media tell us just Removals to imply that he is enforcing immigration law as much, if not more, than his predecessors. However, if they told us both Removals AND Returns, then we would clearly see that Obama is betraying his obligations to the American people. The total rate at which illegal immigrants leave the country is ultimately what matters to the public; the method of reduction is secondary.

Adding insult to injury, Senator Sessions recently revealed that Obama even inflated the number of Removals by counting same-day deportations of Mexicans caught at the border. These same-day deportations are significant and had not previously been counted. In the DHS report, apprehensions of illegals (ie, catching them as distinct from deporting them) also plummeted by about half despite what we’ve all heard about surges of illegal immigrants in recent years. In conjunction with Obama’s other behavior, these shenanigans strongly suggest deliberate scheming to undermine and fundamentally transform our American society.

Digression: If we flood our country with tens of millions of poor, unskilled immigrants (legal and illegal), then should we be surprised if median national income goes down? It truly does seem like income inequality is growing, but perhaps it’s not entirely for the reasons we’re led to believe.

In the decades since the 1960s, immigration has been just slow enough to not raise too much alarm but large enough to accumulate an inexorable impact on the ideological makeup of the US electorate. This is a story about the long game, giving the opposition an inch (eg, one more amnesty, one more favorable immigration law), and the opposition taking a mile. This is a story about some leftists knowing they couldn’t pass their agenda with the existing electorate, so instead of trying to persuade, find common ground, and compromise, they’ve resorted to importing tens of millions of ideologically aligned votes. After decades, and acceleration under Obama, these usurpers have built a sufficient mass to subvert our democracy and steal the right of self-determination from existing citizenry. In collusion are business interests lobbying for cheap labor and corrupt politicians who use identity politics to divide us and entrench their own power.

Are you beginning to get glimpses of some surreal Orwellian society? In our America, does it boggle your mind that anyone should actually fear violence and the ruin of their careers for peacefully expressing their defensible political views? Does your jaw drop to watch our media, having shed any semblance of journalistic integrity and fair impartial reporting? Do you tremble to recognize that most Americans are understandably so overwhelmed in their daily lives that we lack the time to “look behind the curtain” of what the media feeds us? Without the capacity to research the whirlwind of issues ourselves, we rely on the media. Although we assume it is somewhat biased, we might not realize just how low it has stooped - to egregious deception and thought control. Let’s not fool ourselves to think that American politics haven’t always been filled with strife and deception. However, could it have gotten this bad without decades of forced ideological change compounded with rampant electoral fraud (see post “A Lack of Evidence for Voter Fraud”)? Our country is being stolen. If we are lulled much longer, then we will lose the power to resist (if not already).

An immigrant bears the burden of proof to prove his loyalty and worth to his new country. This concept has particular relevance in relation to uproar over a proposed “Muslim Ban.” Firstly, an outright “ban” is an intentional and gross distortion of the actual proposal. The vast majority of people are neither demanding to block [insert name of your British Muslim friend here] from the US, nor to kick [insert name of your American Muslim friend here] to the desert somewhere. Rather, many people feel that it would be wise to severely restrict immigration from Muslim-majority countries, at least for the time being. These are countries where the mainstream ideology often embraces some degree of: subjugation of women and non-Muslims; the butcher of gays, blasphemers, and cartoonists; rejection of the principle that all ideologies and religions are open to criticism and ridicule; anti-American and jihadist sentiment; theocracy. Of course not everyone in those countries share these values, but those who do comprise a significant portion rather than some fringe sect.

Compound this challenge with the fact that many of these countries are sadly war-torn and lack reliable records. It then becomes readily apparent that meaningful vetting of immigrants from these countries on a large scale is unrealistic. So why such rage at making a pragmatic and obvious observation? Even if we could magically screen out all immigrants who would commit violence, that doesn’t even touch those who would have incompatible values, resist assimilation, would tend to be on the government dole, and/or be secretly sympathetic to undermining our society. Furthermore, existing American Muslims suffer when terror attacks cast suspicion on them.

