Obama sucks, but what about immigration?

Ross Douthat’s NY Times Op-Ed column is good because it attacks Obama’s stimulus. He explains how, ten months ago, Obama promised us that if his stimulus package were passed, unemployment would peak at 8%. The reality is that unemployment is at 10.4% and still rising.

Douthat’s column would be great if he mentioned immigration. How is it that we are letting in a million new immigrants per year to compete in the job market when so many Americans are out of work?

If Republicans and Conservatives can’t muster support against immigration at this moment, it ain’t ever gonna happen.

* * *

Some good political news: Charlie Crist, the Republican governoer of Florida who failed the bar exam multiple times, is being challenged by a real economic conservative who didn’t back Obama’s stimulus plan. And unlike the NY23 election, Crist is opposed to abortion and gay marriage, so the MSM can't pin this one on Christian nuts creating the impresion (true or not) that Christian nuts are running the Republican party.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell, the Club for Growth which is backing the challenger, Marc Rubio, is pro-immigration, because the Club primarily supports growth for the super-rich value transference class. This explains why the Club prominently supports "death tax repeal."

Comments

[Stuart]

Half

I agree with you

I am strongly in favor of programs that help the citizen NAMs. I feel generosity towards the citizen NAMs. Steve Sailer has stepped away from "citizenism" but I am 100% a citizenist

The best thing in the world for the NAMs and also for whites with IQ under 110 would be a 20 year break from all immigration of people with average and below average IQ.

I still think our country really needs some of the best and brightest, with very high IQ, to be able to move to Silicon Valley and such.

Anyway, It is in the self interest of the vast majority of NAM voters that immigration take a 20 year break. But the problem is that the media makes it sound like most people that are against immigration are also against NAMs.

There are few voices of people who the NAMs believe is pro-NAM who is also anti immigration

Since there are already so many NAM voters, I think we need NAMs to step up and be loud and proud about ending immigration. If not enough promient NAMs step up, we are doomed.

Again, I am a successful high IQ non NAM so I will do just fine no matter what happens. But I really care about my fellow citizens with IQ under 110. NAMs and non NAMs both

Where are the NAM leaders that will address this issue? We need them

[JGP]

I like the platform but I wonder about the sterilization component. Sterilization is forever and seems a bit of a steep price to pay for getting social assistance. I can imagine many borderline cases where otherwise decent women might fall on hard times and lose their ability to have children permanently.

Is there no technology that would render a woman infertile for a controlled period of time? Until she was off welfare or something. Just a thought.

But this is what the HBD sphere needs - specific proposals.

JGP

[eh]

To state the obvious: it's not only "immigration", per se -- it's a racial/ethnic issue because most of them are non-white. And underachievers. But for why that's not more widely recognized as the big problem that it is, see the racial/ethnic part of this comment again.

[JGP]

Sugar, I posted in the wrong thread! Need more coffee.

JGP

[not too late]

The problem is not recognizing the rule of law. We have laws against illegal immigration. The federal gov't simply doesn't enforce the laws.

Obama is the chief law enforcement officer but his loyalties are to the world not the USA. In his mind, he has to balance what is good for illegal immigrants against what is good for the citizens of the USA. He is not loyal to us. He does not defend us.

We have every right to defend our borders but Obama/Bush aren't our defenders.

[M Stein]

"Is there no technology that would render a woman infertile for a controlled period of time? Until she was off welfare or something. Just a thought."

Birth control shots once every 3 months protect a girl from becoming pregnant.

http://kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_depo.html

[miles]

Ive read in a Paul Craig Roberts column that we have some 15 million unemployed, but have 8 million employed illegal aliens.

Would any other country in the world happily allow such a thing to happen to their own citizens?

What really rankles (considering who is president) is that working-class black men are probably more negatively effected by it than any other group.

[DaveinHackensack]

Open borders isn't the only political position the Club for Growth has in common with liberal elites: they are both egalitarians, which leads to ideological blind spots on both ends of the political spectrum (too much faith in the power of entrepreneurship on the right, and too much faith in the economic advancement potential of education on the left). That recent post of mine about Jeffrey Sachs that I linked to in another comment thread here touches on the second blind spot; this one touches on the first: http://thehackensack.blogspot.com/2008/12/questioning-conventional-wisdom-about.html

[Pete Murphy]

Rampant population growth threatens our economy and quality of life. Immigration, both legal and illegal, are fueling this growth. I'm not talking about environmental degradation or resource depletion. I'm talking about the effect upon rising unemployment and poverty in America.

I should introduce myself. I am the author of a book titled "Five Short Blasts: A New Economic Theory Exposes The Fatal Flaw in Globalization and Its Consequences for America." To make a long story short, my theory is that, as population density rises beyond some optimum level, per capita consumption of products begins to decline out of the need to conserve space. People who live in crowded conditions simply don’t have enough space to use and store many products. This declining per capita consumption, in the face of rising productivity (per capita output, which always rises), inevitably yields rising unemployment and poverty.

This theory has huge implications for U.S. policy toward population management, especially immigration policy. Our policies of encouraging high rates of immigration are rooted in the belief of economists that population growth is a good thing, fueling economic growth. Through most of human history, the interests of the common good and business (corporations) were both well-served by continuing population growth. For the common good, we needed more workers to man our factories, producing the goods needed for a high standard of living. This population growth translated into sales volume growth for corporations. Both were happy.

But, once an optimum population density is breached, their interests diverge. It is in the best interest of the common good to stabilize the population, avoiding an erosion of our quality of life through high unemployment and poverty. However, it is still in the interest of corporations to fuel population growth because, even though per capita consumption goes into decline, total consumption still increases. We now find ourselves in the position of having corporations and economists influencing public policy in a direction that is not in the best interest of the common good.

The U.N. ranks the U.S. with eight third world countries - India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Democratic Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Uganda, Ethiopia and China - as accounting for fully half of the world’s population growth by 2050. It's absolutely imperative that our population be stabilized, and that's impossible without dramatically reining in immigration, both legal and illegal.

If you’re interested in learning more about this important new economic theory, I invite you to visit my web site at OpenWindowPublishingCo.com where you can read the preface, join in my blog discussion and, of course, purchase the book if you like. (It's also available at Amazon.com.)

Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"