Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    David Frum gets it right on amnesty

    David Frum gets it right on amnesty

    I’ve been a pretty harsh critic of David Frum, but when he gets something right, I’m willing to acknowledge it.

    And he’s right about the pro-amnesty wave taking over the Republican Party, which mistakenly thinks rewarding lawlessness is a good thing.

    Frum writes, Immigration Amnesty: The Path to Poverty:

    The United States is already evolving into a society much harsher and less hospitable for the less-skilled. Yet American elites seem determined to enlarge and perpetuate a problem they already don’t know how to solve: how to create economic opportunities for the least economically competitive half of the population.

    Yesterday, the Center for American Progress released a study of the projected economic effects of the president’s immigration proposals. It asserted that immediate full amnesty – residency plus citizenship – would raise immigrant incomes and thereby government revenues.

    Over 10 years, that additional tax revenue would sum to $184 billion—$116 billion to the federal government and $68 billion to state and local governments.

    CAP gets its impressive number with a crummy trick: omitting the increased costs of legalization. Previously illegal immigrants will become eligible for Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits, unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other federal and state programs. Because the illegals are predominantly very low-income, their demand on such programs will be heavy – and not only long-term, but likely multigenerational.

    Why on earth would we deliberately expand the ranks of the least skilled by tens of millions more people imported from abroad, whose grandchildren and great-grandchildren will still require government aid into the 22nd century? That’s the question to keep in mind as the American elite tumbles its way to unthinking consensus in favor of a second large immigration amnesty in 30 years.

    Needless to say, the commenters to the article at The Daily Beast are unhappy.

    Frum is not alone.  Is it any wonder that unions are fighting below the radar to torpedo immigration “reform”?

    Immigration amnesty simply will add to the employment gloom:

    If the FOMC members are right, then the economy is never going to return to its previous full-employment potential.

    There are other, more political, reasons not to succumb to the amnesty narrative being fed us, as Ann Coulter points out:

    Perplexingly, some Republicans seem determined to turn the whole nation into California, in the foolish hope of winning one last election.

    Frum and Coulter agree on the foolishness of amnesty, although for different reasons.

    Maybe there is hope yet.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    Henry Hawkins | March 22, 2013 at 3:23 pm

    Prediction: Frum will realize what he’s done and reverse himself by Monday.

    GrumpyOne | March 22, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    I think that it comes down to the rule of law.

    Failure to enforce current statutes is a path to weakening the Republic and that is unacceptable to me.

    We all know that the rule of law means nothing to democrats but the Republicans should maintain the high road regarding this and every other matter.

    Do do otherwise is to simply pander to votes and that is NOT what we are all about…

    Estragon | March 22, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    I too am willing to give Frum credit when he is right.

    I am however unwilling to waste the many hours of time which would be necessary to spend reading his inconsequent blatherings in order to find that rare nugget.

    ps. I would have “thumbs up”-ed EBL’s post #1, had the feature been available.

    newrouter | March 22, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    Sí, se puede – a path to citizenship repatriation

    The folly of rewarding lawbreakers while expecting people not to break the law.. A pox on any in Congress who support this horrible Amnesty, however it is wrapped up. If supporting Amnesty meant getting Hispanic votes, McCain would have carried Hispanics in 2008.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend