Thread: WSJ Staffer Writes Pro-Immigration Book! Stop The Presses!

WSJ Staffer Writes Pro-Immigration Book! Stop The Presses!
Posted By James Fulford On 11 April 2008 @ 2:37

All right, maybe it’s not that unusual for a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board to write a book calling for open borders. The book is Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders , by Jason L. Riley. But Robert Z Nemeth of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, thinks it is:

[quote]Jason L. Riley, [send him mail: jason.riley@wsj.com ] a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, is a rare specimen. He is a conservative African-American who rejects affirmative action and champions a cause that is an anathema to most fellow conservatives: wide-open borders and virtually unrestricted immigration. I had an opportunity to read a proof of his upcoming book (“Let Them In: The Case for Open Bordersâ€

I'm not supprised.

Dixie

Depress lever....flush!

The WSJ crowd has be promoting this philosophy for quite awhile. "Independence Day And The WSJ Edit Page": www.vdare.com/fulford/050703_fulford_file.htm

There's a difference between open borders and open BORDERS.

Some racist organizations are concerned only with making sure our southern border is wide open. They are not interested in immigrants from other countries (legal or illegal). In other words, let in only the mexicans and latin americans. THAT is the racist attitude.

Anti-illegal immigration supporters want ALL who are here illegally to get out. We want our government to enforce our laws and protect our sovereignity(sp?). No racism here.

Now the BIG question is: How many people would enter the US illegally if it was known that their children would NOT get automatic citizenship for being born here and there would be NO free entitlement programs for them OR their children (no free medical care, no food stamps, no free or reduced housing, no WIC, no free labor and delivery for anchors, no free education, no free nothing)?

How many would bother coming if once they got here, they would have to be 100% self-supporting? The only thing they would find is a substandard wage paying job under the table?

We all know the answer to those questions, don't we?

Riley is probably making the typical economic argument for large influxes of immigrants. i.e., The US economy needs to grow, American businesses need to compete with populous countries like China, Americans will move into higher skilled occupations via higher education, and therefore we need immigrants to assume the lower rungs of the socio-economic ladder. This is the gist of the argument that "high-level" experts will continually pose to the US Congress--and why supposedly intelligent people will continue to buy into it.

So what's wrong with the argument? Another frequent contributor to the WSJ, Mr. Peter Schiff of Euro-Pacific Capital has noticed that the American economy continues on an out of balance creation of "service jobs."
http://www.321gold.com/editorials/schif ... 30405.html
Service jobs don't usually produce much tangible value; they only manage the real value produced by manual workers, of varying skill levels. With easier access to higher education our country is turning out a disproportionately high number of people trying to find service jobs. There is a proper balance of manual workers to service workers--we all know that. And some people classified in the services sector are actually highly skilled manual workers with a technical or scientific background.

Nevertheless the size of a company may increase when more service people are available. With more salesmen and clerical support it can enter into new markets. But with more profit comes the added responsibility of employee laws, health requisites, taxes, litigation, training. When it does find new buyers in new markets it will look for more manual workers, too. That's where the immigration lobby comes in, in trying to find them. So it is a spiral.

But how do countries with small populations manage to remain at the top of the heap? The Scandinavian countries, despite extensive welfare programs for their own, are always near the top. Australia enjoys a high standard of living with twenty-five million population. European nations are around 60 million. So why does the US have to be 300 million with projections of even more rapid increases? The only thing I can see, since none of the added jobs pay any more than the original ones, is that opportunities for the CEO's (to make huge profits) are what is really increased.

And the low level manual jobs can be replaced by equipment, entrepreneurship, reorganization processes and---legal immigration.