In the decade ending 2013 (per the DHS official report), the US gave green cards to 1.5 million immigrants from Muslim-majority countries and likely hundreds of thousands more since then. This doesn’t even count illegal immigrants and refugees who haven’t applied for green cards. These people are generally not your mainstream western Muslims. Nevertheless, most are probably decent. However, let’s make the very generous estimate that a mere five percent of these immigrants are potential terrorists and another ten percent are secretly sympathetic. In that case, we have just admitted a small army of well over 225 thousand jihadists and their support network. Reducing those estimates to one and two percent respectively does not change the conclusion: this is a sizeable and real threat, atrociously expensive and nearly impossible to monitor, and sacrifices our own civil liberties to support an increasing surveillance state and already over-powerful government. And yes, we should most definitely count women and children – especially children. If your dad, whom you idolized, was killed by an American bomb, even if he deserved it, wouldn’t you likely harbor some hatred?

No one truly knows the actual total cost of our mass migration. The best we can do are estimates based on other estimates and assumptions. Using conservative assumptions to make the most convincing case, the Heritage Foundation (see footnote 1) estimated the annual net cost (benefits received – taxes paid) (aka fiscal deficit) in 2010 of just illegal immigrant households to be at least $54 billion. If amnesty were granted, they estimated that the annual and lifetime net costs (of just the 2010 illegal population in 2010 dollars) would balloon to at least $160 billion and $6.3 trillion respectively.

***In 2016 the net cost of just illegal immigration must be at least $100 billion annually.*** For $100 billion, we could pay one million teachers a $100,000 annual salary!!! How do I get from $54 billion to $100 billion annually? Let’s start with a simple sanity check - $100 billion is equivalent to $5,000 on average per 20 million illegal immigrants and their US-born children (see footnote 2 for justification of 20 million). A $5,000 fiscal deficit per person is not an unreasonable guess. I can comfortably reach $5,000 per child just with the cost of public education (see footnote 3 for elaboration on the cost of public education). Next, consider the following. One, Obama has had almost six more years to flood our country and further fudge the numbers since the Heritage estimate. Two, the Heritage estimate used low hard-to-dispute assumptions.

Here are six out of many examples of Heritage assumptions that likely and significantly underestimate the true cost. One, Heritage used the official government estimate of the illegal population. As of 2010 (specifically January 1, 2011), the government estimated 11.5 million illegals. This number is merely an estimate, likely biased low, based on the Census results of foreign-born residents, less the authorized foreign-born residents, plus a meager fudge factor. Two, Heritage assumed that illegals paid taxes on 55% of their earnings, the remaining 45% being off-the-books. My guess is that much more than 45% of illegal income is off-the-books. Three, Heritage relied on illegal households to self-report in the Census if they received any direct or means-tested benefits (like food stamps). Four, Heritage excluded the borrowing cost on the debt we are incurring to pay for illegals. Five, Heritage excluded refundable tax credits because illegal immigrants weren’t supposed to be eligible. In contradiction, per two separate audits of the IRS (see footnote 4) in 2011 and 2012, the Treasury Department explicitly confirmed that the federal government paid illegal immigrants nearly $1 billion of refundable tax credits in tax year 2005, growing to $4.2 billion in tax year 2010, and $6.8 billion in tax year 2011. At that growth rate, the annual expenditure easily exceeds $10 billion now. Six, Heritage assumed that illegals followed laws that deny them many kinds of welfare. We all know that what ought to happen and what actually happens are not the same. Some jurisdictions likely ignore the laws outright.

On top of the $100 billion, more costs exist but don’t lend themselves well to quantification. For example, we can roughly allocate to immigrants their dollar shares of social services such as schools, hospitals, law enforcement, courts, prisons, roads, etc. In contrast, how should we quantify the reduction in quality and availability of those already strained social services? Think about this next time you are stuck in traffic. Or when your child must attend an overcrowded school where the pace and quality of instruction is further burdened by non-English speakers. Or when the crime in your neighborhood starts to rise. Also, how should we quantify the downward pressure on wages and low-skill job availability from an oversupply of cheap labor (see footnote 5 for a counterpoint)? Squeezed legal Americans earn lower wages, pay lower taxes, and tend to draw more government assistance. How significant is the transfer of wealth from our economy due to remittances? How much of healthcare inflation is due to illegals who can’t pay?

