- Text smaller
- Text bigger
You ever read something so stupid, you weren’t immediately sure if it was supposed to be hyperbole? Harry Binswanger, an acolyte of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, just published what amounts to the most asinine column in the history of columns – published at Forbes.com, it’s titled, “Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Is Not Enough, They Deserve An Apology.”
Atlas didn’t shrug because of the growth of the state; Atlas shrugged because of this piece by Binswanger, hoping to shake individuals such as him off his back. It is these open-border fanatics who advocate the same policies that turned the once golden state of California into the actual manifestation of their ideas.
And yet, Binswanger is still delusional enough to believe that illegal aliens are the answer to creating Rand’s fabled “Galt’s Gulch.”
Take this line from his Forbes.com piece:
“The illegals came here because they value America. They broke an unjust law in order to live a free, better, richer life. In the vast majority of cases, obeying anti-immigration laws would mean never getting to live here. It’s a life sentence.”
Illegal aliens don’t value America – they value the type of conditions Americans have created in America, which, absent of actual Americans, don’t exist.
As was the case with California, those conditions “illegals value” began to crumble when the actual American people were replaced with a population of illegal aliens dependent on the state for their very existence.
If the American government actually enforced our laws and protected the integrity of our border, there would be no threat from illegal aliens, and the American people would be able to live a “free, better, richer life” instead of watching their tax dollars be redistributed to pay for what amounts to colonization.
Sadly, many conservatives and members of the Republican Party believe that throwing up the white flag and surrendering to this colonization is the best way to move the party forward and remain competitive in future national elections.
It’s curious that Binswinger and other conservatives seem so keen to consider an ethnic group that believes, by a vast majority, in abortion rights, gay marriage and bigger government to be viable additions to their movement in America.
Bloomberg BusinessWeek reported that powerful exit data showed the GOP would have to adopt the Democratic position on a number of key issues to attract Hispanic voters:
“Take the repeal of Obamacare, a conservative rallying point that was central to Romney’s campaign. The Latino Decisions exit poll showed that by a large margin, 61-25 percent, Hispanics want to keep the health-care law in place. On the other great Republican obsession, deficit reduction, Hispanics once again differ sharply with Republicans about what to do: 77 percent of Hispanics want to pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthy or combining higher taxes with spending cuts; only 12 percent favor cuts alone. And contra [Charles] Krauthammer, they don’t share the Republican position on abortion: Exit polls showed that 66 percent of Hispanics believe abortion should be legal, a higher percentage than the population overall.”
All the while the state of California stands there as a shining example of a “objectivist” paradise, where the GOP has absolutely no chance of ever carrying the state in a presidential election again.
Luckily for those right-thinking American’s who believe that amnesty for 10-20 million illegal aliens spells the absolute doom of the nation (the “Californication of the nation”) an academic from the University of Houston has published a study that blows apart the idea that pro-immigration Republicans will do well with Latino voters.
Dr. George Hawley’s study shows that:
- Among House Republican incumbents in 2006 there was a great deal of variation in immigration voting records.
- Latinos living in congressional districts with pro-immigration Republican incumbents were no more likely to support the incumbent than Latinos living in districts with Republican incumbents with more restrictive immigration records.
- Adopting pro-immigration policies is unlikely to increase the Republican share of the Latino vote based on these results.
- There is some evidence that pro-immigration Republican incumbents did worse among non-Hispanic whites, indicating that supporting amnesties is likely to cost Republicans votes among non-Hispanic white voters.
- These findings are consistent with what occurred after the 1986 IRCA amnesty for illegal immigrants, signed by President Reagan. The Republican Party lost Latino support from the 1984 to the 1988 presidential election.
Hawley’s analysis is devastating to those conservatives and Republicans prepared to raise the white flag on the immigration issue and believe they can “live más” with the consequences.
It’s just as foolish an idea as believing Binswanger is correct when he claims we owe illegal aliens an apology.
If anyone is owed an apology, it’s the American people; for decades, elected representatives to our government (Republican and Democrat) and unelected, unaccountable employees of both the State Department and the Department of Justice have sided with illegal aliens.
Meanwhile, the state of California in 2013 is a vivid, powerful reminder of what happens when the government decides to “elect a new people” by displacing Americans who were responsible and creating the economic conditions that attracted the illegal immigrants there in the first place.