Guest Opinion on Immigration Reform

Amnesty Driven by Voodoo Economics By Jonathon Moseley Voices calling for amnesty do not really understand economics or free enterprise. They offer garbled misconceptions — with graphs. But they would be kicked out of the economics courses I took in business school. The pro-amnesty camp argues from “voodoo economics.” Amnesty will grow the economy, they argue. Well, if there are more people, technically the economy will be bigger. But each person may be poorer. A growing economy is only ‘better’ if the economy grows faster than the population increases. Otherwise, each individual is worse off among a larger crowd. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures total activity — not household income for each individual family. Amnesty will create a worse economy for everyone, even if total GDP is larger. (Actually, amnesty just transfers workers from Mexico to the U.S.A., so there isn’t really any growth in GDP, just a transfer.) An estimated 30 to 40 million low-skilled workers will be added. The borders won’t be secure. Millions more trespassers will invade. ‘Blue card’ holders can bring in their husbands, wives, children, parents, etc. to join them. Many who have already been deported can return. Amnesty promoters insist that trespassers won’t get a green card until the borders are secure. But, who cares? RPI status does everything a green card does except it just isn’t green. ‘Registered Provisional Immigrant’ status will be granted 6 months after Obama signs a bill. Some are calling RPI status the new ‘blue card’ — blue for States that vote Democrat. Of course, amnesty will elect more Democrats. Democrats will enact government policies that destroy the utopian economic pipe dreams of the libertarians and business lobbyists pushing for amnesty. Utopian libertarians and naïve business interests are pushing for their own extinction. Political activist John Kwapisz, who taught me much, put it all together for me: Regulations hostile to free enterprise, business, and libertarian pipe dreams will multiply because of 11 million new Democrat voters. Anti-business regulations are often passed at the state, county, or city level. A few cities already allow illegal aliens to vote in city elections. Immediately after amnesty, many more county, city, and state elections will allow amnesty recipients to vote. But businesses need more high-skilled, high-tech immigrants, we are told. Employers need more Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) workers. Wrong. In fact, American colleges and universities are graduating twice as many STEM graduates as there are STEM jobs in the USA. This is the report of Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies. We have U.S. high-tech graduates who can’t find work. The solution to getting high-skilled workers is to reform our schools and universities. It is education that needs reform, not immigration. But data — rather than anecdotes — show that we already have too many unemployed high-skilled workers. (Perhaps we need to import better human resources directors to recruit more effectively and fill vacancies.) The naked truth is that businesses want to drive down salaries. Flooding the economy with millions of unneeded, surplus workers will lower the market rate for labor. But who will buy their products and services when family budgets shrink? Employers may pay cheaper wages, but will sell fewer products and services. (We have to consider other errors also to determine that outcome.) “Specialization” or “comparative advantage” is the last desperate attempt of amnesty supporters to patch together an argument with bubble gum and twist-ties. “Comparative advantage” is a truth, but it simply does not apply to the hair-brained scheme of amnesty. This is the biggest error. For example, society is richer overall if a heart surgeon devotes her time to doing heart surgery and pays a less-skilled person to mow her lawn. It would be a net loss for a heart surgeon to mow the lawn (except perhaps as mind-renewing relaxation). Economics teaches that workers should be allocated to their most productive capabilities. In free market theory, a higher salary allocates workers to their most productive job. The heart surgeon earns more money performing operations than mowing lawns. These “price signals” are the information that makes a free market work. The higher salary encourages surgeons to perform more operations and mow fewer lawns. But amnesty promoters don’t want to pay the going rate for workers. They want to use government policy to drive down wages and salaries. That disrupts comparative advantage price signals, causing market distortions and misallocation of economic resources. (In technical terms, a few companies earn surplus “rents” (profits) by lobbying the government to distort the economy on their behalf. A few benefit at the expense of everyone else.) Since we already have too many unemployed, low-skilled workers, adding more cannot grow the economy. Supplying what is missing can unleash a stalled economy. Making an existing surplus bigger won’t help. In fact, it will drain the public Treasury, reducing available investment capital in society. Comparative advantage theory merely allocates the existing population among various jobs. The biggest error is that high-value jobs are relatively scarce. An unlimited supply of high-value jobs is the false assumption of utopian amnesty defenders. Therefore, they fantasize, if we flood the country with high-school dropouts with poor language comprehension and few job skills, this will free up native-born American citizens to move into higher-value job positions. This will unleash a utopian renaissance, they dream. But there simply aren’t that many higher-value jobs in any society. A scarcity of high-value jobs is the limiting factor, not a shortage of high-school dropouts available to facilitate specialization. The U.S.A. is perfectly able to generate plenty of our own, home-grown high-school dropouts, thanks to the National Education Association. Adding to a glut of poorly-educated workers will not crypto-magically grow the economy. Why are their home countries poor if 11 million illegal aliens will benefit the U.S. economy? If high-school dropouts are a burden back at home, how will they spark an economic boom here? Shouldn’t they stay there and create prosperity back home? Will amnesty recipients fit in as good employees? They won’t know English (not for years at least) and won’t understand our economy, our country, our culture, or our laws. I once had a client as a lawyer whose house was damaged by a sloppy paint job in a wealthy suburb of Washington, D.C. After the “respectable” painting company got the contract, the actual painters arrived who couldn’t speak English and ignored the agreed plans. The family had to spend thousands of dollars getting paint out of the hardwood floor. And the paint job was done wrong. Should a company pushing for amnesty trust someone to handle money, work with coworkers, or drive a company vehicle who has already proven they don’t care about following our laws? Employers often run background checks on job candidates. Increasingly, businesses won’t hire an applicant with bad credit. Employers won’t trust workers to handle money or with company assets if they have a shady background or bad credit rating. Yet the lemmings are stampeding. Cartoonish economic myths motivate Republican insiders to rush toward the cliff of amnesty for illegal aliens. GOP leaders feel the instinctive, genetic itch to leap irresistibly into the abyss, to their own political destruction. When the business lobbyists’ arguments just don’t ring true and violate common sense… they are probably snake oil. Read more: The view expressed is that of the author and not

