Student Visas

February 24, 2017

The subject of student visas aggravates me as much as illegal immigration (although we’re finally getting some great news on that front).

Why?  “What’s the problem with student visas?” you might ask.  For most, the topic probably conjures up images of foreign exchange students coming to the U.S. to experience life here and return home to spread the news about what a great place the U.S. is and to help spread our value system around the world.  Or maybe you envision students coming here for an education that can be put to work back home in some underdeveloped country, helping to raise living standards there.  But the reality of the situation is nothing like this.  The student visa program boils down to money.  It’s a system designed to suck trade dollars back into the U.S. economy and to prop up inflated tuitions.

Let’s begin with some data.  Here are the statistics for non-immigrant visas issued from 2011 through 2015.  (The data for 2016 is not yet available.)  Student visas are primarily “F” visas.  “M” visas are for vocational students.  Taken together, they totaled nearly 700,000 in 2015.  These are “non-immigrant” visas, but don’t be fooled.  A large percentage of these students receive immigrant visas (leading to permanent status) almost automatically upon graduation.

Where do these students come from?  About 280,000 came from mainland China.  75,000 came from India.  28,000 came from Saudi Arabia.  27,000 came from South Korea.  17,600 came from Vietnam.  An equal number came from Mexico.  17,000 came from Japan.  The rest are spread across the remaining nations of the world.  The significance of this list will be discussed later.

To get an idea of what the student visa program is really about, take a look at this web site, which provides information for foreign students for how to apply:

What it boils down to is this:  you have to explain why you want to study in the U.S. and, more importantly, you have to prove that you can pay for it.  There’s no student loan program here, at least not through U.S. agencies.  If you can get scholarship money from your native country, fine, but regardless of how you get the cash, you have to be able to pay your way.  You must also declare your intent to return to your home country when you’re finished with your studies.  But that’s a formality, one easily skirted when you actually get your degree.

In 2015, over 677,000 “F” visas were issued.  223,000 applicants were refused.  In other words, about three quarters of all applicants are accepted.

Now, let’s take a look at some interesting findings about the student visa program published in a study by the Brookings Institution in 2012.  Here’s the link:

“From 2008 to 2012, 85 percent of foreign students pursuing a bachelor’s degree or above attended colleges and universities in 118 metro areas that collectively accounted for 73 percent of U.S. higher education students. They contributed approximately $21.8 billion in tuition and $12.8 billion in other spending—representing a major services export—to those metropolitan economies over the five-year period.”

Got that?  They paid full tuition and living expenses, bringing over $33 billion into the economy.  And that was through 2012.  In 2015, when 25% more visas were issued than in 2012, that figure rises to over $42 billion.

Two-thirds of foreign students pursuing a bachelor’s or higher degree are in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) or business, management and marketing fields, versus 48 percent of students in the United States.

Remember how tech companies claim that they depend heavily on immigrants to provide the advanced skills that they need?

Forty-five (45) percent of foreign student graduates extend their visas to work in the same metropolitan area as their college or university.

In other words, these students then go on to become the H1-B visa workers that the tech industry (and many others) claim that they need.  So the “non-immigrant” nature of student visas, and the declaration of intent to return to their home country, is truly a joke.  Here’s further evidence that student visas are used as the pipeline for H1-B visas:

These companies who claim that they’re dependent on immigrants for the skills they need are trying to pull the wool over your eyes.  What they need are STEM graduates and they get them from American universities.  They like the fact that foreign students contribute to a glut of labor that helps to keep their payroll costs suppressed.  When Apple claims that, if immigrants aren’t allowed to travel freely to work in the U.S., then they might need to relocate to where they can have easier access to immigrant labor, that’s a “crock” and they know it.  Go ahead, Apple, move to Yemen or  Iran or Libya or one of those other countries, and let’s see how successful you can be there.  What you really need are the STEM graduates of American universities.  You won’t find them in those other places.  But what you will find are poverty, illiteracy and oppressive governments.  But you say you can do better there.  So prove it.  Just leave.  Go ahead.  Go.

There’s a mind-numbing amount of information in these links.  Let’s boil it all down:

  • Immigrants currently fill 1.2 million of the seats available in American universities.  That’s a significant percentage of the seats available.
  • Approximately three quarters of foreign students who apply are accepted.  Compare that to the acceptance rate for American students at most prominent universities, where only 10% or fewer attain admission.
  • Why the preference for foreign students?  Because they pay full tuition, propping up the ridiculous rate of tuition increases.
  • Foreign students are given preference over American students because of their ability to pay.  This effectively shuts American students out, especially from STEM curricula.
  • The influx of foreign students actually counts as an export of services.  Can you believe that?  It’s one of the tricks used by the government to draw trade dollars back into the U.S. economy and to keep our trade data from looking even worse than it does.
  • University sports teams have also gotten in on the act, now recruiting foreign students through the “student” visa program, denying athletic scholarships to deserving American athletes.  When it comes time for the Olympics, those athletes, trained in America, compete for their home countries, leaving the American teams thin.
  • Almost half of foreign students then go on to work in America, shutting American students out of those jobs as well.
  • The student visa program feeds into the H1-B visa program, which then begins to feed many of the other immigrant categories such as immediate relatives and family-sponsored preferences.

