immigration

Democrats Want to Abolish I.C.E.

/ L. M. Walker / Leave a comment

Time to Abolish the Democratic Party

thomas-paine-quote-to-argue-published_by_Middle_Class_Warrior_Some_Common_Sense

Definitions:

Abolition – the action or an act of abolishing a system, practice, or institution.

  • Synonyms: termination, eradication, elimination, extermination, destruction, annihilation, obliteration, or extirpation.

Hypocrite – a person who indulges in hypocrisy.

  • Synonyms: pretender, dissembler, deceiver, liar, pietist, sanctimonious person, phony, fraud, sham or fake.

According to the Democratic Party of 2018, we must abolish the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (I.C.E.) and replace it with something else. What that something else should be, they never say.

Perhaps I.C.E. could be replaced by the same left-wing mobs that are going around harassing conservatives in restaurants, department stores, movie theaters and gas stations, and standing around holding signs, screaming and yelling nonsense at the top of their lungs every weekend. This might just be enough to drive away terrorists, smugglers, gangs, and drug cartels. Nah, that won’t work.

Also, according to Democrats, a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion, resulting in the annihilation of her own unborn child. To punish a woman for choosing extermination, which is her right, is morally unconscionable, according to Democrats.

Yet, when it comes to health care, in defending Obamacare, Democrats reason that whether male, female, or somewhere in between, anyone declining coverage should indeed be punished, via the income tax code (i.e. the individual mandate). You either play, or you pay.

So, let’s get this straight. Under the Democratic Party’s philosophy, you have a right to choose not to be covered by health insurance, but if you do you will be punished financially. Yet, a woman should have the right to terminate the life of her unborn child without consequence. Well, you’re either for freedom or you’re not. Selectively choosing when, or for whom it applies is hypocrisy.

The left-wing movement du jour, the push to abolish I.C.E., is sounding more and more like a Russian propaganda campaign. Quick, somebody call the Special Counsel! Nah, that won’t work either.

The next course of action should be to officially abolish the Democratic Party, which has renounced the use of reason to such a degree that it is effectively obliterating itself. It’s extirpation is just a matter of time. What America needs is a new political party, one that doesn’t recklessly commit hypocrisy on such fundamental American principles as our freedom and sovereignty.

30-Year Trade Deficit with Mexico

/ L. M. Walker / 3 Comments

Trump Nails It

– By: Larry Walker II –

Last year our trade deficit with Mexico totaled $53.8 billion, and is projected to end about the same in 2015. When the last three decades are summed, we find that the United States 30-year trade deficit with Mexico amounts to $910.2 billion. Although this has been great for Mexico, it hasn’t been so great for the United States.

Looking back over the last 30 years, we find that the United States actually ran trade surpluses with Mexico in 1991 through 1994, and then came the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA – 1994). Since NAFTA, the United States annual trade deficits with Mexico have totaled $897.8 billion (since 1995). By comparison, the deficit amounted to just $13.7 billion during the 9 years preceding NAFTA.

U.S. Trade Deficit with Mexico (1985 to 2015)

2015 $31.2 billion (through July)

2014 $53.8 billion

2013 $54.5 billion

2012 $61.7 billion

2011 $64.6 billion

2010 $66.3 billion

2009 $47.8 billion

2008 $64.7 billion

2007 $74.8 billion

2006 $64.5 billion

2005 $49.9 billion

2004 $45.2 billion

2003 $40.6 billion

2002 $37.1 billion

2001 $30.0 billion

2000 $24.6 billion

1999 $22.8 billion

1998 $15.9 billion

1997 $14.5 billion

1996 $17.5 billion

1995 $15.8 billion

1994 ($1.3) billion (surplus)

1993 ($1.6) billion (surplus)

1992 ($5.4) billion (surplus)

1991 ($2.1) billion (surplus)

1990 $1.9 billion

1989 $2.2 billion

1988 $2.6 billion

1987 $5.7 billion

1986 $4.9 billion

1985 $5.5 billion

Not only are we losing in trade with Mexico, but the Mexican government has allowed millions of its own citizens, and those from nations to its south, to pour over our southern border illegally. That’s right! The Mexican government has been mostly complicit, looking the other way while tens of thousands boarded trains from its southernmost to its northernmost border, allowing them to cross our border without any resistance. Although lately Mexico claims to be clamping down on illegal border crossings, the damage has already been done.

There are folks both left and right who say, “Free-trade is good for America, because it allows us to work less and buy cheaper goods.” Although plausible on paper, the theory fails once we tally the last thirty years results. Looking back over the last 30 years, we discover that not only has the U.S. lost nearly $5.0 trillion in national wealth ($4 trillion to China and $1 trillion to Mexico alone), but according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, manufacturing jobs in the U.S. have declined from 18.0 million in 1985 to just 12.3 million as of August 2015.