16 thoughts on “Guest Opinion on Immigration Reform”

  1. Good post, the problem with liberals and some other high brow folks is not that they can’t forecast the future they can’t forecast the past.

    There is no record of the border being “protected” and there is no record of Congress following through on “comprehensive” anything.

    Sadly, the immigration reform crowd sees positioning and opportunism not policies which will work.

    Here is immigration reform:
    Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

    in the country legally;

    have the means to sustain themselves economically;

    not destined to be burdens on society;

    of economic and social benefit to society;

    of good character and have no criminal records; and

    contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

    The law also ensures that:

    immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

    foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

    foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

    foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

    foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

    those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

  2. Good post. The Senate immigration reforms being proposed make sense. They are a fine balance between Republican and Democratic goals, and illustrate the classic American principle of compromise of which we are all so proud.

    Mexico’s law has a lot of similarities with the new US Bill. I’m glad many here approve of it. The difference is that Mexico does not have is 11 million Americans living there illegally. Solving the issue by legitimizing those who are already here and are a productive member of society, is a win-win for all involved.

  3. Kavips, Mexico’s law has NO similarities with the “Gang of Eight” proposal or any of the proposals in Congress.

    Under Mexican law, the 11 million trespassers would be doing 5 years hard time as felons.

    The entire debate is based on hypocrisy, of the liberals, business lobbyists who don’t know enough about business to run a lemonade stand and countries like Mexico who are bilking the US.

  4. Kavips, WHY is compromise a good thing in politics?

    Let’s say I am opposed to rape. Other people are in favor of legalizing rape.

    Should we compromise and draft up legislation that allows legalized rape under some circumstances? To some extent? Under certain conditions? Maybe supervised rape?

    A compromise between right and wrong is always wrong.

    A compromise between good and evil is always pure evil.

    Since when has any American ever been proud of compromise in politics?

    It is the absolute disgust of Americans with political compromise that is driving events.

  5. Kavips, following your argument, should we have amnesty for rapists? They are living in the shadows, right? We will never catch all of them. So following your argument, should we allow rapists to come out of the shadows, pay a small fine (which can be waived for any and all or no reason), and let them start a new, productive life. After all, don’t you think that rapists just want to put it behind them?

    Would you argue that this would bring closure to rape victims that you might argue would be beneficial?

