Rethinking US Immigration Policy:
Why an Open Border Would Lead to an Economic Boon
Joshua Taj Bozeman
In this paper, I argue that the current immigration policy of the United States federal government is not only hurting the economy, but that if we opened the borders entirely, we could see an economic boon unlike any seen since the early 20th century, at a time when we welcomed millions to our shores, most of whom built the American economy we know today. This paper argues that a policy shift is in order, and that unless we do something drastic, we might be stuck in a permanent state of recession, and the old hope for a 4% increase in the economy will be a thing of the past. The solution to the fledgling economy could very well be found in an open border policy, one that is fair to new Americans and old alike, one that secures our safety and liberty, all while heralding in a new economic boon that hasn’t been since in nearly a hundred years.
DOWNLOAD FULL PAPER (PDF)
Someone over at HotAir.com noted that if you look at the DEA’s most wanted fugitives site, no matter which region of the country you click on, a large majority of the fugitives are hispanic. The theory is- illegal aliens dominate drug crimes that destroy families, people, lives, property, and more.
Very scary stuff.
I haven’t looked deep into that site, the crimes, what have you, but it does make you wonder.
Good idea to stop those who demand we not enforce our border and the laws associated with it. It’s a good idea to call out those people who attack one side of the aisle for having the nerve to do the unthinkable- demand that we enforce our borders and our laws.
A lot of people want to put their own selfish interests first and the country last. Those are the people that destroy countries from within.
I don’t even know if any commentary is necessary. Here’s Paul Waldman from Media Matters dishonestly attacking Lou Dobbs.
Watch Waldman attack Lou Dobbs, then tell me what’s wrong with the picture. When Waldman refuses to answer Dobbs’ question on how many positive stories they’ve done on Republicans, I just had to laugh out loud. If that wasn’t bad enough, he dug his hole deeper by complaining that Dobbs is somehow irresponsible because a racist group had used one of his immigration pieces to push their hatred! I guess Dobbs is responsible for anything anyone says about him or his opinions! Amazing!
Notice in video 2 how Waldman says “undocumented immigrants.” That’s leftist idiot code for “illegal aliens.” An immigrant isn’t someone who sneaks in, violating our laws, and refusing to respect our sovereignty…and that person isn’t “undocumented”- they’re alies who come here illegally. Fact is- Waldman and his smear group would be happy only if Dobbs and everyone else pledged to accept and embrace illegal “immigration” and remove our borders altogether. Why he can’t just be honest with the world and say that is anyones guess.
Media Matters is one of the most vile, reprehensible organizations in this country, and it’d do us all well to remember that fact. Waldman is a brain dead lapdog at the heels of his master, the master of dishonest and hatred, David Brock. Go figure he’d refuse to be honest even with Dobbs.
The dems are all up in arms. Bush commuted the sentence of Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby for obstruction and lying to a grand jury. The fine was left in place, the probationary period is still in effect…only the 30 month jail sentence was commuted.
Now- we know that Libby was not the original source for exposing Plame’s name. We also know that Plame and husband, Joe Wilson, have been exposed as frauds and liars. Joe Wilson was hired onto the Kerry campaign in 2004…when it came to light that Wilson and Plame lied about who sent Wilson to Iraq, and what conclusions could be made from his trip there, Kerry immediately dropped Wilson and erased all of Wilson’s webpages on the Kerry site. (Click here for the cache I saved of Wilson’s Kerry campaign webpage)
We also know that there was absolutely no underlying crime committed in all of this. Fitzgerald knew from the start that the original source was Armitage, yet he continued on with a bogus investigation. It was well known that Plame did not meet any of the specifications under the law in question. She had not been covert in years and giving her identity would in no way harm her or her position (as she was no longer going to be covert in any manner). The author of the law agrees with this conclusion- that Plame didn’t fall under the category of agents the law was written to protect.
So- no underlying crime, based on a case with two people who are exposed liars (Wilson and Plame), faulty memory, etc.
No one can reasonably make the case that this matter ever had national security implications, nor that it dealt with lies from the White House, as there’s no evidence that any lies came from the WH in this matter, and there’s no evidence that there were any lies in the runup to the Iraq war. The bipartisan committees have dealt with the issue and have agreed- these “lies” many liberals want to go on about just don’t exist.
Now- Cisneros, head of HUD under Clinton, was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, obstruction, and lying to investigators. Forget the underlying story there. It was as serious as the issue involved with the Libby indictment.
Cisneros plead guilty in order to plea bargain. Libby stands by his innocence to this day.
Clinton (who was convicted of perjury himself and disbarred for it!) comes out swinging, saying that this represents the Bush tendency to reward those in the inner circles. Hillary goes on about cronyism and such. What’s the difference between Cliton pardoning Cisneros (and Marc Rich and the Puerto Rican terrorists, money laundering friends of Hillary’s brother, Bill’s own brother Roger! etc)…and the commutation of the prison sentence for Libby? I see very little difference outside of the fact that, when looking at the facts we know that Libby was caught up in a case that had no underlying crime, that the prosecutor know of this, yet still went after Libby, that two of the main people involved in the related issues are exposed frauds, and that Libby stands by his claims of innocence when Cisneros admitted he was a liar.
