If left to their own devices Progressives will always tell you definitively who they are and what they believe; then they will follow their irrational beliefs to their illogical conclusions.
Exhibit A (via Victory Girls):
Trump, however, has it exactly backwards: The solution to America’s immigration problems is open borders, under which the United States imposes no immigration restrictions at all. If the U.S. adopts this policy, the benefits will far outweigh the costs.
Legalize ALL immigration
Illegal immigration will disappear, by definition. Much commentary on immigration — Trump and fellow travelers aside — suggests that legal immigration is good and that illegal immigration is bad. So, legalize all immigration.
Government will then have no need to define or interpret rules about asylum, economic hardship, family reunification, family separation, DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) and so on. When all immigration is legal, these issues are irrelevant.
The question of fairness about who enters first — those who waited in line or those who entered illegally — disappears. Amnesty for existing illegal immigrants also becomes a non-issue. Or an open borders policy could require anyone who entered illegally to exit the country — for exactly five minutes — and then re-enter legally.
Think about the money we could save and make
Expenditure on immigration enforcement would shrink to nothing, because open borders means no walls, fences, screening at airports, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), deportations, detention centers or immigration courts. A 2013 report estimated that immigration enforcement cost more than $18 billion annually, and standard indicators suggest costs have grown further since then.
They will send their best
The government’s fiscal balance could actually improve with more legal immigrants earning income and paying taxes in America. And under open borders, any added immigration will plausibly come from those with even higher skills and incomes, who faced weaker incentives to immigrate when faced with the burden of current restrictions.
Expenditure on the welfare state will contract because even if immigrants vote for welfare spending, existing residents will vote for less generous benefits when they believe these accrue to recent immigrants.
Ay yi yi!
That’s never gonna work Lucy!!
There’s lots more for after you’ve had your covfefe. For now allow me to point out that this drivel was written by Jeffery Miron, Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in the Department of Economics at Harvard University, as well as Director of Economics Studies at the Cato Institute. ECONOMICS for crying out loud! At first I thought Mr. Miron was writing satire along the lines of Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal but alas, he’s serious.
Clearly the esteem that is bequeathed to academics is misguided. Do you know who else (besides Nobel Prize in economics winner, Paul Krugman) is an economist? Little Ms. SJW and Democratic Socialist of-the-moment Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez:
Ocasio-Cortez graduated from Boston University, majoring in economics and international relations, and later worked for Senator Ted Kennedy's office where she focused on immigration issues.
After graduation, she returned home and became a community organizer. However, with the recession taking hold, along with the financial issues her family faced after her father's death in 2008 from cancer, Ocasio-Cortez took multiple low-wage restaurant jobs to help keep them afloat.
Note that “took multiple low-wage restaurant jobs” to keep her family afloat is political spin for “she couldn’t even hack it as a community organizer so she went back to tending bar for tips.”
If after reading this you still don’t think there’s an education bubble you are either not really trying or you are a Progressive.
There’s a whole lot of AI going on around here.
Linked At: Free Republic, Thanks!
Posts