    But, you might argue, the fact that someone has broken the law in the past, doesn’t that suggest that they might also break the law again in the future?

  6. “Since when has any American ever been proud of compromise in politics?”

    Gee, let’s see… the reason we have a Senate and a House in the Constitution was a compromise between the more highly populated states and the less populated states. That’s why it is called “The Great Compromise” in every history of the Constitution.

    The reason why slaves were counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment was a compromise between the slave states and the non-slave states. Without it, there wouldn’t have been agreement of all of the states.

    The reason we have a Bill of Rights was a compromise between those who wanted enumerated rights written into the Constitution, and those who did not want to have the problem of limitation by enumeration. The Constitution is a bundle of compromises.

    The reason why Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to statehood in the same year was the result of a compromise.

    The northern boundary of Texas follows the “Missouri Compromise Line”, which was one of the upshots of the Missouri Compromise.

    “But, you might argue, the fact that someone has broken the law in the past, doesn’t that suggest that they might also break the law again in the future?”

    A kid who was brought into this country at the age of 2, has lived here since, and discovers later in life that they were brought into the country when they had no say in the matter has not “broken the law” anymore than a passenger in the back of a speeding car.

    And, Mike, the notion that in Mexico “immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor” is comical. You can walk right into Tijuana through the one-way turnstile gate next to the duty free store, and the only person taking note of your arrival is going to be a cab driver looking to haul your butt to a strip bar.

  7. Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza, nada.

    That’s the feeling of the Latino intelligentsia in America. It means ‘for the Race, everything, outside the Race, nothing.’

    That’s the plan.

  8. “Mike, the notion that in Mexico “immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor” is comical. You can walk right into Tijuana through the one-way turnstile gate next to the duty free store, and the only person taking note of your arrival is going to be a cab driver looking to haul your butt to a strip bar.”

    True, but just try to walk across the border to live and work there. It ain’t happening.
    If the government doesn’t stop you, the people will.

    In my business wages have been driven down by immigrants from Latin America.
    It’s hard to compete with people who pool their income, and live with multiple families per household.
    I’m not going to complain though. Maybe communal living is the wave of the future.

  9. Jon I guess the difference between our viewpoints lies in the degree of the alleged crime. Nitpicker mentions walking into Mexico without being processed. What if all of a sudden that put you jail? “What, what, what’s going on” you would ask.. “We’re enforcing the law” they would tell you. Or being thrown in jail for allegedly speeding one mile over the speed limit. In a police state, that could easily happen.

    There is a thing called degree. I should mention it is ironical that you defend Eric Bodenweiser yet use a rape argument to send every Hispanic back to his homeland. You seem to lack all knowledge of degree. Degree was taught by our Lord. Rules are made by men, and don’t always apply. God’s rules are set in stone.

    Looking at this through God’s eyes, it makes little sense to uproot families who are productive, worship the Lord, and who have put children through school( turning them into doctors, priests, and our fantastic men of uniform), because some bigot wants to strut his stuff. What did Hispanics do wrong? They came to the US to get work because they would die of starvation in Mexico.

    Rules are meant to be broken. That is why we have judgment. What’s the point of having lawyers, if laws are set in stone? You’d be out of a profession. lol.

    So, is rape debatable? You certainly seem to do a good job defending it when it applies to Eric Bodenweiser. I don’t have all the facts so I can’t comment on that one. But if you are willing to overlook rape in one of the most horrendous charges yet filed in Delaware Courts, but not overlook someone who simply did what every American does in Tijuana, cross a border without checking in, then listening to your viewpoint should only be done by one in search of entertainment, and not be done by one in a search of substance.

  10. …. it makes little sense to uproot families who are productive, worship the Lord, and who have put children through school( turning them into doctors, priests, and our fantastic men of uniform), because some bigot wants to strut his stuff…

    Add destroy California and create inter-generational parasites to your list.

  11. Let me try this again: I posted about 3 comments replying to comments above almost a week ago, and they simply “vanished.”

    I suspect that some of the complaints we have heard about censorship are the same computer glitch: On this blog (powered by WordPress) and on others using the same software, I have noticed that sometimes comments correctly submitted are just not sorted properly in the database by the software. So — as near as I can figure out — the comment is actually there in the database of comments, but it does not display.

