Our position on immigration, illegal and legal, can be summarized as follows:

1. The use of illegal immigrants (migrant workers) is a form of price supports for the agri-industry.  The employers who “hire” them do not supply them with medical insurance or pay them enough to afford automobile insurance.  When these workers become sick or injured, they do not forgo medical care – they go to the local hospital.  Our medical bills and insurance coverage premiums pay for these services to the illegals.  Similarly, our uninsured motorist coverage pays for the insurance that the illegals should be purchasing.  These are merely two examples (a legion of examples could be given) that show that the employer is receiving a form of corporate welfare at the expense of the middle class in America.  The employer is in favor of the use of illegals to do work because it is beneficial to their purse, not because it benefits America.  The employer will always favor the reassignment of financial burden to someone else in order to help the “bottom line.”  But the bottom line for the employer and the bottom line for the taxpayer and ratepayer is not necessarily the same bottom line.  The free market argument to support the hiring of illegals is a smokescreen.  America had a free market before the advent of illegal immigrants and migrant workers.  The existence of illegals is not essential to the existence of the free market.
2. Without the use of illegals to do the low-paid jobs, the market would seek a new equilibrium between product cost and worker pay; the market would determine the true worth of a product or service that had previously been artificially supported by use of the illegal labor force.
3. The flood of immigrants, both legal and illegal, will cause a bloating of the welfare state in the coming decade, to the point that it will place the existence of the middle class in America on a precarious perch.
4. The Senate bill on immigration is a shameful ruse; it does nothing to stop the flood of immigrants, while making way for full amnesty for known felons.  The Senators who claim that it is not amnesty are liars.
5. Effecting a halt to illegal immigration is easy.  The solution is to close the border with a wall from California to Brownsville, Texas, man the border with the National Gaurd, and enact legislation to imprison any employer who hires illegals.
6. Legal immigration and the pathway to citizenship should be an arduous and controlled process, crafted to ensure that America gets the best, brightest and most educated workers and most sincere patriots.
7. Continued immigration from Mexico at the current rate will cause a literal remaking of the very fabric of our society in every category (culture, language, religion and politics).

It is this last item that I want to spend a little time on.  There have been good studies on the economic effect of immigration, specifically, Robert Rector’s papers (Heritage Foundation).  Rector’s papers can be found here, here and here.  However, while the various conservative commentaries and blogs seem to get this issue about right, no one seems to be focusing on what the immigration phenomenon will do to the political scene in the coming decade.

If Rector is right concerning the numbers, we will be adding tens of millions of voters to the rolls in the coming decade.  These voters are by and large socialistic.  The Mexican political landscape is possibly the most Marxist in the world along with a few other South American countries, and the common man in Mexico has been steeped in the politics of “oppression” for at least 70 years.  Further, his religion, while ostensibly Roman Catholic, is really a form of liberation theology with the trappings of Catholicism.  The typical Mexican has heard the politics of oppression not just from their politicians, but from their clergy as well.

Phil Hearse, in “Contours of the Mexican Left,” has the following particularly poignant quote:

Any force trying to work for a democratic, anti-imperialist and anti-capitalist transition has to win a base among the rural poor. But for historical reasons to do with the nationalisation of the land under Lázaro Cárdenas and the predominant form of peasant land tenure, which was “village cooperative” rather than based on individual plots, the demand for “land to the tiller” in Mexico does not imply an individual plot for every peasant or rural worker or family. In Mexico, collectivism among the peasantry is a strong tradition: we are not dealing with the atavistic Russian peasants, but a country in which there has already been a bourgeois-democratic revolution led by the peasantry.

One consequence of these factors is that the radical political forces among the rural population are on the whole explicitly anti-capitalist and socialist in their ideology (leaving aside the EZLN, which is a slightly different case). Sometimes this outlook is expressed in support for guerilla organisations; but struggle movements of the rural population are widespread, and they spontaneously ally with the most militant city-based leftist organisations. A good example of this is the OCSS (Peasant Organisation of the Southern Sierra), which would have no difficulty in getting the dictatorship of the proletariat written into its program.

The general conclusion about strategy which needs to be emphasised is that, far from Mexico having ceased to be an oppressed country, today it is more oppressed than 20 or 30 years ago. 

The full paper can be found here.

The coming years will see a cataclysmic shift in the political scene in America with the addition of millions of voters who have been trained to believe that they are “oppressed” by the bourgeois elite and who, by the gift of a vote, will then be empowered to take from the middle class the things that they see as rightfully theirs.

Why … why … why … is no one talking about this coming political earthquake?