OK, remember the above list of countries that send the most students?  Did you notice anything about that list?  Did you notice that it includes the countries with whom America has the biggest trade deficits?  That should give you a clue as to where these foreign students are getting the money they need for tuition.  Their parents are getting rich on manufacturing for export to the United States.  What this means is that, in addition to taking your job, they then use your money to pay for their kids to come over here and take your kids’ jobs too!  Can this scheme possibly get any more outrageous?

If you’re an American student who hasn’t been able to get accepted into the school or program of your choice, the student visa program is probably the main reason.  If you’re a recent graduate and find yourself now saddled with crushing student loan debt, you can blame the student visa program for propping up ridiculous tuition rates.  And if you now find yourself struggling to find a job, you can once again blame the student visa program.

The student visa program is an outrage perpetrated on unsuspecting parents and students, depriving them of opportunities to help America out of its trade-created cash crisis, to help greedy universities prop up inflated tuition rates and to help corporations suppress wages with a labor glut.  It has to stop.  No foreign student should be admitted until every last American kid who wants a college education has gotten a seat in a university.  President Trump … please … take a close look at the student visa program and rein it in.

Bill Clinton on Illegal Immigration

February 14, 2017

Immigration is a subject that I’ve mostly neglected, while I’ve devoted most of my time to railing against idiotic U.S. trade policy.  In the wake of the first weeks of the Trump administration, however, the time seems right to interject a little perspective into the debate.

Over the past half century or so corporations, and their deep pockets used to fund political campaigns, have turned the subject of immigration into a growth industry.  They have used a tidal wave of immigrants to bolster their balance sheets by providing a surge in consumer demand for products and a surge in labor supply that has suppressed wages.  Legal immigration has exploded and illegal immigration has gone from a criminal activity to practically being a human right.  Americans were once almost unanimously opposed to illegal immigration and both parties opposed it, the right more than the left.

Today, it’s completely different.  The political left advocates “open borders,” and the right is almost at that point as well, barely distinguishing itself from the left with a thin veneer of support for some kind of legal process.  Against that backdrop, Trump looks downright radical now and the political left’s reaction to his early attempts to reign in illegal immigration have bordered on hysteria.

So it’s worthwhile to take a look back at Bill Clinton’s State of the Union address in 1995.  In this excerpt from his 1995 State of Union address, Clinton calls for exactly the kind of crack-down on illegal immigration that Trump has now begun to execute.

Too bad that Trump didn’t use this clip in a campaign commercial.  Nothing further needed to be said, other than “I’m Donald Trump and I approve this message.”

More perspective on immigration will soon follow.

Week 1 Done

January 28, 2017

The world is slowly awakening to a new reality.  It has profoundly changed.  And that may be an understatement.

Throughout the campaign, Trump’s “populist” rhetoric was dismissed by many – especially by those who stood to lose the most if globalization were dismantled – as exactly that, a play for votes or posturing designed to win concessions in the highly unlikely event that he would actually be elected president.  After all, this is the author of The Art of the Deal, a book about his tactics for winning in the business world.  He’s just  staking out his opening position.  Right?

During the transition, however, he doubled down on his rhetoric and stacked the cabinet mostly with people aligned with his positions.  The world grew a little more nervous.

Then came inauguration day and, I have to admit, that even I was taken aback by his speech.  It was as though he picked up a rhetorical two-by-four and began swinging at everyone who’d had a role in America’s trade mess and economic decline, and any who doubted his intentions or who stood in his way.

Now his first week in office is history, and what a week it was.  TPP (the Trans Pacific Partnership trade deal) is dead.  NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Deal) is as good as dead.  The wall on the southern border will be built.  Tariffs on Mexican imports will pay for it.  Immigration from many Middle Eastern countries has been brought to a halt.  And, in stark contrast to Obama’s visit to Mexico in the early days of presidency to discuss renegotiating NAFTA, a humiliating experience that yielded only more Mexican tariffs on American goods, Trump has put Mexico on notice.  If you can’t accept the new reality of American tariffs on Mexican imports and an all-out effort to halt illegal immigration from your country, then too bad – we have nothing to talk about.

Some seem to get it.  Some American companies have begun hedging their bets with announcements of plans to invest in American manufacturing.  Still, the world is largely in a state of denial.  Markets around the world continue to rally on optimism over the aspects of the Trump agenda that it likes – corporate tax breaks and infrastructure spending – while shrugging off the possibility that Trump means business about imposing tariffs on imports.

The world is made up of only two economies, really.  One is the economy of the more sparsely populated countries, able to gainfully employ their workers, which is dominated by the United States.  The other is the rest of the world, badly overpopulated and heavily dependent on manufacturing for export to the aforementioned countries – again, most notably, the United States.  Tariffs on imports into the U.S. will  totally alter the host-parasite relationship that exists between the two.  Those who continue to blindly invest in the economies of the latter may be making a serious mistake.

Americans have finally gotten fed up with playing the role of enabler to ever-worsening overpopulation, using immigration as a relief valve and trade to prop it up.  Trump has hastened the day when the rest of the world must face the consequences on their own.