Furthermore, Heritage confirms that even **legal** immigrant households tend to have lower education levels, use more welfare, and create a larger fiscal deficit than non-immigrant households, indicating that the total cost of all immigration could be many times $100 billion annually. Mass immigration is therefore a non-trivial cost that many non-racists, minorities, and legal immigrants might care about – especially given our soaring deficits and debt. Should the floodgates open further, this cost will explode.

Do not be lulled towards amnesty with promises of fines and/or back taxes because few illegals earn enough to owe much, if any, federal tax. Fewer still would actually pay more than they receive in benefits and services. Many could not afford a fine. Most would just gain eligibility for additional benefits. For illegals having higher income, since much of it is under-the-table, how realistic is tax enforcement? Amnesty would also give family members from abroad green cards. Americans gave amnesty once already in 1986; another amnesty would encourage more of the same.

Deportations of illegal immigrants are a bitter but necessary medicine to promote national cohesion, reverse some of the democracy-subverting importation of votes, and save at least $100 billion annually at a time of soaring deficits and debt. Could we still mitigate those same problems without having to deport every illegal? Maybe. But if so, we would have to demand and receive fairly harsh conditions to:

General Goal: Remove the illegal influence on our politics, including but not limited to protecting our electoral integrity.

Specific Example: Nationwide voter ID and proof of citizenship to register are non-negotiable. Promote national cohesion and give time for the melting pot to work its magic. Slow down all immigration.

General Goal: Prove an illegal household’s positive net contribution to our society.

General Goal: Deter future would-be illegal immigrants and affirm current legal immigrants. Breaking the law must never be rewarded or perceived to be rewarded.

Specific Example: Penalize current illegal immigrants more than the cost of legally waiting in line. End birthright citizenship.

General Goal: Strictly enforce immigration laws as written and democratically enacted. This goal is the most slippery.

Specific Example: Not sure. The law obviously already exists. Our Constitution already requires our President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It clearly gives legislative powers only to Congress. Yet, we see how easily Obama has defied both the law and the popular will.

1. Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer,” The Heritage Foundation, May 2013.

2. Estimates of the illegal population vary widely dependent on who’s making them. The media (view with strong skepticism) usually quotes a low-end number of 11.5 million illegals. This number is merely a government estimate AS OF 2010 (technically January 1, 2011), based on the Census results of foreign-born residents, less the authorized foreign-born residents, plus a meager fudge factor. Given that this number excludes the US-born children of illegals (as of 2010 Pew estimates 4.5 million US-born children), given that illegals tend to have high birth rates, and given that Obama has had nearly six more years to fiddle, an estimate of twenty million illegals and their US-born children is probably too low. In addition, you might wonder why illegal immigrants’ US-born children are counted since they are US citizens. Any analysis of the cost of illegal immigration must include their US-born children because these children would not be citizens if not for the illegal action of their parents. These children are also eligible for full welfare benefits; not only does the child directly receive welfare, but their entire illegal household indirectly receives it, too.

3. In my school district, the third of campuses receiving the highest funding, are spending an average (weighted by enrollment) of about $10,000 per pupil per year. In contrast, the same district’s campuses in my own moderately affluent neighborhood are spending a weighted average of about $6,000. I assume that illegal parents pay some property tax primarily via rent payments and also via some home ownership. I doubt that their property taxes per household frequently exceed more than $2,000, not all of which goes to schools. Although some illegal households have no children yet still pay property tax, some households have many children. Thus, a $5,000 net school cost per child seems reasonable even if school districts nationwide on average are less generous than mine. The Heritage study estimated a nationwide average gross public education cost of $12,300 per pupil per year.

