Trojan Horses: 3 Liberal Policies that Secretly Push Open Borders

I've lost count of the pundits and people who call themselves comedians who refer to the absurdity of Trump.  He is an interesting and contradictory guy, but what is most notable about his presidency is how consistent, reasonable, and realistic his policies are.  His policies do not work at cross purposes.  One can disagree with his choices, but there is no basis to call them absurd.

Democrats are a different story.  They really are absurd.  Library shelves are filled with books about liberal policies that either achieve the exact opposite of the ones intended or cancel the effect of other policies.  We have before us another example with the total commitment to open and unfettered immigration.  That the desired immigration is not merit-based adds to the absurdity.

The three most cherished goals for Democrats are these.

1. Reduce carbon emissions to combat global warming (sorry – climate change).

2. Reduce income inequality, at least to the golden-age level of the 1950s.

3. Provide affordable access to health care for all Americans.

We'll look at each in turn, but pay special attention to health care, as it ties into the need for merit-based immigration.

1. Carbon emissions.  To be clear, I am not a believer in the notion that humanity faces a crisis caused by fossil fuels.  I'm not a denier.  It would be easy to convince me.  All it would take is, you know, evidence.  But this isn't about what I think.

Scratch even reasonable Democrats and you'll find an Al Gore.  They explain the urgent need to reduce our carbon footprint by burning less in fossil fuels in order to save the planet.  They really say "to save the planet."  Here is Hillary Clinton making the point as only she can. 

The crazies think we should convert everything to renewable fuels.  The slightly more rational give a little leeway to natural gas and maybe even nuclear power.  But it is the crazies, like Gov. Jerry Brown, who also push the most extreme immigration policies, including sanctuary cities and states.  By the way, it's the crazies who are likely to win Democratic primaries.

The per capita carbon footprint in the US is 15.53 metric tons.  In Mexico, it's 3.66.  Central American and most African countries are even lower than Mexico.  If the goal is stop the increase in atmospheric carbon, why maintain policies that encourage migration to the U.S.?  Why not politely and humanely encourage people to return to their countries of origin?  Instead of sanctuaries, why not a genteel version of ethnic cleansing?   

I want to say again: this is not my policy.  I just don't understand why it isn't the Dems' policy.  After all, the whole world is at stake, not to mention the polar bears.

2. Income inequality.  For years, the left made fun of the conservative qualities of the 1950s.  Lately, Democrats have discovered that there was much less income inequality in those dark times than we have today.  What was different about those days?  There were many fewer immigrants than we have today.  

We are a country of immigrants, but the flow has ebbed and crested.  From 1925 to 1965, America had much more limited immigration.  For that reason, in the '50s, it was possible to pass weeks at a time without meeting a new person of foreign birth.  Today, 46 million Americans were born in another country.  That's 15% more people than live in California.  It is the number of people who live in Spain.

It isn't just a matter of more poor people entering the country.  These immigrants compete for jobs with native-born Americans – of all races – and drive down wages across the board.  I have yet to find anyone who disputes this effect.  All that's needed to verify the connection is to look at the open borders positions of the National Association of Manufactures and the Chamber Commerce.

There is a double-edged irony here.  With sustained rapid economic growth, it is possible that the existing labor pool and even a much larger one would be needed to fill newly created jobs and sustain prosperity and still have 1950s-level wages.  In plain English, over time, a Trump economy is more likely to support additional immigration than an Obama economy.  I think that will happen, eventually. 

Until that day arrives, why are the income equality people pushing so hard for more immigration?

3. Affordable access to health care.  This is the holy grail for Democrats.  Obamacare is a feeble attempt to move in that direction.  It has many faults, and the most glaring is that it created more effective demand without increasing supply.  Current immigration policies don't help with either side of the problem.

In a SOTU address, Obama said illegals weren't eligible for Obmacare.  Rep. Joe Wilson shouted out, "You lie!"  Impolite, but not incorrect.  Even if Obama had been truthful, the mere presence of additional people, legal or not, increases the demand and therefore lengthens the line we face in getting medical care.  The line can be for some important treatments.  Oregon tried to remove an illegal alien from the liver transplant waiting list.  The ACLU intervened, and the woman is back on the list.  When that can happen anything is possible.  

In all their programs, Democrats always assume supply.  If access to medical care is provided, then presto: medical care will be provided.  Obamacare made no effort to increase the number of providers, even though the United States is facing a severe shortage of doctors and nurses.  By 2025, the shortfall in doctors will be 90,000.  Then there are nurses:

Nursing shortages have occurred in the past, but the current crisis is far worse. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there will be more than a million registered nurse openings by 2024, twice the rate seen in previous shortages. 

These shortages cause problems all along the health care system, from school nurses' offices to hospitals.  

Why would Democrats, who say they value health care as an inherent human right, not favor a merit-based system that gives preference to doctors and nurses?  There are other policies to train more providers we could try and wish we had tried, but right now, the shortages are real.  Why have a lottery system or system based on the third cousin once removed of a previous immigrant?  While it might be nice to have the company of that cousin, it might be even nicer to have a person who can set a broken leg or perform an appendectomy. 

The shortage of doctors and nurses applies to other areas as well.  Why not favor people with various skills over people randomly selected?  It's not as though we'd be breaking new ground.  Canada and Australia have this exact policy. 

Calling a group of people absurd is a little harsh, but it's actually their word pointed back at them.  Still, I'm willing to take a softer approach.  In the coming immigration debate, I'll be politely listening.  Democrats can explain how their immigration policies are like Trump's: consistent, reasonable, realistic, and designed to help the country.