Make America Great Again

October 25, 2016

I wonder how many post-baby boom Americans – Gen Xers and millenials – can even relate to Donald Trump’s campaign slogan.  “Make America Great Again?”  What’s not great about it now?  We’re the leader of the free world – the most powerful nation on earth.  We have a high standard of living and every modern convenience you can imagine.  We have cell phones, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.  We make ten bucks an hour schlepping lattes at Starbucks and have nice little apartments where we can go to watch The Voice and Dancing with the Stars in the evenings.  How much better could it get?

Undoubtedly, the once-great America that Trump remembers – an America that anyone under 50 is too young to have ever known – was the post-World War II America.  It was a land of almost unimaginable industrial might.  By the end of the war, the shipyards on the West Coast were building complete destroyers from the keel up in only two days.  The Willow Run bomber plant in Detroit was cranking out a new B-24 bomber every hour, day and night, seven days a week.  Other plants cranked out trucks and tanks by the thousands.  And massive steel mills all around the country that stretched for miles kept all of these plants supplied.  Neither Germany nor Japan nor any other nation on earth could even come close to matching that kind of industrial output.

When the war ended, industry transitioned back to a peacetime economy.  The factories in Detroit resumed making cars and all of the other thousands of factories around the country resumed making appliances and every other product imaginable.  American products were the envy of the world.  European cars were laughable compared to American cars.  I can remember taking Europeans for a ride in my car and their astonishment at the latest feature – cruise control.  Hell, indoor plumbing and sanitation weren’t even commonplace in Europe back then.  And Asia was downright primitive.

Anyone who was a high school graduate could get a good job at the local mill or assembly plant making enough money to buy a home and a car – as much money as a college graduate, though the college graduate would eventually earn more with experience and advancement.  Not only was the pay good, but health care was often provided for free as a benefit.  Co-pays and deductibles?  Those concepts didn’t exist.  And a good pension was a given.  Companies competed for college graduates.  Each could choose from a half dozen different offers.

The U.S. space program quickly left the Russians in the dust, putting men on the moon while the Russians had barely moved beyond sending monkeys up for a couple of orbits.  America was the world’s bread basket.  Even the Russians were dependent on American grains.  And everything about American culture – our clothing, music, movies and magazines were the envy of the world.

That’s when America was great, in a way that those who didn’t live it can’t even imagine.  But even while all this was going on, the seeds of America’s decline had already been sown.  Weary of two world wars in as many decades, the time had come to address the high rates of unemployment in overpopulated nations like Germany and Japan that had fostered the rise of its fascist leaders.  Eager to put their new, untested theory of free trade to the test, economists convinced world leaders that free trade was the route to global peace and prosperity.  So in 1947 the U.S. signed the Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, or “GATT,” beginning the process of dismantling the tariff structure that had helped build America into the world’s preeminent industrial powerhouse.

What could it hurt?  Sharing a little of the wealth seemed a small price to pay to prevent the next war, one that might doom humanity, in light of how the last one just ended with the dawn of atomic weapons.  Besides, the economists convinced us, growth in the world economy would only add to the demand for American products.

It started innocuously enough.  A few Volkswagens from Germany.  Toys and souvenirs and trinkets from Japan.  The words “made in Japan” became synonymous with “cheap junk.”  Then came small Honda motorcycles, soon to be followed by cars of the same brand – cheap, two-cycle, chain-driven death traps that were painted paisley and sold as novelty items.

But that trickle quickly evolved into a tidal wave.  By 1975 our trade surplus had vanished and our national debt, which had been shrinking dramatically since the end of World War II, began to rise again.  In the 1990s, the Clinton administration passed NAFTA, exploding our trade deficit with Mexico and then, as its closing act, granted China “most favored nation” trade status.  We all know how that went.  2016 marks our 40th consecutive year with a trade deficit.  And the $13 trillion growth in our national debt during that period can be blamed entirely on the trade deficit’s cumulative drain on the economy.

Returning to post-war America, we were a nation of 150 million people with a seemingly boundless supply of resources and wide open spaces.  During the morning rush hour, you had to wait through two traffic light changes to clear the intersection instead of one.  President Eisenhower had just commissioned the construction of the interstate highway system.  Freeways were virtually devoid of traffic.

The term “illegal alien” didn’t exist in those days.  There were migrant workers who came to harvest crops that had to be hand-picked and, when the harvest was over, they were gone.  Then, something changed.  They didn’t leave.  We began to notice large groups of Mexicans gathered in parking lots – “day laborers” waiting for pickup trucks to take them to some job site – probably a house under construction – where the contractor was happy to have the “off the books,” tax-free labor.  Now, people who had lost their jobs in the auto industry and needed construction work found themselves displaced yet again.  And our population that once grew by a million people per year began growing at two or three times that pace – even ten times that pace when you include the results of the amnesty programs for illegal aliens.  Now we’re a nation of 325 million.  In spite of that population growth, which economists call a driver of economic growth, good-paying full-time jobs are scarce and household incomes and net worth, for all but the top few percent, are declining.

Born two years after the signing of GATT, at the age of 67, I can honestly say that I have never once seen my country stand up for its citizens and workers.  Oh, there’s been plenty of times when our military has asserted itself, often ill-advisedly, in some foreign conflict.  But I’m talking primarily about trade negotiations, but also other diplomatic negotiations, like deals to keep North Korea in check or, more recently, Iran.  Not one damn time do I remember the U.S. coming away with a deal that was good for American workers.  Can you?  If so, please feel free to refresh my memory.

There’s a very solid reason why free trade and globalization have failed Americans.  It’s the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption at work.  Instead of being an engine of economic growth, our population growth has been cancerous and toxic, eating away at per capita consumption.  And by co-mingling our economy with those of grossly overpopulated nations, the effect has been accelerated.  The result is that young Americans face the prospect of being the first generation to fare more poorly than their parents.

By far, the two factors most critical to restoring America to its nearly-forgotten greatness are first a dramatic shift in trade policy away from “free” trade to a focus on balance.  All trade deals must be based on the premise that the U.S. will buy from its trade partners no more than they are willing to buy from us.  Contrast that with today’s trade policy that says, “If you can make it and get it here, we’ll buy it.”

Second, run-away population growth that is fueled almost entirely by equal parts of both legal and illegal immigration must be reined in.  Illegal immigration is the place to start.  But even legal immigration needs to be dramatically curtailed.

Donald Trump is the first candidate in my long memory who has promised to do exactly these two things – to tear up existing trade deals and start over, putting America first, and putting an end to illegal immigration.

I personally don’t much like Donald Trump.  Never have.  It’s a shame that this message has been overshadowed by some of his antics and the things he’s said that have been caught by open mics.  But as someone who attended an all-male high school, followed by an all-male university, followed by three years in the navy, you can believe me when I say I’ve heard worse things spoken more commonly than some would like to believe.  But that’s not an excuse for his behavior.

It’s like this:  imagine that we’re at war, and it’s going badly.  We need to replace the general in charge.  He’s a nice guy, one we’re all proud to serve under and be associated with, but ineffective.  We have two candidates in mind to replace him.  One is similar – a great person but just as ineffective and likely to yield the same results.  The other is a foul SOB, but one who knows how to kick ass and get things done.  Like I said, it’s a war.  Do we want to win or don’t we?  There are times when the latter choice is the right one, and this is one of those times.

In two weeks we have a chance to reverse America’s decline.  We have a chance to put an end to our role as the host in globalization’s host-parasite relationship.  It’s a chance that I began to doubt would ever come.  It may not come again. Let’s stand up for America for a change.




Boston Globe Satire of Trump

April 12, 2016

A few days ago, the Boston Globe published this hypothetical, satirical front page dated April 9, 2017, which would be three months into a Trump presidency.

Boston Globe

I’ll be the first to admit that some of the kinds of things that Trump has proposed – the same things I’ve advocated for years – a drastic reduction in immigration (especially illegal immigration) and a total overhaul of trade policy that would rely on the targeted use of tariffs to restore a balance of trade – is scary stuff to a lot of people and to the media as well.

In fact, the April, 2017 edition of the Boston Globe could actually look very much like what the Boston Globe has proposed, at least in terms of the headlines.  (I didn’t bother to read the accompanying articles, not having that much time to waste.)  No doubt, deportations would begin – as they well should.  And we could very well witness a drop in the stock market – “Markets sink as trade war looms.”  Big deal.  The market sinks about every other day for one reason or another, usually followed the next day by a headline that reads “Markets jump as … ”  The headline about ISIS?  That’s a ridiculous stretch.

But this satire begs the question as to what the same front page might look like otherwise?  So I took a little time to have some fun with this.  Suppose there were to be a third term of Obama, or perhaps someone like him who would continue the same policies.  Here’s how that front page might look:

Boston Globe Alternative

(I only altered the headlines.)  The point is, is this any less scary?  Some of it may sound a little over-the-top, just as the original Boston Globe satire did, but it’s merely an extrapolation of where we’re headed if we keep pursuing Obama’s policies on immigration and trade.

Or maybe it would be more helpful to ponder what a Trump presidency (or any presidency willing to tackle illegal immigration and trade policy) would look like a year down the road, on Monday, April 9, 2018 after all the hysteria has settled down.  Maybe then the front page of the Boston Globe would look more like this:

Boston Globe Alternative 2

(Again, only the headlines have been altered.)  Wouldn’t you love to see those kinds of headlines?  That’s the kind of news we haven’t read in a long time – for decades.  It’s the kind of headlines that could only be made possible by a president with the backbone to tackle the trade and immigration issues.

Immigration, Muslims and Trump

December 11, 2015

Since economic damage caused by immigration-fueled population growth is one of the key themes of this blog, and since immigration has been a red-hot topic in the media for the past few weeks, it may seem strange to my readers that I’ve been conspicuously silent on the topic.  I’ve been debating whether to wade into this subject, since my focus has been the sheer volume of immigration and not how it relates to any particular group of people.  But Trump’s proposal to ban Muslim immigrants has raised the issue to such a fever pitch that I feel compelled to weigh in.

Trump began the debate on immigration with his position on illegal immigration.  He has a way of alienating many people with inelegant rhetoric, calling Mexican illegals murderers and rapists, but his concern with illegal immigration is a valid one that taps into a deep-seated disgust among the American people with politicians who, for decades, have turned a blind eye to the problem or, as in the case of our current president, actually encourages it.

Then came the Syrian refugee crisis, and many openly worried about the possibility of Islamic extremists hiding among them.  As if on cue came the Paris attacks and, sure enough, among the perpetrators was one who had recently entered Europe as a “refugee.”  Don’t worry, our politicians and bureaucrats assured us, we’re doing everything possible to make sure that such people are screened out of our immigrant pool.  Here it should be noted that many Republican governors, and even some Democrats, vowed that no Syrian refugees would be allowed to settle in their states – a position that seems little different that the one taken by Trump.

Again, almost as if on cue, we get the terrorist attack in San Bernardino.  In spite of the Obama administration’s reluctance to label it a terrorist attack by Islamic extremists, it was quickly obvious to all that that is exactly what it was.  In spite of the government’s assurances that ISIS sympathizers and other jihadists are monitored by the FBI, we now know that the perpetrators had been planning such events for years right under the FBI’s nose and nobody noticed.  So Trump, in his usual fashion of addressing a valid issue in a way that offends, called for a complete shutdown of all immigration by Muslims.

While all politicians and world leaders have been quick to condemn his remarks, polls have shown a lot of agreement among the American people.  Those who agree with Trump can, at the very least, be forgiven.  Americans value tolerance and freedom.  It’s written into our constitution.  But there’s only so much that people can take.

It all started slowly enough, beginning with the American hostage crisis in Iran in 1979.  In 1993 came the World Trade Center bombing which failed to bring down the building, but did kill six people.  In 2001, the “911” attack did bring the buildings down and killed over 3,000 people.  In 2006, Mohammed Reza Tahiri-azar plowed his SUV into a group of pedestrians at UNC-Chapel Hill to avenge the murders of Muslims around the world.  In 2009 there was the massacre at Fort Hood.  In 2013 there was the Boston marathon bombing.  In 2014 there was the New York City hatchet attack on police officers.  Later in 2015, four marines were killed at a recruiting center in Chattanooga.  A sailor was later killed by the same attacker at a naval reserve center.  Finally, there is the massacre in San Bernardino that prompted Trump’s remarks.  The frequency of these Islamic extremist terrorist attacks is increasing exponentially.  In addition to these attacks in the U.S., Americans are subjected daily to a litany of attacks throughout the world including ISIS beheadings and a Jordanian pilot who was burned alive.

To be fair, not all terrorist attacks are the works of Islamic extremists.  There have been attacks by the KKK, left wing extremists, right wing extremists, white supremacists, anti-Semites, black radicals, Christian radicals and eco-terrorists.  However, among the 59 terrorist attacks chronicled by Wikipedia in the U.S. since 1990, nineteen were perpetrated by Muslims.  Of the 3,351 people killed in terrorist attacks since 1990, 3,158 of them died in attacks perpetrated by Muslims.  To put this into perspective, in a nation where Muslims represent about 1% of the population, they have accounted for 32% of the terrorist attacks since 1990 and 94% of the deaths in those attacks.  In a society as diverse as that of the U.S., there are going to be “nut jobs” of every stripe.  But the above statistics seem to speak to a greater propensity among the followers of Islam toward such violence.

In the wake of such attacks, we are told that these people do not represent Islam, but some sort of perversion of Islam.  On this past Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Chuck Todd dared to ask the question, “Is the Islamic extremism espoused by ISIS a warped distortion of Islam? Or does it tap into a strain of Islamic thought?”  One of the panelists – Asra Nomani, author of Standing Alone:  An American Woman’s Struggle for the Soul of Islam, had the following things to say on the subject:

… we are opposing a very real interpretation of Islam that espouses violence, social injustice, and political Islam.

… The problem is sitting in the birthplace of Islam, in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, where this interpretation of Islam has gone out into the world over the last four decades, creating militancy groups from Indonesia, to now, San Bernardino, California …

… There are hundreds and hundreds of followers of Islamic State around Europe and the U.S. The Saudis are showing this. And all you have to do is look at the conversation inside of our mosques and inside of our communities. And you will hear it. And I hear it. And I have to say that I saw it in 2002, went to Islamabad, Pakistan, and met women who were supporting this ideology. I call them the Taliban Ladies Auxiliary back then. This young woman in California would’ve been a star member of it.

That the Koran speaks of infidels and seems to justify waging holy war (jihad) against them is indisputable fact.  I think the question is how literally this is interpreted and how seriously it is taken by Muslims.  This lady, who clearly knows what she’s talking about, believes that, at least in the Middle East, it is not just a “strain of Islamic thought” but a rather prominent belief system.

That’s probably not the case among American Muslims.  It seems logical that people who have such a belief system would not willingly migrate to such a land of infidels as the U.S. – what some in the Middle East refer to as “The Great Satan.”  But it’s also logical to believe that a small number would, perhaps rationalizing it as a way of positioning themselves for jihad.

So what’s to be done to protect ourselves from more Islamic extremist attacks in the future?  As justification of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan to take on extremists, we were told that “we must fight them over there so that we don’t have to fight them here at home.”  It always begged the obvious question that no one ever dared to ask.  “If they are over there, why would we ever have to fight them here unless you let them in?”  It never made any sense.

Today, as we’ve done for decades, the U.S. admits roughly a million legal immigrants each year.  (Another million enter illegally.) In recent years, that pool of legal immigrants has included probably 100-200,000 Muslims from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.  Our leaders assure us that all of these immigrants are thoroughly vetted.  Really?  Do you believe that the government is really able to do that? It certainly doesn’t seem so, when the FBI admits that it’s currently tracking thousands of ISIS sympathizers in the U.S. and has made over 70 arrests this past year. It’s impossible to accurately screen that volume of immigrants and to monitor that many extremists. What we’ve learned about the San Bernardino attackers makes it clear that the authorities missed a lot of obvious red flags. Can there be any doubt that they’re missing others? How long before they attack?

There are three major factors involved in mass shootings. One is the mental health of assailants as we’ve seen in the cases of the Aurora, CO theater massacre and the slaughter of kids in Newtown. Second is the issue of gun control. There’s more that needs to be done to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally deranged and known extremists. But, in the cases of terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslim immigrants (or, in some cases, by the succeeding generation that feels alienated), there has been an obvious failure of immigration policy. Finally someone, however clumsily, has identified what needs to be done – a drastic reduction in Muslim immigration.

“We’re a nation of immigrants,” we’re told. Well, first of all, I suspect that native Americans bristle at that statement. In fact, we were, at first, a nation of invaders and conquerors. Then came the immigrants. And why not? We were a vast land that was virtually uninhabited. The plaque at the base of Lady Liberty proclaims, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free …” So many have come that we now have our own huddled masses, tired and poor, stacked like cord wood in the inner cities. We’ve reached the point where overcrowding is eroding our ability to gainfully employ everyone. So, yes, we are a nation of immigrants. But it’s impossible to keep up the pace. This isn’t the early 1900s any more.

“That’s not who we are,” we’re told in response to the idea of excluding muslims from further immigration. “It’s unconstitutional.” Actually, it’s not unconstitutional. The supreme court has consistently maintained that the rights and freedoms promised in our constitution apply to U.S. citizens and do not extend to foreigners. We have a long-standing practice of discriminating when it comes to deciding who should be granted the privilege of citizenship. Besides, although we believe in freedom of religion, what are we to do when a group of people – that “strain of Islam” that seems common in the Middle East – uses our values and sensibilities as a weapon against us? How are we to deal with a religion that justifies – even promotes – murdering “infidels?”

Our leaders would have us believe that we really have only one option – to fight and defeat them “over there.” That strategy has been a proven failure in Iraq and Afghanistan. When we feel we have accomplished our mission, creating conditions for a democratic election, we draw down. As soon as we do, extremists move back in to fill the vacuum. And all too often, the democratic process that we fought so hard and paid so dearly to establish is simply used to pick the next theocratic dictator. In the end, the situation is worse.  It’s impossible to end the sectarian violence in that part of the world.

“We can’t give in to terror,” we’re told. “That’s exactly what they want us to do!” Really? Is that all these Islamic extremists really want? Fear? Terror? That doesn’t seem like a very lofty goal for martyrdom. What they really want is to rid the world of infidels, or at least their part of it.

Fine, I say, let’s give them what they want. (Remember the old saying, “Be careful what you wish for?”) They want their own culture and society, free of the influences of western civilization.  So let’s leave them alone. We don’t need their oil any more and they don’t need to be offended by the products of western society – and that includes food and medicine. Perhaps it’s time to halt all trade with the Islamic world, and halt all trade with any other nation who doesn’t do the same. We have fallen into a trap of wielding only our military might to address problem areas in the world. We grossly underestimate the power that cutting off access to our market would have.

A little harsh, you might say. Maybe. So we have another tool at our disposal – immigration policy.  The choice is to either do something about our immigration policy to assure that Islamic extremists are excluded from the immigrant pool, or to simply accept that terrorist attacks will continue and write off dead Americans as collateral damage – a price we’re willing to pay.  No one would choose the latter, though our leaders seem to be doing exactly that.

Trump has proposed a total ban on Muslim immigration as the way to make ourselves safe. But there is another way to do it without discriminating against Muslims, and that is to drastically reduce all immigration. In Five Short Blasts I proposed reducing immigration to the point where it is no longer a factor in population growth. That would be a level of about 50,000 immigrants per year vs. over a million per year today. If Muslims were represented in that group in proportion to their total population in the world (in other words, no discrimination whatsoever), then the number of muslim immigrants would decline to about 10,000. That would be about a 95% cut in Muslim immigration without resorting to any discrimination, and the reduction in total immigration would be a huge boost to our long-term economic outlook.  It would reduce the task of scrutinizing immigrants to a manageable level.

We Americans have reached the limits of our tolerance. We can’t take this any more. It’s time for action and time for new policies that will do the job. If you don’t have the stomach for Trump’s approach, that’s fine. I’ve offered an alternative here that would do the job just as well. Either way, something has to be done about immigration.

Republicans Oppose Legal Immigration?!?!

July 9, 2015

I haven’t posted much about immigration for quite some time.  Frankly, I’ve been pretty demoralized by the subject.  Both Democrats and Republicans have been stumbling over each other in a race to pander to the Hispanic vote.  America is evolving into a place where anything goes, everything’s accepted and immigration is no different.  Immigration laws are meaningless.  Illegals roam the streets of sanctuary cities with impunity and Americans know it’s pointless to protest.  No one will listen.

But immigration has suddenly become a hot topic for some rather bizarre reasons.  It began with Donald Trump’s bigoted comments about Mexican immigrants.  There’s a lot of valid reasons for opposing illegal immigration from Mexico, but claiming that the majority are criminals (aside from the fact that they’ve broken immigration laws), murderers and rapists simply isn’t valid – not even close.  So what happens?  As if on cue and as if to prove Trump’s point, some illegal Mexican criminal in San Francisco – a “sanctuary city” – randomly guns down some lady.  I generally consider Trump a buffoon who revels basking in the limelight and is devoid of any political sense.  But I am so disgusted with our immigration situation that I can actually see myself voting for him.  Apparently, a lot of others feel the same way since Trump has been surging in the polls since making his immigration statement.

And then comes this piece that appeared on Reuters a couple of days ago and I thought that the earth must have tilted on its axis when I read it.  Republicans actually questioning whether legal immigration needs to be scaled back!  For decades, both parties have been big proponents of legal immigration, if for no other reason than to placate their deep-pocket corporate benefactors who use immigration to hold down wages and to swell the ranks of consumers for their products.  But now it seems that some Republicans see an opportunity to tap into voters’ frustration with immigration policy.  Or, as the writer proposes, perhaps they’re getting nervous that the immigrant population – traditionally Democratic voters – has grown to the point that it threatens the continued existence of the Republican party.

There are some statements in this article that I can’t let stand without comment:

“It could also complicate prospects for a comprehensive fix to the nation’s outdated immigration system …”

I want to scream every time I hear this!  There is nothing broken or outdated about our immigration system.  The problem is that our politicians are unwilling to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws.  It makes them look bad in the eyes of Hispanic voters.

Since 1989, the United States has been letting in about 1 million new immigrants per year, a level comparable to the last great wave of European immigration at the turn of the 20th Century. The Census Bureau estimates there are now 43.3 million foreign-born residents in the United States and within 10 years immigrants will account for 15 percent of the population, a record high.

It’s worth noting here that, at the turn of the 20th century, the U.S. population was approximately 76 million people.  Since then, it has quadrupled to 320 million.  By the end of this century it will be 500 million.  Virtually all of this growth has been due to immigration.  America – a land of opportunity, amber waves of grain, mountains and fruited plains in 1900 – has been transformed into an overcrowded urban jungle where opportunity is a thing of the past for the majority of middle-class Americans.  This isn’t 1900 any more.  Where the Statue of Liberty once beckoned the huddled masses of the world, we now have our own huddled masses, stacked like cord wood in the inner cities where the “American Dream” has become a joke.

“… Jeb Bush, the front runner in the Republican race, says more legal immigrants are needed to boost economic growth while South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham says they can help care for an aging population.”

Yes, immigration does boost macroeconomic growth, but it grows the labor force even more, and the net result is that, while corporations’ sales volumes grow, Americans are worse off.  And the notion that immigrants can care for an aging population is a Ponzi scheme.  The result is that those same immigrants will soon become an even larger, and probably poorer, aging population.

“Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has said higher levels of legal immigration would lead to lower levels of illegal immigration …”

Senator Paul gets the prize for stating the obvious.

“Economists have generally found that immigration has little to no effect on wages over the long term. Some argue that immigration has boosted overall wages because immigrants create more demand for goods and services and they generally do not directly compete with U.S.-born workers for the same jobs.”

The breach in logic here is astounding.  If immigrants don’t compete with U.S.-born workers for jobs, then who do they compete with?  The previous wave of immigrants?  That’s the implication.  So if those immigrants are then pushed out of their jobs by the new arrivals, then those immigrants now have to compete with U.S.-born workers for their jobs.  And the suggestion that immigrants drive up wages by creating more demand is preposterous.  That could only be true if they consume more than the average American.  Because their wages are low, they obviously consume far less, but still swell the ranks of the labor force, driving down wages.  Like everything else, labor responds to the laws of supply and demand.  Increase the supply and it puts downward pressure on wages.

In the long run, immigration simply feeds into the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption, driving up unemployment and poverty.  Isn’t that exactly what we’ve been seeing happen for decades?

Forgive my cynicism, but I don’t trust anything that any political candidate says, especially if it runs counter to the wishes of their corporate benefactors.  But it is encouraging to hear some Republicans beginning to question the wisdom of the immigration policy that will assuredly ruin our country over the long run.



“The Best and the Brightest”

July 8, 2014

This story (link provided above) is a couple of days old but still relevant, given the continuing and escalating anger over the illegal immigration situation that has a hundred thousand children per year pouring across our border.  As busy as things have been for me this past week, I couldn’t let it pass.

Commenting on the issue, President Obama remarked that:

It’s in our DNA. … We shouldn’t be making it harder for the best and brightest to come here.