4. Per two separate official Treasury Department audits of the IRS, publicly available on the Treasury website (https://www.treasury.gov/tigta/oa_auditreports_fy11.shtml), the federal government paid illegal immigrants nearly $1 billion of refundable tax credits in tax year 2005, growing to $4.2 billion in tax year 2010, and $6.8 billion in tax year 2011. The first audit was published in 2011, and its title was “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.” How can the title be any clearer? Yet around the 2014 amnesty debate, the media dazzled us with the charade that amnesty could entitle illegals to refundable tax credits going forward and up to three years in arrears. That charade was only the tip of the iceberg – illegals have already been receiving billions of dollars of refundable credits! Since I am not aware of any further audits on this topic, I assume the annual number must now be greater than $10 billion. The second audit was published in 2012, and its title was “Substantial Changes Are Needed to the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number Program to Detect Fraudulent Applications.”

5. Many economists would argue that depressed wages are offset by reduced consumer prices and that free markets allocate resources most efficiently. While that is true to an extent, reality includes many hidden distortions and frictions which diverge from ivory-tower economic theory. For one, depressed labor costs likely transfer wealth to business owners who can reap larger profits because competition doesn’t perfectly depress revenue by an equivalent amount. Depressed consumer prices likely transfer wealth to the affluent who have the necessary disposable income to fully take advantage of those prices. However, neither likely helps the squeezed legal American who struggles to earn a living wage.

Thank you for sharing this information of which I was not aware. It certainly helps me improve my perspective.

I still wouldn't say that the generalization is totally unfounded. Notice that I qualified the generalization with "because of their economic status or cultural background". I suppose I should qualify/clarify further. My intuition is that human nature makes anyone (citizen or otherwise), who is of limited economic means, more susceptible to the siren call of big government. And to reiterate, I am speaking about averages not individuals. The statistics in the Heritage Foundation report “The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer” seem to corroborate my intuition.

Again, thank you for having this discussion. I am learning things.

Thanks for the lowdown on "tl;dr". I hadn't understood.

Summary:

Deportations of illegal immigrants are a bitter but necessary medicine to promote national cohesion, reverse some of the democracy-subverting importation of votes, and save at least $100 billion annually at a time of soaring deficits and debt.

We (meaning me and people like me; not necessarily you) are being deliberately duped to hide the huge scale of the problem.

I support family reunification so long as it's not abused. Based on the official government statistics, I am very suspicious that much of what is happening is as follows.

Example 1: An illegal immigrant has a child in the US. That child is automatically a US citizen. Once that child becomes 18, he not only can obtain green cards for his illegal parents, but he also can obtain green cards for other family members who are not yet in the country. After 5 years of having a green card, these people can become citizens themselves and obtain green cards for additional family members abroad.

Example 2: An illegal immigrant marries a citizen within the immigrant community. Go to Example 1.

I am not advocating for people to become like Miley Cyrus. I am merely advocating for immigrants to embrace American identity and loyalty over their ethnic or national origin subgroups. Even though not all Americans but some immigrants do, I'd like all immigrants to embrace things like:

- The American Dream

- Constitutional principles such as limited government

- traditional American core ideals such as hard work, overcoming disadvantage, personal responsibility, equal treatment before the law, meritocracy, etc.

- Speaking English.

I wish these things not because I think everyone should be exactly alike or that people can't appreciate their heritage. Rather, a quick review of history tells me that multiculturalism (ie, emphasizing subgroup identity over national idea) is a very bad idea. Large competing subgroups within a country tend towards conflict.

I'd just like to live in peace and let others live in peace so long as they're not harming me or telling me how to live my life. I'm a live and let live kind of guy.

I personally agree with you. However, I will not be able to persuade many people by shouting at them - especially because their resistance largely arises because they see illegal immigrants as people who are just trying to make a better life for themselves and their families. So I put myself in their shoes. If I lived in some expletive-hole country, I would want to move my family to America, too - especially since traitors like Obama are practically begging them to come. This doesn't give them the right to come here illegally, but I can understand it.

By the way, Free Republic was not my target audience for this essay. My target audience was liberals and moderates. I came to Free Republic for help spreading the word because Reddit was censoring me.

I agree with you to a large extent. However, if you re-read the essay, then you will see that I bend over backwards to qualify my generalizations, to emphasize that I speak of averages, and to express my support for anyone who does not fit those generalizations.