According to Raymond Richman (Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago and Professor Emeritus of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh), “We should end our huge chronic trade deficits which have decimated our manufacturing sector and caused the loss of millions of good American manufacturing jobs. Our policy should be balanced trade which economic theory supports rather than free trade which is supported by economic theory only when countries have a common currency and free movement of capital and labor (as among the States of the United States). We should use the “Scaled Tariff” (our invention!), a single-country-variable-tariff that rises as trade deficits widen significantly, whatever the reason, and are reduced to zero as trade is brought into balance.”

Once aware that our flawed trade policy has resulted in the siphoning away of more than $5 trillion in national wealth ($1 trillion to Mexico alone) and 6 million manufacturing jobs, it should be easy to understand how Mexico will pay for the new border wall. Mr. Trump has his finger on two of the most glaring problems with our economy, illegal immigration and our Lose-Lose foreign trade policy. Balancing our trade deficit, by any means necessary, is a vital component in the quest to make America great again.

References:

An Economic Program for Stimulating U.S. Economic Growth

30-Year Trade Deficit with China – Maybe Trump Gets It

U.S. Census Bureau – Trade in Goods with Mexico

Bureau of Labor Statistics – CES Establishment Data – Manufacturing

U.S. Census Bureau – Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013

Immigration Hype

/ L. M. Walker / 2 Comments

A Never-Ending Scheme

:: By: Larry Walker, II ::

According to the New York Times, “Hoping to stem the recent surge of migrants at the Southwest border, the Obama administration is considering whether to allow hundreds of minors and young adults from Honduras into the United States without making the dangerous trek through Mexico, according to a draft of the proposal.”

And, “If approved, the plan would direct the government to screen thousands of children and youths in Honduras to see if they can enter the United States as refugees or on emergency humanitarian grounds. It would be the first American refugee effort in a nation reachable by land to the United States, the White House said, putting the violence in Honduras on the level of humanitarian emergencies in Haiti and Vietnam, where such programs have been conducted in the past amid war and major crises…”

What’s so wrong with this plan? It sounds a lot better than the utter chaos we have today. The pilot program proposed for Honduras would allegedly cost up to $47 million over two years, under the assumption that 5,000 refugees would apply, and about 1,750 would be accepted. What’s so bad about that?

The only flaw I can find is that because 16,500 unaccompanied children have arrived from Honduras, just since October 1st (over the last 9 months), actually up to 44,000 could apply for refugee status over a 24-month period ((16,500 / 9) * 24). That means this pilot program could actually wind up costing upwards of $413.6 million (($47 million / 5,000) * 44,000). Oops!

Furthermore, since the population of Honduras (under the age of 15) is around 2.8 million, assuming they all want to exit, the program could last for upwards of 127 years, with a total cost of around $26.3 billion ($413.6 million * 63.5 two-year periods). With an acceptance rate of 35%, we could wind up with around 981,584 Honduran refugees over the next 127 years. But that’s not the end of this proposal.

Since the program would then be adopted in Guatemala and El Salvador, which have populations (under the age of 15) of 6.0 million, and 2.0 million, respectively, again assuming all want to join us, the program could last for upwards of 270 years (concurrently), with a total cost of around $101.0 billion, assuming similar costs in all three countries.

All in all, we could wind up taking in 3.8 million refugees, at a cost of around $101 billion, over the next 270 years. But keep in mind; this only includes the cost of processing and transporting them to the United States. It does not include the cost of feeding, educating, housing, etc… And then where does it end? How many other countries could declare worse crises?

Does this still sound like a great plan? Not so much.

The Hype

The hype involves all the stupid comments I’ve been reading from so-called Conservatives, across the web, such as the following:

“Obama is not stupid; he is a very smart man that has the backing of his money people. He wants to overpower the voting system to get as many people into the USA so that the Democrats can stay in office for years to come. Therefore they can have full control of everything in this country.”

“One thing it means is that an immigrant will be automatically registered as a demoRAT with full voting privileges. You and I have to actually fill out a form, the immigrants, being illiterate (no-speaky Inglés), get a pass.”

Really? Do you all really think these kids are thinking about which political party devised the plan to let them in? As far as I can tell, all they see right now is America the Beautiful. But anyway, why are Conservatives worrying about some election ten or twenty years from now, instead of focusing on this year and 2016? Do I need to spell out why the above is nothing but hype? Alright then, because of the following:

  1. Children cannot vote.

  2. Even Permanent (aka. Legal) U.S. Residents are not citizens and thus cannot vote.

  3. One must be over the age of 18, and have been a permanent resident of the U.S. for 5 years before he or she can apply for citizenship.

  4. Once citizenship is applied for, and one passes the test and pays the $700 fee, then, and only then, is he or she eligible to vote.

  5. Assuming citizenship is attained, how such a person chooses to vote is a matter of personal preference, influenced by individual life experiences.

Perhaps it’s time Conservatives forget about some fantasy election decades away, and focus on things that really matter, like the potentially ridiculous overall cost of this never-ending scheme.