Presidential Politics: Immigration Vs. War


Citing a “National Academy of Sciences study,” Patrick Buchanan notes that “The average immigrant comes to this country much poorer and far less educated than Americans and consumes far more per capita in public services…each immigrant who comes with less than a high school education costs taxpayers $90,000 net over his or her lifetime.” Considering that immigration policy has been predicated mostly on family unification and on allowing millions upon millions of unskilled illegals to enter the country undisturbed, the assessment sounds about right.

When thousands of non-voting illegal aliens poured into the streets to demand their positive “rights,” their elected officials and El Presidente (Bush) came up with a bill that will grant the protesters their wish.

Adding to the “union” each year the equivalent of one New Jersey, powered by identity-politics, and consisting predominantly of tax consumers seeking to indenture taxpayers —how better to accelerate wealth distribution and the death of the republic?

As a libertarian who wrote her first op-ed in opposition to the invasion of Iraq in September 2002, I do not mean to diminish the centrality of this war in the presidential race. However, the neoconservative “idea” of preemptive wars or wars for democracy is as dead as a doornail. Can you imagine a candidate running on that plank? I didn’t think so. However, the notion of dissolving the people and electing another, to paraphrase Bertold Brecht—that’s very much alive in the minds of the political caste.

I’d say, then, that immigration is the central issue in the next elections.