The liberals really need to stop trying to use this issue for gain. It makes them look silly when they stood by to watch Clinton do all the damage he did. He was convicted of lying to grand juries himself, so Clinton and the Mrs. need to stop the hypocrisy- you know you’re in trouble when even Dana Milibank is saying that your comments on the Libby issue are damaging your own reps.
A quick final note- Keith Olbermann was discussing the overall issue of the nuermous Clinton pardons and the Bush commutation of Libby’s sentence. He actually made the argument that Clinton was on firmer ground with this issue, because he was so abundant in his handing out of pardons, when Bush pardoned so few. How is this a sane argument? Clinton was giving pardons out to everyone, so that makes him a hero of sorts…Bush has kept the pardon power very limited (Wikipedia lists only 76- and on the main article of presidential parons, they even list Libby then explain he wasn’t actually pardoned, so who knows about their actual facts)..and because of that, he’s a bad guy because, in Olbermann’s mind this somehow equals cronyism?! I see why so many people call him “Krazy Keith”.
This stuff is actually sort of a joke…ten candidates on a stage is absurd. I was sort of torn on this- why allow only the top candidates? I feel the media is partly responsible for the top spots as it is…they push a few candidates all the time, no wonder they have the most support in current polls. All should get a chance to give their opinions and share their views. But, when you see them all together- you see this just doesn’t work.
A few thoughts- Giuliani…don’t much like him. The fact that he’s on his third marriage is upsetting to me personally. The fact that he’s pro-abortion is another aspect of his views I dislike a lot. I don’t think I can vote for a supporter of abortion. I also find his evasion of questions annoying. McCain and Romney are guilty of this as well. Sadly- the most open and honest candidates are those on the bottom of the polls. I’m sick of seeing a question asked and the top 3 guys dancing around with their answers.
Ron Paul- this guy is out of his mind. He doesn’t want us to lead the world basically…that’s the feeling I got from him. He wants an America that doesn’t intervene in international fights? Too bad our actions doing just that in WWII lead us to the spot as super power! I’d never support an anti-war “conservative.”
McCain- he just looks like a zombie to me. He’s constantly got this weird stare on his face- looks as if he’s staring at one spot or something. It’s a bit creepy. That and I forgot he voted against Bush’s tax cuts twice.
Tancredo has good ideas on immigration.
Personally- I think the best bet would be a Fred Thompson candidacy.
The top 3- McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are stepping over each other whining they wall want 30 seconds. Ugh…
I’m not very impressed at all. Out of this group- I’d vote for tough talking Tancredo.
UPDATE: I should mention I find Giuliani’s adoption blathering stupid when asked about abortion. He refuses to be clear and straight on his support for abortion, instead going on a tangent about how adoptions in NYC rose when he was mayor. I see that in the May 3 debate he claimed a 70% increase- I think tonight he said it was a 130% increase. It turns out, he’s full of it either way. FactCheck.Org has more info.
Note to Rudy- when asked about your support of killing soon-to-be-born babies…don’t go on and on about fictional adoption rates! ‘I support mothers killing babies, but hey- I’ll claim adoptions were up when I was mayor!’ Insulting.
The terrorist plot to attack Fort Dix- all of the suspects arrested. Get this. They’re all muslims who daily praise mohammed- a mass murdering warrior.
is ANYONE, and I mean ANYONE shocked to hear this? Did anyone hear the news of a terror plot and actually wonder what religion these guys were a part of?
Does anyone not see the very disturbing pattern? Does anyone think that maybe when you follow a religion created by a mass murderer, this is the logical outcome? Does anyone want to deny that simple fact and come up with an explanation on how any person who praises a mass murderer could, in any way, claim to be peaceful or part of a religion of peace?
PS How many of these idiots are here illegally?
I often hear the following argument when discussing illegal immigrants:
We shouldn’t separate families…so, when an illegal alien has a child in the US- that child is automatically a US citizen. That kid won’t be deported, because they’re not illegal. The mother, however, can be deported, but illegal advocates argue the system is broken, because or current laws would break this family apart.
Now- this line of reasoning is just downright silly. If this your argument, you’re basically making a loud declaration to all future illegals- ‘all you have to do is come into our country and have a child…then you can claim you should stay because to deport you would mean we’re breaking up a family.’
No shocker that the illegal alien advocates who call for people to break the law don’t see the obvious insanity with their argument. Then again, I think they do, in fact, see the insanity, but because they’re advocates of breaking the law- they just don’t care.
People will continue to use this argument and many others…but, breaking the law is breaking the law. Unfortunately, even our president has refused to show an ounce of leadership in regards to this issue and is supporting an amnesty plan, which will do nothing but hurt all of us.
I love American cities that blatantly say “we will ignore US law. We will NOT follow your law, and we will not assist you in enforcing these laws. Well- we still want state and federal tax revenue, but screw you outside of that!”