I've lost count of the pundits and people who call themselves comedians who refer to the absurdity of Trump.  He is an interesting and contradictory guy, but what is most notable about his presidency is how consistent, reasonable, and realistic his policies are.  His policies do not work at cross purposes.  One can disagree with his choices, but there is no basis to call them absurd.

Democrats are a different story.  They really are absurd.  Library shelves are filled with books about liberal policies that either achieve the exact opposite of the ones intended or cancel the effect of other policies.  We have before us another example with the total commitment to open and unfettered immigration.  That the desired immigration is not merit-based adds to the absurdity.

The three most cherished goals for Democrats are these.

1. Reduce carbon emissions to combat global warming (sorry – climate change).

2. Reduce income inequality, at least to the golden-age level of the 1950s.

3. Provide affordable access to health care for all Americans.

We'll look at each in turn, but pay special attention to health care, as it ties into the need for merit-based immigration.

1. Carbon emissions.  To be clear, I am not a believer in the notion that humanity faces a crisis caused by fossil fuels.  I'm not a denier.  It would be easy to convince me.  All it would take is, you know, evidence.  But this isn't about what I think.

Scratch even reasonable Democrats and you'll find an Al Gore.  They explain the urgent need to reduce our carbon footprint by burning less in fossil fuels in order to save the planet.  They really say "to save the planet."  Here is Hillary Clinton making the point as only she can. 

The crazies think we should convert everything to renewable fuels.  The slightly more rational give a little leeway to natural gas and maybe even nuclear power.  But it is the crazies, like Gov. Jerry Brown, who also push the most extreme immigration policies, including sanctuary cities and states.  By the way, it's the crazies who are likely to win Democratic primaries.

The per capita carbon footprint in the US is 15.53 metric tons.  In Mexico, it's 3.66.  Central American and most African countries are even lower than Mexico.  If the goal is stop the increase in atmospheric carbon, why maintain policies that encourage migration to the U.S.?  Why not politely and humanely encourage people to return to their countries of origin?  Instead of sanctuaries, why not a genteel version of ethnic cleansing?   

I want to say again: this is not my policy.  I just don't understand why it isn't the Dems' policy.  After all, the whole world is at stake, not to mention the polar bears.

2. Income inequality.  For years, the left made fun of the conservative qualities of the 1950s.  Lately, Democrats have discovered that there was much less income inequality in those dark times than we have today.  What was different about those days?  There were many fewer immigrants than we have today.  

We are a country of immigrants, but the flow has ebbed and crested.  From 1925 to 1965, America had much more limited immigration.  For that reason, in the '50s, it was possible to pass weeks at a time without meeting a new person of foreign birth.  Today, 46 million Americans were born in another country.  That's 15% more people than live in California.  It is the number of people who live in Spain.

It isn't just a matter of more poor people entering the country.  These immigrants compete for jobs with native-born Americans – of all races – and drive down wages across the board.  I have yet to find anyone who disputes this effect.  All that's needed to verify the connection is to look at the open borders positions of the National Association of Manufactures and the Chamber Commerce.

There is a double-edged irony here.  With sustained rapid economic growth, it is possible that the existing labor pool and even a much larger one would be needed to fill newly created jobs and sustain prosperity and still have 1950s-level wages.  In plain English, over time, a Trump economy is more likely to support additional immigration than an Obama economy.  I think that will happen, eventually. 

Until that day arrives, why are the income equality people pushing so hard for more immigration?

3. Affordable access to health care.  This is the holy grail for Democrats.  Obamacare is a feeble attempt to move in that direction.  It has many faults, and the most glaring is that it created more effective demand without increasing supply.  Current immigration policies don't help with either side of the problem.

In a SOTU address, Obama said illegals weren't eligible for Obmacare.  Rep. Joe Wilson shouted out, "You lie!"  Impolite, but not incorrect.  Even if Obama had been truthful, the mere presence of additional people, legal or not, increases the demand and therefore lengthens the line we face in getting medical care.  The line can be for some important treatments.  Oregon tried to remove an illegal alien from the liver transplant waiting list.  The ACLU intervened, and the woman is back on the list.  When that can happen anything is possible.  

In all their programs, Democrats always assume supply.  If access to medical care is provided, then presto: medical care will be provided.  Obamacare made no effort to increase the number of providers, even though the United States is facing a severe shortage of doctors and nurses.  By 2025, the shortfall in doctors will be 90,000.  Then there are nurses:

Nursing shortages have occurred in the past, but the current crisis is far worse. The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates there will be more than a million registered nurse openings by 2024, twice the rate seen in previous shortages. 

These shortages cause problems all along the health care system, from school nurses' offices to hospitals.  

Why would Democrats, who say they value health care as an inherent human right, not favor a merit-based system that gives preference to doctors and nurses?  There are other policies to train more providers we could try and wish we had tried, but right now, the shortages are real.  Why have a lottery system or system based on the third cousin once removed of a previous immigrant?  While it might be nice to have the company of that cousin, it might be even nicer to have a person who can set a broken leg or perform an appendectomy. 

The shortage of doctors and nurses applies to other areas as well.  Why not favor people with various skills over people randomly selected?  It's not as though we'd be breaking new ground.  Canada and Australia have this exact policy. 

Calling a group of people absurd is a little harsh, but it's actually their word pointed back at them.  Still, I'm willing to take a softer approach.  In the coming immigration debate, I'll be politely listening.  Democrats can explain how their immigration policies are like Trump's: consistent, reasonable, realistic, and designed to help the country.