On the Three Amigos in the Ottawa Citizen

Bush, Canada

I wrote an op-ed for the Ottawa Citizen about the three amigos’ Cancun conference—Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, President Bush, and Mexican president Vicente Fox. The column is supposed to run today, Saturday, April 1. To read The Citizen online one has to subscribe. I’ll scan the page and post it on the website as soon as I get the tear sheet. I wrote the thing right after submitting my WorldNetDaily column, so I’m quite drained.

Update: “A Vacation from Reality” can be read by clicking here and enlarging the scanned page. Here’s an excerpt:

So long as the U.S. and Canada remain relatively high-wage areas with tax-funded welfare systems, they will experience migratory pressure from a low-wage country such as Mexico. Protectionist policies, the kind Bush is guilty of, immeasurably worsen this pressure. If people can’t sell their wares into foreign markets, they’re more inclined to relocate in search of better economic prospects. Unhampered trade, not NAFTA, might diminish this pressure.

We Are The World

Bush, Economy, Free Markets, Government

“Whether the economy is better off for their labor is a debate nobody will have. An interminable supply of such workers creates its own economic realities, chief of which is a shift to labor-intense, rather than innovation-oriented, forms of production. A never-ending supply of cheap and unskilled workers actually retards the productivity and progress of a modern economy by preventing mechanization and delaying important breakthroughs, thus reducing competitiveness.

More importantly, the purely economic argument about the price at which American workers will perform menial work is meaningless without a reference to borders and to the thing they bound—a nation. Render asunder the idea of a nation, make borders obsolete—and the world is your labor market.

Bush has zero understanding of things metaphysical—and has no appreciation for the bonds that unite members of a civil society in common purpose. He brazenly contends that Americans won’t do certain work. But he leaves out that they can’t afford to toil at a price that is a function of an artificially created, ceaseless supply of immigrants.

Bush’s Brave New Borderless World is at work here, not the invisible hand.”

The excerpt is from my new WorldNetDaily column, “We Are The World.” It deals with the “Bush-backed immigration bill, penned by the unholy McCain-Kennedy-Specter trinity.”

Good Fences Apparently Don't Make Good Neighbors

IMMIGRATION

Left-liberals and utopian libertarians cannot hear about any barrier intended to prevent undesired or undesirable human acts without launching into maudlin impersonations of the sainted Ronald Reagan, RIP. Mention a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, or one that separates Israeli from Palestinian territories and, on cue, these characters invoke the portentous metaphor of the Berlin Wall, deafening their opposition with shouts of, “Tear down this wall!”

The Israeli barrier has already cut by 80 percent the deaths by suicide bombers in Israel proper. To some, that’s a bad thing. The proposed 700 mile security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border has the potential to considerably reduce rampant crime against border communities—rape, murder, and property transgressions. According to researcher Edwin S. Rubenstein, “Approximately 27 percent of all prisoners in Federal custody are criminal aliens. The majority (63 percent) are citizens of Mexico.” (More on the REAL effects of this influx on crime, culture, the environment, health, labor, and national security, courtesy of Congressman Tom Tancredo.)

It will also stem the tsunami of illegals that has flooded—and devastated—schools, hospitals, and other services in these crumbling outposts, and beyond. Most illegal aliens do not come to the U.S. to wage war, but the reality is that, once in the country, almost all wage welfare. Because these are unskilled, low-wage workers, the taxpayer is compelled to supplement and subsidize every aspect of their existence.

As George Borjas, professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, has documented, since the 1965 Amendments “the United States has been granting entry visas to persons who have relatives in the United States, with no regard to their skills or economic potential.” “Immigrants today,” writes Borjas, “are less skilled than their predecessors, more likely to require public assistance, and far more likely to have children who remain in poor, segregated communities.”

Why do left-liberals and open-border libertarians ignore—or lie about—this unconscionable burden?

Neither does George Bush care much about reality—not the reality created by mass immigration or the one he engineered in Iraq. He has instructed that “No one should claim that immigrants are a burden on our economy because the work and enterprise of immigrants helps sustain our economy.”

Sorry, bubbles; facts tell a different tale.

For example, it’s been estimated that “California immigrants now receive about $9.3 billion more in state expenditures than they pay in state taxes.” And “native-born Californian households paid $1,174 annually in federal, state and local taxes in a net subsidy to the immigrant presence in their state.”

