More "Bitter Clingers"?
Today, President Obama spoke at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast. A transcript of his remarks is here.
The part that really jumped out at me was when the President asserted that "[immigration] is a subject that can expose raw feelings and feed our fears of change. It can be tempting to think that those coming to America today are somehow different from us."
Typical Obama move -- reminiscent of the "bitter clingers" remark, isn't it? Anybody who isn't for his version of "immigration reform" (i.e., amnesty) is nothing but a bigot with a pathological fear of "change." Rarely has a President insulted so many of his fellow Americans with such regularity.
Just for the record: Very few Americans oppose all immigration -- rather, they oppose illegal immigration, and the attack on our sovereignty that results from the Obama administration's non-enforcement of the immigration laws on the books. The issue isn't about "change" or "difference" or bigotry . . . it's about the rule of law.
If the President actually stopped the flow of illegal immigrants into this country -- and contrary to his claims, the metric isn't how many people the government employs to do this, but how well they succeed -- I bet he'd be amazed at how open Americans in both parties would be to solving the remaining immigration issues.
SOURCE
Mass immigration ‘has made the UK’s poor even poorer’
Ministers drew a link for the first time yesterday between large-scale immigration and rising levels of poverty among low-paid workers.
Iain Duncan Smith said that Labour’s open door to migration meant tens of thousands more people were chasing unskilled jobs – and that in turn meant many gave up on work for a life on benefits.
The Work and Pensions Secretary named immigration as one of the causes of rising distress among low-skilled workers after the latest official breakdown showed working-age adult poverty has reached its highest level in 50 years.
The figures showed slightly less poverty last year among children and pensioners, and average take-home incomes went up.
But the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies said this was mainly because of increasing state benefits and tax credits in the year before the general election. It predicted record falls in incomes and a vicious squeeze on living standards this year.
The poverty figures showed that 5.7million working-age people were living below the Government’s poverty line in the financial year that ended in April 2010, a rise of 700,000 in five years between 2004 and 2009.
The IFS said the 16 per cent of working-age people now below the poverty line is the highest since it started compiling its own records in 1961.
However, the great bulk of the increase did not come during the recession years after 2007, when unemployment began to rise, but in the three years between 2004 and 2007.
This was the period when the economy was booming – attracting one and a half million Poles and other Eastern Europeans who came to work in Britain after the borders were opened when their countries joined the EU. Immigration from other parts of the world was also running at unprecedentedly high levels over the three years.
Mr Duncan Smith said: ‘Labour’s open-door immigration policy meant that the competition for low skill jobs in many areas increased, and a life on benefits became a more attractive option than a life in work. ‘That’s why this Government is doing the responsible thing and reforming the welfare state and tightening up on immigration to get Britain working and end the madness of generations living on benefits with no higher aspiration.’
Labour ministers defended high immigration on the grounds that it benefited the economy.
The poverty figures, however, suggest there was force behind the arguments of critics of immigration who said the benefits were felt only by the well-off – and those on low incomes were facing greater competition for work and lower pay.
According to the Households Below Average Incomes report, the share of working-age adults in poverty – below 60 per cent of median income – stood at 14 per cent in 2004. Last year it reached 16 per cent.
Mr Duncan Smith said that despite the falls in official poverty levels, inequality is at record levels and working people have borne the brunt of paying for the state benefits that gave better living standards to the workless. ‘These figures lay bare the growth of income inequality in the UK which is now the highest it has ever been,’ he said.
He added that ‘benefit [welfare] dependency and worklessness (had been made) inherent to the UK way of life with middle and low income earners picking up the bill.’
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment