Executive Director's CornerDear All: When asked about the need for order and control along the southern border, former President Bill Clinton in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said, “I agree with that. . . There is a limit to how many migrants any society can take without severe disruption and assistance, and our system is based much more on an assumption that things would be more normal.” Well, knock me over with a feather. If Clinton is saying it, it must be so. Interestingly, his sentiments today pretty much mirror those from when he was in office. In 1993 he had this to say about our policies: “Our immigration policy is focused in four areas: First, strengthening border control; second, protecting American jobs by enforcing laws against illegal immigrants at the workplace; third, deporting criminal and deportable aliens; fourth, giving assistance to states who need it, and denying illegal aliens benefits for public service or welfare.” Even more surprising are his remarks from his 1995 State of the Union address, which if uttered today, would brand him a nationalist, racist and xenophobe: “All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens. In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan. We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.” Clinton was responding to what were (and still are) legitimate immigration concerns. Granted, he appeared to be under the delusion that illegal immigration was “bad” and legal immigration was “good” thus not taking into consideration it’s the total number of immigrants that’s important. Notwithstanding, he understood the economic, societal and cultural impacts of unbridled immigration and when he spoke of the country’s ability to properly care for a large number of immigrants, he was reacting to the strain new arrivals place on our system both then and now. As example, let’s take a look at Los Angeles County a region that’s been heavily impacted by unbridled immigration and the strain of new arrivals. In 1991, one year before Clinton took office, Richard Dixon, Los Angeles County’s Chief Administrative Officer estimated the net cost of providing health, education and welfare benefits to illegal alien households was $276.2 million. Furthermore, half of the federal government’s Aid to Families with Dependent Children program in the county went to children of illegal aliens. In 1990, when Los Angeles County’s population was 8.9 million, its poverty rate was 14.9%. In 2020, at 9.8 million people, it was 14.2%; still roughly the same. Critical to understanding the significance of that lack of progress is a review of the county’s income inequality measure and GDP growth. The Gini Coefficient, a value that measures how wealth is distributed in a given population, is 0.50 for Los Angeles County for the period 2015 – 2019. This measurement indicates that the County has a greater degree of income inequality than the state of California and the U.S. for that matter. When it comes to GDP, Los Angeles is not poor compared to other counties or even countries. It’s annual GDP in current dollars is $747.5 billion. To put this in perspective, Sweden’s annual GDP in current U.S. dollars is estimated at $627.4 billion. Yet Sweden’s Gini Coefficient is .29, roughly half of Los Angeles County’s, and their poverty rate is a measly .6%. The GDP of Los Angeles County has steadily increased; in 2001 it was $388.5 billion. Yet the county’s been unable to make much of a dent lowering poverty. Moreover, it appears those experiencing the brunt of income inequality are the American Descendants of Slavery (ADOS) and homelessness rates are emblematic of this imbalance. Currently, Los Angeles County’s ADOS population is 810,286 or 9% of the total population. However, ADOS account for roughly one-third of the homeless population. Clearly, one group of citizens has been thrown overboard. Given that 42% of Los Angeles County’s population is foreign born, it seems apparent that high levels of immigration are not serving it well. After all, if immigration were the panacea to our economic ills — which many an open border proponent believes it is — shouldn’t Los Angeles County (14.9%) be experiencing far less poverty than the rest of the country (11.4%)? The late Democratic Senator from Minnesota Eugene McCarthy, warned of this in his 1992 book, Colony of the World “by our own actions we, the United States is sending a message to the world that the right to live, and receive benefits in this country is available to citizen and non-citizen alike.” He understood that the resources earmarked for the nation’s most vulnerable and established through the domestic policies we know as The Great Society would be diluted by newly arriving poor. Sadly, the harsh economic impacts of unbridled immigration over the past forty years are by no means limited to Los Angeles County or California. They’re felt in almost every major metropolitan area, today. Unbridled immigration is one of the levers globalists use to maximize their profits and one of several factors contributing to increased poverty across the U.S. Other lethal contributors are the offshoring of jobs due in large part to trade deals like NAFTA, GATT, and WTO and out of control employment visa programs namely H-1B, L-1 and Optional Practical Training that displace wage earners and professionals alike, from jobs here at home. In closing, it’s time for the Democratic Party to pivot and reimagine its stance on immigration. It must embrace the notion that an open border is not in the best interests of the United States. It is extremely harmful and impacting our ability to care for our most vulnerable citizens. After all, if President Bill Clinton said it, it must be so! In solidarity. |
Still Rocking Today!
https://youtu.be/3OH49PyOXHI |
Latest Posts
Clinton’s Post-1994 Mid-Term Immigration Awakening Hispanic Voters Trending Red |
Joe Guzzardi: Hispanic Voters Trending Red Joe Guzzardi — GOP pins hopes on ‘Commitment to America’
|
Tweet of the Month |
News Roundup
Smuggling Migrants at the Border Now a Billion-Dollar Business NYC Mayor Eric Adams: “Stop Sending” Migrant Buses! “We Have Our Own Issues Here” Elected officials in California were recorded using insults and slurs against Black Americans. Let’s talk about the alleged “Black + brown” coalition ‘Suddenly Unwoke’: AOC Mocked for Not Wanting Migrants in Her District What Pelosi’s ‘We Need Them to Pick the Crops’ Reveals Britain Has “Too Many” Low-Skilled migrants, Home Secretary Says Global Compact of Migration & Updates on Current Border Issues w/ Anthony Aguero |
Visit us on Social Media:
USTW
IfSPP
