Democrats’ Immigration/economics Enigma

Democrats’ immigration/economics enigma

In a recent Arizona radio interview, Hillary Clinton made the incredulous claim that America’s southern border is secure, that immigration from Mexico and parts south isn’t problematic, stating, confidently, "I think we’ve done a really good job securing the border," and adding that those who think otherwise "aren’t paying attention."

America’s immigration and border violence problems are well-known, but neither Clinton nor her Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, thinks there’s anything wrong with millions of illegals streaming into the United States. At Univision’s March Democratic Debate, Sanders and Clinton signaled their willingness to do/say anything necessary to win Latino votes by conducting a competitive pander-fest to convince Spanish-speakers of their sympathy for illegal immigrants. Clinton made a characteristically clumsy attempt to speak Spanish and called Americans who favor border control "un-American." In the apparent belief that breaking laws to come or stay here are non-criminal violations, Sanders promised he would never deport "non-criminal" illegals.

While most media have focused on the so-called "extreme" (Read: "lawful") immigration views of Republican candidates, little attention has been paid to liberal Democrats’ far-left drift on immigration. To progressives, it seems, the only problem with illegal immigration is that American immigration laws aren’t sufficiently generous and welcoming.

Both Clinton and Sanders expressed radical positions on immigration policy that subordinate America’s legal code to the interests of non-citizens. In effect, two people competing be the next chief executive of the United States disqualified themselves by pledging that, if elected, neither would fulfill a president’s constitutional obligation to enforce American laws.

Open borders advocates tell us that floods of unskilled and poorly-educated Mexican citizens entering the United States illegally is good for both countries, but never explain how, If unskilled illegal immigrants are good for the American economy, emigration is good for Mexico’s. Are the laws of economics different in Mexico and America?

Let’s reexamine their "logic" a bit differently: If, as we’re told, having large numbers of unskilled workers in America is good for our economy, then wouldn’t repatriating them help the Mexican economy? If having them here is good for us, wouldn’t it be even better for a smaller, poorer country like Mexico to get them all back?

Or do progressive pro-amnesty advocates just believe that more unskilled people in the United States represent additional potential votes for progressive policies and programs?

If amnestied illegals will vote that way, why shouldn’t we close the southern border? After all, Mexico is already a corrupt, largely-ungovernable, economic mess. If they did it there, wouldn’t unskilled, amnestied illegals vote for the same or similar failed policies here and bring America the same conditions as those in their home country?

Donald Trump’s promise to force Mexico to fund construction of a southern wall is patently ridiculous, however, if sending enough Mexican citizens to the US turns America’s into a Mexican-style economy, we could all wake up one morning to discover a wall on our northern border, built and financed by Canadians.

Who would blame them?

http://www.ldnews.com/story/opinion/columnists/2016/04/01/democrats-immigrationeconomics-enigma/82508562/