By ignoring that averages have a real impact on reality, then we allow the opposition to silence a valid part of the debate. I am very open to your suggestions about how to refine the message.

I am going to post another thread today. This one will be very short, but I hope that it will clarify why we should care about all immigration and not just illegal immigration. Standby.

The real question is: “Should we deport the bastards by strapping JATO bottles to their backs, or should we throw them across the border with trebuchets?”

Although the trebuchet idea sounds entertaining, I’m guessing that most people will just leave on their own if they know they’ll be forcibly deported otherwise.

“Thanks for your support.”

Sorry, didn’t give you my support.
The response to the article is what made the thread great.

Its to bad because most of the article make sense except as others have pointed out statements like..

“Most of us empathize with illegal immigrants and understand why they would come”

Discussion over.

If you want to learn the Mexican culture as it pertains to politics and role of government, get the DVD FOR GREATER GLORY starring Andy Garcia and Eva Longoria.

This shows the post-revolution origins of the PAN party, which is the Republican Party of Mexico and held 2 of the last 3 Presidencies. PAN is strong in the Northern Mexican states. PRD-Socialist is in Michoacan and Southern states. PRI-Corrupt-Democrats is strong everywhere.

To reiterate, Free Republic was not my target audience for this essay. My target audience was liberals and moderates, whom I am trying to persuade. Much of their resistance arises because they see illegal immigrants as people who are just trying to make a better life for their families. So I put myself in their shoes. If I lived in some expletive-hole country, then I would want to come to America, too - especially because traitors like Obama are practically begging them to come. This doesn't give them the right to come here, but I can understand.

I came to Free Republic for help spreading the word because Reddit was censoring me. Please read my other replies to get a better idea of who I am. I'm guessing that you are just misunderstanding my intentions. I also completely understand why you would be suspicious of me - I am new here and the internet is full of trolls pretending to be your friend.

Well, I was going to post two more essays today: "The Immigration Shell Game" and "A Lack of Evidence for Voter Fraud".

Unfortunately, the website gave me this message "As a relatively new account, you may only post 1 article every 24 hour period." So I'll post one this evening and the other tomorrow.

If you want to see "A Lack of Evidence for Voter Fraud" sooner, then this one is already available on Reddit/Politics. This essay fortunately hasn't been censored yet. Perhaps, it's the title or the fact that the post links to the essay on the Huffington Post. I know - the Huffington Post! Super biased. But again, how many liberals and moderates do you know that would read a Free Republic article?

If you want to see "The Immigration Shell Game" sooner, then I will post it in a few minutes on Reddit/The_Donald.

I am shouting at no one

I don’t know why you think the RINO liberal lefty approach is going to fly here at FR

Two thirds of the country agrees with Trump on immigration....that’s good enough

I didn't say you were shouting at anyone. I just said that I won't be able to persuade anyone by shouting.

And two thirds of the country of the country is not good enough. We must try to reach out in the swing states. There is too much at stake.

“Two thirds of the country agrees with Trump on immigration....that’s good enough”

I guess that’s the part that i don’t get here. What great need is there for a dialog with the 1/3 who have some sort of death wish or are profiting handsomely from allowing the gate crashers to stay? The same folks who support ‘sanctuary cities’ and the like. Are they going to suddenly change their minds? extremely doubtful.

Trump is straight forward, he isn’t pandering, and his support is slowly growing among the so called minorities.

To more specifically answer your question - why I thought the essay might fly here.

I am not trying to persuade FR readers to support deportations. I'm guessing that most FR readers already agree to some extent. I'm just trying to offer a way to frame the issue for FR readers, who know liberals or moderates who might be persuaded.

I live in a place where most people assume I'm a racist monster for simply wanting to enforce the law and revise overall immigration policy to serve American interests. Sadly, I am risking threats of violence to my family to stick my neck out and do the right thing. Doesn't it sicken you that someone should actually fear violence for peacefully expressing their defensible (even if unpopular) political views? Fortunately, I am a second amendment guy.

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.