    As a result, some of my comments and I suspect the comments of other people crying censorship merely go into the Twilight Zone because the WordPress computer software doesn’t process the comment posting properly, and so it does not display on the website.

  12. Kavips always garbles what people have said and what the facts are in making arguments…. although I cannot figure out in Kavips’ case whether this is an intentional tactic or because Kavips didn’t understand what was said or just general carelessness. In others you can start to see a pattern and figure out if the mistakes are sincere mistakes or an intentional tactic.)

    Let me see if I can remember what I posted almost a week ago that vanished:

    Of course I never defended Eric Bodenweiser, nor did we ever debate rape in any way.

    The question was, is, and always should be whether accusations are TRUE.

    If something is important enough to take as a serious issue, then it is important enough to know if it is TRUE or FALSE.

    The very nature of the allegations against Eric Bodenweiser or similar controversies about others makes it highly significant whether the allegations are actually TRUE or NOT TRUE.

    If you think some allegations are significant, then it is significant whether they are FALSE, as well. As significant or even more significant.

    I consistently argued — and made it clear with every comment — that we should not spread rumors and gossip as if true, when we do not know what is actually true or not.

    To repeat something as a fact that you do not know to be true — to transform a maybe into an assertion of actual fact — IS A LIE. You are LYING when you present something as true, but actually do not know if it is true.

    Is there anyone who does not 100% agree with all of that?

    Is there anyone who thinks it is okay to claim things to be true when you don’t know if they are true or not?

    Is there anyone here who thinks it is okay to spread false rumors and gossip?

    Is there anyone here who thinks it does not matter if an allegation is actually true or false?

    I consistently said that if the allegations turn out to be true, then Vance Phillips should get “the chair” and — although we have not heard of any violence involved with Eric Bodenweiser — Bodenweiser’s punishment should also be severe.


    God has a solution: In the Bible, if a witness testifies falsely against someone, their punishment for perjury equals the punishment of the crime they falsely accused someone of.

    So if you falsely accuse someone of rape, the penalty for lying is the same as the penalty the accused would have had if they actually had committed the rape.

    If you falsely accuse someone of murder, , the penalty for lying is the same as the penalty the accused would have had if they actually had committed the murder.

  13. kavips on August 11, 2013 at 10:39 said: “Jon I guess the difference between our viewpoints lies in the degree of the alleged crime.”

    No, the difference in our viewpoints is the idea that it is a “punishment” to go back home to one’s own country of birth.

    97% of all of humanity lives OUTSIDE the borders of the United States.

    To suggest that going home to one’s own country is a penalty or punishment is preposterous.

    In fact, it is the liberal argument that the USA is a bad, evil place that should be more like Europe. Remember Michelle Obama saying that she had never been proud of her country until Obama was nominated?

    Even if a child illegally in the USA has done absolutely nothing wrong, doesn’t matter. They need to go back home.

    If parents are in the USA illegally and their child was born in the USA under the insane misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, so what? The family can stay together. The child can go back to their home country with the parents.

    REMEMBER: UNEMPLOYMENT IN MEXICO WAS 4.47% in September 2012.

  14. Kavips writes: “Looking at this through God’s eyes, it makes little sense to uproot families who are productive, worship the Lord, and who have put children through school”

    Looking at it through God’s eyes, it makes sense for people to obey the law in the first place, and to suffer the consequences if they do not.

    Romans 13:3-5 (NASB)
    3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

    God commands us to obey the law.

    So form God’s perspective, it is offensive, outrageous, and an attack on God’s order to encourage law-breaking and anarchy.

    Note that there is a different situation when a person is forced to choose between obeying God or obeying the government. This creates a moral dilemma that is a SPECIAL CASE.

    But in the usual case, God commands you to obey the law.

    God places us where He wants us to be:

    Psalm 16:5-6
    5 Lord, you alone are my inheritance, my cup of blessing.
    You guard all that is mine.
    6 The land you have given me is a pleasant land.
    What a wonderful inheritance!

    It is not wrong to move. But if the only way to do it is to break the law, THEN IT IS NOT GOD’S WILL.

    If God approves of someone moving from where HE PLANTED THEM in the Earth, God will make a way without breaking the law.

    But if you have to break the law, then it is not God’s will for a person to move from where God planted them.

Comments are closed.