These so-called ‘santuary cities’ are run by idiots who have no legitimate reason for violating federal law. The leaders in these cities put the entire nation at risk. Take San Francisco- one of the most radical cities in the country where current Mayor, Gavin Newsome, has vowed to make sure that no city employee helps the federal government in regards to immigration law. He will assure that immigration law is not followed in his city. This is the same mayor that started issuing illegal gay marriage licenses a couple of years ago- licenses that were worth just as much as the paper they were printed on.
The most commonly used excuse for these variious cities refusal to abide by and enforce federal immigration law boils down to this snippet from a story on the city of Oakland’s refusal to follow federal law:
[Oakland police chief] Tucker said the federal government currently does not seek police assistance on immigration raids and that local cops are not “in the business” of enforcing federal immigration law and are “too busy” fighting crime. But he added that police would still cooperate with the federal government on any “investigation of criminal conduct within the city limits of Oakland.”
Now, this comes from a story on the city of Oakland passing new laws trying to block federal alien raids. They want to make sure that the federal government cannot do its job and enforce immigration law. They will do their utomost to ensure that illegal aliens can stay in their city without fear of being arrested or deported.
Now, let’s take the chief of police’s comments above and analyze them. He says that his officers are not in the business of enforcing immigration law, and that they’re too busy fighting crime. That is, of course, a load of nonsense. Immigration law is, hence the word LAW, a legal issue that is to be dealt with by law ENFORCEMENT officials (read: police officers, FBI, etc.) The chief doesn’t think that immigration law is really law that should be enforced. It’s not his job to enforce federal laws. But it is. Why are these agenda-driven officers, mayors, city council members, etc. refusing only to enforce ONE federal law? They use the excuse that they’re not trained to enforce federal law, yet immigration law is the only law they claim they’e not trained to deal with.
If someone robs a federally insured bank in their city- do they refuse to send officers to the bank? Bank robbery is federal crime. When will Oakland, San Francisco, and other cities that refuse to enforce immigration law refuse to enforce bank robbery laws?
Here’s a list of other crimes that local officials, if they want to be consistent and refuse to enforce federal law, will need to stop responding to. Better hope your city isn’t actually consistent in it’s supposed moral stand against enforcing immigration law simply because it’s a federal crime they claim they’re not equipped to deal with:
so-called “hate crimes”
murder of US government official
murder for hire
These are all laws that are federal in nature or have a federal component, in which federal law enforcement agencies would get involved.
Let’s hope that cities that refuse, in principle and practice, not to enforce immigration laws by using the excuse “it’s not our job to enforce federal law” continue to be hypocrites. These people will refuse to deal with this particular crime, but for some reason when someone robs a bank- they show up! Amazing how that works. I guess when a bank is robbed, these police chiefs suddenly learn how to enforce federal law, and they’re able to do so. Hopefully the federal government will step in soon and tell all of these cities that their flagrant violation of federal law will no longer stand.
Just to quickly mention- I usually try to catch Hannity and Colmes on Fox News. I was watching tonight, and I have to say- in general, Alan Colmes is out of his mind. He’s way too ideological. Sean is very ideological as well, but he seems much more fair than Colmes. I have a feeling Bill Clinton could murder someone and Colmes would attack a conservative.
I have, in the past couple weeks, seen many liberals laugh at Alan Colmes on the show. Tonight, Kirsten Powers (liberal) was talking about Rush Limbaugh and Arnold Schwarzenegger and how he’s turned very liberal when so many conservatives were excited about him being on their side of things.
Powers appeared in a segment with National Review’s Rich Lowry…she was saying that Arnold HAS become very liberal. To the point where she’d call him a moderate Democrat. Colmes basically said this was poppycock and Powers actually laughed at him. No one can deny Schwarzenegger has a pretty liberal record as governor. Over $6 billion in new spending, after promising he was a fiscal conservative? Amnesty and free healthcare to illegal aliens in California? These are very liberal ideas. No one can deny these facts…the guy has been fairly liberal so far.
You just have to feel bad for Colmes when even those who are on his side of the debate constantly laugh at him. Maybe he’s becoming more radical in his views these past few years? I don’t know…all I know is that I didn’t use to watch him and think to myself “this guy is off his rocker.” I find myself doing that all too much lately…and his liberal allies on the show seem to be doing a little of the same far too much for comfort.
Just something I noticed. And I share.
Alan Colmes of Hannity and Colmes (Fox News) is out of his mind. OUT OF HIS MIND.
Speaking on the issue of the former Taliban spokesperson being refused admission into a Yale degree program…this is what Colmes had to say-
Isn’t this man better off in America, in college, learning about democracy, as opposed to being booted out of school and forced back to Afghanistan?
This is actually what he said. He was upset that a Taliban spokesman was refused admission to Yale! The guy has a 4th grade education level and was only allowed in in the first place due to liberal nonsense about “diversity”- yeah, diversity in the types of terrorists they adore!
Why on earth anyone would be upset over this admission refusal is beyond me. Why anyone would try to argue to support this guy also boggles the mind. The arguments that liberals come up with to support the most disgusting people is always unfathomable. I wonder why liberals claim to love women’s rights when they so easily support members of a regime who rape, torture, and rape women for any made up reason in the world?
This guy was helping prop up a regime that murders women for things that are normal everyday activities in this nation, yet Colmes defends him. Amazing.