One sees that he has called for an increase in the minimum wage. It will be interesting to see the annual economic report that usually accompanies The State of the Union and see how economists can show that raising a cost like this will not lead to decreased employment and layoffs for the unskilled. Economists are no better than the aforementioned counselors who tortured and ruined the Biker's whistleblowers it would seem. Indeed, as Rabelais would say, almost all of our professions are as laughable and flawed but wonderful as well as the economists and counselors.

anonymous writes: 

I only listened to a part of the speech but from what I understand he, and the rebuttals that will/did follow will all try to outbid each other about calling the illegals "immigrants" who are welcome like the high achievers that they are. As Milton Friedman said, you can you can have open borders or you can have the welfare state, but you cannot have both. When 10-20 million are legalized and are finished bringing in the 50 million with family reunification and 30 million of the total will go on welfare with five kids per couple this will dwarf all the other nonsense. This is clearly not sustainable.

Stefan Jovanovich replies: 

Apologies to anonymous for this mini-rant. The United States never had "open borders" any more than it had "free trade". What it did have in the 19th and early 20th centuries were very straigntforward rules about what people and goods had to do to cross the border. People had to pass physical health inspections (1 out of 5 did not), and goods had to pay a tariff. If you did not have tuberculosis or syphilis, you got in; if your importer paid the duties, your goods could be sold here. There was no presumption that having the right to live in the United States entitled someone to vote; that required the same citizenship examination that people now have to pass and a period of residency without being found guilty of a criminal offense (the definition included the non-payment of taxes). To be eligible for what the Constitution calls "Naturalization" a person also had to have no criminal record and avoid being placed on the attorney general's blacklist. Neither of my paternal grandparents ever became a citizen. My grandfather did not because he had been on the blacklist for being an anarchist. He was one; like Bakunin he thought that nothing could justify oppression, whether it was in the name of country (vide the Russians keeping down the Poles) or in the name of the revolution (Nechayev and Marx's authoritarian socialism). Grandmother's explanation was simpler; she never learned to read English or Polish, for that matter. (She suffered from severe dyslexia.)

My grandfather never thought he had been oppressed by the government for their failure to allow him to vote. He never considered the United States his homeland; but it was his children's, and he thought that he had an obligation to defend their country so, in December 1941, after they were all grown adults, he tried to join the Marine Corps. They turned him down (he was 52); but the Navy Department did accept the enlistments of all 3 of his children. He would have laughed at the notion that the United States had an obligation to allow people who broke the law - both by coming to the United States illegally and by committing crimes after they were here - to become citizens. If the country decided that these people could stay, that was up to the decision of the citizens; but he would have considered it a grave insult if other people had been allowed to become citizens after breaking the law or being illiterate in English. As a peaceful revolutionary (the very kind all the Marxists love to despise), he believed that "if you won't do the time, you don't have the character for crime". Surely, the same rule should apply to all current illegals.





Speak your mind


Resources & Links