http://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2024/07/is-deporting-immigrants-rational.html
The above is a link to Dan's post opposing mass deportation of illegal aliens. As usual, I'm not up for commenting there regarding what I see as serious flaws in the links he provided to bolster his favoring invaders over Americans. While he imposes his double standard of demanding evidence for anything remotely resembling a claim, even questions or concerns about is own attempts to support his position usually results in the same demand, as if seeing problems justifies such a demand. Here's a hint: it doesn't.
Anyway, as I said, he has a couple of links which he believes are the last word on the subject. But I see problems. For the first, from AmericanProgress.org, one is provided nothing more than assertion. It refers to a report, but there's no link to it. Thus, I suppose we're to infer there's no possibility the report of total crap. But as it appears to be from AmericanProgress...though I doubt they did the research themselves...that's suspicious enough.
However, my concerns also arise from his other link from an outfit called Peterson Institute for International Economics. Never heard of them. Thus far, I've not found too much upon which to form an opinion of them regarding their credibility, reliability or political leanings. But then, I'm more interested in what they have to say and why they believe their conclusions are sound.
Both of these links promote the notion that removing so many from our country has a negative economic impact. Let's assume for the moment this is true. The first question then is: So what? As this is the driving theme of the links and thus Dan's post, the question is especially relevant. Dan postures as an "anti-'over'-consumption", "anti-greed" kinda guy. If he's being honest, why the concern about how much it costs us to correct what we shouldn't have let happen in the first place? I submit that Dan...if not the authors/researchers he cites in his links...don't care about the economic consequences at all, but rather simply keeping our borders open to whomever wants to traverse them for any reason without regard for the will of our people or our laws as if their existence here will always be a net good. The implication is that it's OK to break the law if our nation, our state, our municipality can benefit financially. And of course, clearly are both a good percentage of illegals and a too great enough percentage of businesses. This attitude should thus allow for all manner of law breaking so long as the economy benefits.
The problem here is all the harm that has come along with those invaders. Thus far in my review of the second articles many links, I've not found anything where the "good" has been balanced out by the "bad" to arrive at the ultimate conclusion. I've thus far seen no mention of tax dollars expended for the benefit of invaders or that which is expended for law enforcement related to criminal activity and incarcerations. It seems the only calculations are related to estimates of revenues generated from the number of invaders working, and how that would be lost by deporting them all.
Now, I want to say at this point that I haven't gotten through all the links provided by Dan's second offering. (Again, the first had none.) Of those I tried to read were those which required payment to do so. I'm not about to cough up bread for every bit of "evidence" Dan offers which requires it. What's more, I doubt Dan shells out any to do so, either. I don't think he reads any of the links which don't and I don't believe he really read either of the two articles either beyond finding it gives him what he thinks would be a compelling reason for someone like me to reconsider by position.
But of that which I was able to open, came info regarding one case of mass deportations which included actual American citizens of Mexican descent. How does that parallel to our current situation? No one is seeking to deport Americans. Without separating citizens from non-citizens, how does one make the case or use this past case one to support the current one? And there's still the problem separating the legal immigrants from the illegal immigrants which wasn't at all addressed. So that link is useless for use as supporting evidence against deportations of illegals now.
Another referenced the 1920s and 1930s. The first referenced Calvin Coolidge, who's term in office resulted in a stimulated economy, so I don't know where the problem would've been. That was one link requiring payment to view. The other is getting into the Depression era, so there were many reasons for economic struggles. Both of these eras also do little to suggest a problem with deportation.
Another issue of concern is that the time periods mentioned seem to be as short as needed to make the case that economic problems were beyond overcoming. A mention was made of deporting illegals who were farm workers, the farmers then turning to mechanization in response to an inability to replace illegals with natives. This portion didn't really flesh out the situation to get a sense of how accurate their negative cause/effect scenario truly was. Here, it was stated the farmers who mechanized still didn't recover and even land values suffered after the loss of labor. This suggests that all farmers in that situation were inept, unimaginative and equally unable to deal with this situation. I find that very hard to believe. Rather, I think the author focused on one farmer, or a few, who did struggle to imply they all did.
In any case, did these farms all eventually fail, and did they fail only because of the illegals deported? That, too, seems to be implied by the manner in which it was mentioned. That, too, is hard to believe.
These are among the things that popped into my head as I read Dan's links he didn't read. Whether I go back and try to access the rest is not something to which I've committed myself. What's really important are the specifics of our current situation and what a mass deportation would mean long term.
Trump's plan is to begin with the criminals and terrorists who entered, as well as those who broke the law since entering. What happens later remains to be seen, though he speaks of deporting them all. Likely, some will leave of their own accord, as had been the case for a variety of reasons in the case studies I was able to read in Dan's article. This article concludes with complaining that we aren't set up to allow in enough people to come legally and work as citizens. That we need to expand our ability to process those who wish to enter. Sure, this sounds good until one considers that there wouldn't be this horde at the door were it not for Democrats. We can go back to the Reagan amnesty debacle, made so by the fact that the deal was an amnesty for border security arrangement with the Demoncrats. Reagan gave amnesty, the Dumbocrats didn't do shit for border security, and now all who wish to come here expect to elude our law enforcement until amnesty is granted to them as well. We're dealing with this now.
