Back in the day when I described myself to students as a “Reagan Republican,” I was too stupid or brainwashed to understand the truth about immigration. The Wall Street Journal was America’s premier voice of conservatism. I was a conservative. The WSJ favored open borders. I should favor open borders so that capitalism would prosper.
The first inkling that I got that I was wrong came in 1992 when Ross Perot ran for president on an anti-NAFTA platform.
Here in San Antonio, the city fathers kept spewing the nonsense that NAFTA was going to turn SA into a world-class trading city, with the streets paved with gold. A business faculty member, Dr. Lynda Y. De La Vina, had been tasked with “selling” NAFTA to the faculty so that we would all be on board with one voice. Her sales pitch essentially boiled down to “F*ck the workers displaced by NAFTA. We’re all going to get rich by doing consulting work related to the legislation.”
Well, she got rich anyway.
I never spoke up for NAFTA but neither did I speak against it.
After all, I was a conservative. How could I be against free trade?
The Wall Street Journal was advocating for NAFTA then as a step toward a completely open North American borderless country. The globalists at that paper are still at it, all these years later.
Excerpt from Breitbart
President Donald Trump should abandon his merit immigration reform and simply let employers import cheap workers to ensure profitability, the Wall Street Journal recommends.
The newspaper’s Editorial Board declared August 4:
Senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia have introduced legislation that would eliminate the green-card preferences for parents, adult children and siblings of U.S. citizens, which in effect would reduce legal immigration by 40%. Foreigners could also apply for up to 140,000 green cards via a government admissions process that awards points based on education, language ability, age, educational attainment and job skills …
[But] any point system is also arbitrary and reflects the biases of politicians—namely, Messrs. Cotton and Perdue—rather than the needs of employers … Employers have a better idea of the skills they need than does the Labor Department bureaucracy …
Every economist knows that employers can only raise wages as fast as productivity and profitability allow. If the cost of labor rises too much for a specific job, employers will simply cease providing the service or move production overseas. That means fewer jobs for Americans too …
The solution, as ever, is a legal immigration system that is generous with visas and flexible enough to meet the demands of a growing U.S. economy. If the White House is serious about passing something in Congress, it needs to recognize that reality.
Read it all here.
You need a subscription to read the full WSJ editorial.
The Breitbart piece goes on to discuss the economic damage that immigration does to Americans. All of us on the alt-right also note the cultural damage.
The Wall Street Journal is owned by globalist Rupert Murdoch.
There are too many good comments at Breitbart to summarize or post, but her’s a sample:
fwcaller spcnrs • 2 hours ago
It is not about jobs or economic growth. It is about voting. The steady, massive importation of big-govt-loving third worlders, who multiply like flies, then providing them amnesty, then watching them vote the first world countries into the ditch, just like they did to the third-world hell holes they escaped from because they voted those countries into the ditch. The jobs/economy matter is a red herring; a diversion. If these companies wanted to make big profits, they would cut workers. They do it all the time to increase their bottom line and push up their stock price. Or they would robotize peasant jobs. So their reasons are phony. They need more ignorant, big-govt.-loving voters.