The problem is not unique to “The Golden State.”

A security fence is an infinitely civilized—and passive—form of self-defense. Emperor Hadrian built a wall in 122 A.D. to keep barbarians out of Roman Britain, thus ensuring three centuries of peace. And the Chin Emperor sought the same goal when he erected the Great Wall in the third century B.C. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the Kumbaya Crowd that unlike the Roman, Chinese, Israeli, and yet-to-be-constructed American-Mexican barrier, the Iron Curtain was constructed to keep people in.

(A few hysterics have prophesied that a fence along the Mexican border will morph into a pen for Americans. They claim the totalitarian state won’t let its citizens exit. Such hyperbole usually emanates from individuals who’ve never experienced totalitarianism.
America is in trouble. Times are not good, but the United States is still the freest place I’ve lived in, and that includes the socialist Canada. Take it from someone who has lived under a dictatorship—and who left South Africa with her property (the proceeds from the sale of my apartment) stuffed in her shoes, because the state prohibits one from taking all one’s money out. )

Good Fences Apparently Don’t Make Good Neighbors

IMMIGRATION

Left-liberals and utopian libertarians cannot hear about any barrier intended to prevent undesired or undesirable human acts without launching into maudlin impersonations of the sainted Ronald Reagan, RIP. Mention a security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border, or one that separates Israeli from Palestinian territories and, on cue, these characters invoke the portentous metaphor of the Berlin Wall, deafening their opposition with shouts of, “Tear down this wall!”

The Israeli barrier has already cut by 80 percent the deaths by suicide bombers in Israel proper. To some, that’s a bad thing. The proposed 700 mile security fence along the U.S.-Mexico border has the potential to considerably reduce rampant crime against border communities—rape, murder, and property transgressions. According to researcher Edwin S. Rubenstein, “Approximately 27 percent of all prisoners in Federal custody are criminal aliens. The majority (63 percent) are citizens of Mexico.” (More on the REAL effects of this influx on crime, culture, the environment, health, labor, and national security, courtesy of Congressman Tom Tancredo.)

It will also stem the tsunami of illegals that has flooded—and devastated—schools, hospitals, and other services in these crumbling outposts, and beyond. Most illegal aliens do not come to the U.S. to wage war, but the reality is that, once in the country, almost all wage welfare. Because these are unskilled, low-wage workers, the taxpayer is compelled to supplement and subsidize every aspect of their existence.

As George Borjas, professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, has documented, since the 1965 Amendments “the United States has been granting entry visas to persons who have relatives in the United States, with no regard to their skills or economic potential.” “Immigrants today,” writes Borjas, “are less skilled than their predecessors, more likely to require public assistance, and far more likely to have children who remain in poor, segregated communities.”

Why do left-liberals and open-border libertarians ignore—or lie about—this unconscionable burden?

Neither does George Bush care much about reality—not the reality created by mass immigration or the one he engineered in Iraq. He has instructed that “No one should claim that immigrants are a burden on our economy because the work and enterprise of immigrants helps sustain our economy.”

Sorry, bubbles; facts tell a different tale.

For example, it’s been estimated that “California immigrants now receive about $9.3 billion more in state expenditures than they pay in state taxes.” And “native-born Californian households paid $1,174 annually in federal, state and local taxes in a net subsidy to the immigrant presence in their state.”

The problem is not unique to “The Golden State.”

A security fence is an infinitely civilized—and passive—form of self-defense. Emperor Hadrian built a wall in 122 A.D. to keep barbarians out of Roman Britain, thus ensuring three centuries of peace. And the Chin Emperor sought the same goal when he erected the Great Wall in the third century B.C. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to the Kumbaya Crowd that unlike the Roman, Chinese, Israeli, and yet-to-be-constructed American-Mexican barrier, the Iron Curtain was constructed to keep people in.

(A few hysterics have prophesied that a fence along the Mexican border will morph into a pen for Americans. They claim the totalitarian state won’t let its citizens exit. Such hyperbole usually emanates from individuals who’ve never experienced totalitarianism.
America is in trouble. Times are not good, but the United States is still the freest place I’ve lived in, and that includes the socialist Canada. Take it from someone who has lived under a dictatorship—and who left South Africa with her property (the proceeds from the sale of my apartment) stuffed in her shoes, because the state prohibits one from taking all one’s money out. )