So, do I care that our economy might take a hit by deporting all those who don't deserve to be allowed to stay here? No. Not at all, because with the right people in government, we will recover far sooner than the lefty loons like Dan have the honesty and capacity to accept. For example, tax and regulatory relief will still result in increased revenues to the federal coffers with or without illegals working here and buying stuff. With that, folks will do what they've been unable to do during the Harris/Biden failed presidency...live a safer more prosperous life.
Whenever a study is presented from a leftist, it's a safe bet important info has been left out, ignored to make the conclusions better fit the narrative or it's just crap. As regards immigration and or border control, it's guaranteed. An even more sure thing is that regardless of the flaws of a leftist study or report, Dan will continue to cite it as if it's gospel truth...which is ironic given his rejection of actual Gospel Truth.
12 comments:
Let the progs lead by example and cross the border into China, into any Middle East country, etc., and demand cash and prizes. I'll wait here.
The border topic is so telling. To oppose defending your border shows that one is ignorant and/or malicious.
How much does it cost us to deal with actual gang members entering to sell drugs, kill Americans (including cops), engage in human trafficking and sex slavery...? Again, is this kinda crap deducted from whatever Dan's "experts" say we lose by deporting all these people? Nothing I've seen yet in his link's links indicates anything like this. I'll let him provide that info if he ever chooses to actually read his own links.
Probably worth reposting my sentiment here:
I think Dan's post is actual proof that, if the Uniparty establishment keeps going in a particularly irresponsible direction, they can foul things up so badly that fixing it is going to be painful. Whether it's mass immigration or reckless debt, the problem can go from being a minor infection requiring antibiotics to a gangrenous limb requiring amputation.
That's OBVIOUSLY not an argument to do nothing or to pass the buck for another couple decades.
...and, it's not an argument that those who got us into this intractable mess should remain anywhere near the levers of political power.
"Trump's plan is to begin with the criminals and terrorists who entered, as well as those who broke the law since entering. "
As it should be. Without deporting this group of people, it seems difficult to asses the True impact of those who are left.
Indeed, Craig. And while I'm more hardcore about deporting all who crossed illegally as the rule of thumb, I'm of the feeling Trump left open whether or not he'd go the distance in that regard.
We simply cannot resolve the issue of illegal crossings without a total zero tolerance policy. Any "path to citizenship" idea is amnesty, and amnesty leads to more illegal crossings. This is the first thing which must be understood, accepted and supported by all who claim to care about "immigration reform".
Art,
As I mentioned a while back. Priority 1 is to gain control of the border and who crosses it. Priority 2 is to deport those who are engaged in crime, terrorism, or other acts that cause harm to the US. IF the US could accomplish these two things, I'd consider that to be a significant accomplishment. After those two things are accomplished, then we can have a conversation about how to deal with those who are left.
I have no problem with your priority list, though I think #1 & #2 can and should be done simultaneously. That is, I would not like to see either put off until the other is accomplished.
As to point #3, I say again that anything short of deportation is amnesty and amnesty leads to more invasion. The priority of illegals is #1, cross the border by any means, then #2, remain...by any means. I've no doubt they expect to be made citizens regardless of whether or not citizenship matters to them in the first place. But it is the most ideal way of cementing their ability to remain as long as they wish.
I would think that for most who enter legally with the intent of becoming American citizens, assimilation is part of the plan. Those who enter legally through student or work visas don't need to have that intention, for it's a temporary situation for a distinct purpose. But "legally" is the key and "illegally" means deportation upon being discovered. It can't be any other way.
My one caveat exists for only true asylum seekers/refugees. But they are only temporary entrants by virtue of their situations. While some may eventually desire to become citizens, they're purpose is to seek our protection. It is my understanding that, prior to this massive invasion situation, actual vetting of illegals who are also true asylum seekers were judged to be legit by trained interviewers who seemed to be similar to detectives who can very accurately determine which asylum seekers are legit and which are bullshitting. I know it's a bit more complicated than that, but under proper circumstances, it worked well to weed out the liars from the truly needy. Now, being overburdened by the massive hordes, most of whom play the "asylum" game, it can't help but be less efficient.
Art,
IN theory you may be right, but in practice you'd want to close or make huge strides towards closing the border before you started deporting people. As we see now there's a revolving door thing happening which should be stopped first. But there would likely be some overlap in those two. There was no point #3. I simply stated that if we could achieve #s 1&2, that we'd be well on our way to solving the problem. Solving 1&2 also allows us time and perspective to decide what the best moves going forward are.
Obviously, True refugees/asylum seekers are a completely different conversation and unlike Dan I see no reason to include them in this conversation.
Naw, I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Do both. Build the wall, including everything necessary to defend it against further illegal incursions, and deport the worst first. As we build the wall, those trying to reenter will find fewer places they can do so safely. Whether we do it or not (and we damned well should), continually announcing our intention to deport all illegals will soon be seen as the serious effort it should always have been. "They're kicking people out and locking the doors! It's too hard to sneak in now!" It should be as hard to get in illegally...and then stay...as it was to get our of East Berlin.
I personally would like to see the Overton Window shoved so hard that the policy of a net immigration rate of zero is seen as a truly neutral position.
Bubba,
I figured out the "URL" thing with your name. Now I'll be clicking on your name to see what I've missed!
Excellent, Marshal! Far out, man!
Some of my links are admittedly wittier than others, but I'm getting in the habit of leaving an Easter egg with pretty much every comment I make. :-)
Post a Comment