The statement is so illogical and insulting to the American people that journalists should be ashamed for letting it pass without challenge.  First of all, what we’re talking about here is the entry of illegal immigrants.  No one is giving them IQ or aptitude tests upon crossing the border to determine whether they represent the “best and brightest.”

Secondly, the remark implies that America is short on “best and brightest” qualities – that too many Americans are among the “worst and dumbest,” making it necessary to import superior people.  It also implies that the degree of goodness and intelligence is something inherent in one’s make-up – something that can’t be developed through education and training.  It says we’d rather  import people with skills and training that may be in short supply (though the data proves that we have no such situations), rather than invest in training and education.  It says that if you’re in a disadvantaged situation in America – tough.  We’ll import someone else and give them all the advantages.

And a question that’s never asked is why the “best and brightest” want to come here in the first place.  The stated reasons are because they are fleeing this or that or, more often, because they’re seeking a better life.  What’s unsaid is that those are euphemisms for what they’re really fleeing – the effects of overpopulation in their home countries.  So how much sense does it make to pursue immigration policies that guarantee that our own country will eventually come to the same fate?

The arguments in favor of high rates of immigration are pure BS.  The president is merely caving to business interests who want to maintain downward pressure on wages through an over-supply of labor and who, secondarily, see a growing population as a growing customer base that will swell the bottom line.  Who cares that it steadily erodes the quality of life of everyone but the top 1%?

Immigrants are no magic elixir for our economy.  They are merely people, no different that the rest of us.  In the final analysis, the only effect of immigration, legal or otherwise, is to grow our population.  Any discussion of immigration policy that isn’t in that context makes no sense whatsoever.  We have to begin by asking ourselves whether it makes sense to add workers to the labor force while fifteen million Americans are still out of work.  Does it make sense to add oil consumers when we’re already heavily dependent on imported oil?  Does it make sense to add carbon emitters when the challenge of meeting commitments to reduce carbon emissions already threatens to erode our quality of life?  Does it make sense to increase the demand for social safety net services when we already can’t afford them?  Does it make sense to increase the stress and strain on our resources and environment when they’re already near the breaking point?

I voted for Obama in the first election because I thought he favored the interests of the American people over the interests of global corporations.  What a disappointment.  Contrary to outward appearances, he clearly either lacks the intelligence to connect the dots between population growth and a host of critical issues (perhaps he doesn’t represent the “best and brightest?”), or is just another politician beholden to the deep pockets who put him in office.


Per Capita GDP in Decline

July 3, 2014

The country is in an uproar over the immigration crisis that Obama’s refusal to enforce the laws has left us in and, at the same time, I find myself with limited time for writing posts.  You can read opinion pieces on the immigration mess anywhere and everywhere right now.  So I though a better use of my time would be to focus on the recent downward revision in GDP (gross domestic product) and use it as an example as to why America’s ridiculously high rate of legal immigration – not to mention Obama’s refusal to enforce the border and deport illegal immigrants – is so bad for the American economy.

The BEA (bureau of economic analysis) last week dramatically lowered its final reading of GDP for the 1st quarter to an annual rate of decline of 2.9%.  The harsh winter took much of the blame.  Adjusted for inflation, GDP still remains higher than it was in the 3rd quarter of 2013.  And it’s risen by nearly a trillion dollars since the 4th quarter of 2007, when the recession first began.

But you shouldn’t care about overall GDP.  What matters is each American’s slice of the pie, or per capita GDP.  When population growth is taken into account, per capita GDP fell to its lowest level since the 2nd quarter of 2013.  And it’s barely budged in the past seven years (going back to the 4th quarter of 2007 again).  Here’s the chart:  Real Per Capita GDP.

Since the end of 2007, per capita GDP has risen by only $317 per person, an annual rate of increase of only 0.09%.  That includes all Americans, and it’s been widely reported that all of the gains are concentrated in the top 1% of Americans.  Take away that top 1%, and per capita GDP has actually declined during the supposed “recovery” that has taken place since the end of the recession.  And that’s in spite of a trillion dollars in stimulus spending by the federal government and four trillion dollars of stimulus provided by the Federal Reserve.  Imagine how bad it’d be if we took away that $5 trillion that has been poured into the economy in the past seven years.

Declining per capita GDP is one of the outcomes predicted by the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption (which is inextricably linked to per capita employment).  As our population continues to grow beyond its optimal level (thanks entirely to both legal and illegal immigration), it’s inescapable that per capita GDP will decline, even as overall GDP continues to grow slowly.

In other words, immigration is the driving force behind a decline in Americans’ quality of life.  Yet, the deep pockets that fund our politicians continue to advocate for increased immigration and population growth.  They want more consumers to grow their bottom lines.

The Labor Shortage Hoax

June 27, 2014

I haven’t posted much lately because it’s been a tough few weeks, with the worst re-aggravation of an old back injury that I’ve experienced in 25 years.  But I’ve finally overcome it!

The following article appeared in the most recent edition of the FAIR Immigration Report.  “FAIR” is the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a lobbying group that works for tougher enforcement of the border, deportation of illegals and lower rates of legal immigration.

The article takes on the hoax perpetrated by business lobbying groups that we need more immigration because of labor shortages (both in skilled and unskilled labor).  I can’t say it better myself, so enjoy the article:  FAIR article.