Wall Street Journal Editorial Calls for Open Borders to Keep Wages Down and Profits Up

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.

9 thoughts on “Wall Street Journal Editorial Calls for Open Borders to Keep Wages Down and Profits Up

  1. No offense but I always wondered why people liked Reagan so much, according to a speech by a guy who was a writer and producer (I think) in Hollywood he claims Reagan was a raging communist…and according to MKUltra victim Cathy Obrien Reagan preferred sex with animals (ewe) and it bugged me that he destroyed the air traffic controllers union when he was a member of the Actors Union. So many conservatives republicans love Reagan, I guess when you look at what we have to choose from it’s understandable..but Kennedy seems to of been the only decent one ..and Nixon having a few decent qualities including being JU wise ..but then bending over to the tribe ..never works out either way! Back on point mass invasion is NEVER good for American citizens and the scum in charge, whether it be politicians, corporations or the JUs who want to destroy us know it!

  2. In 1996, I was in college, majored in economics. We were arguing about “free trade” and “knowledge jobs”. KJ’s – how embarrassing, where the hell are they?

    At the time, I was against free trade because it ultimately meant an equalization of the standard of living amongst the partner countries, has to be that way in the “long run”. This is just obvious, nothing to do with which triangle is bigger – i.e. The gain from free trade (accruing mainly to stock holders) or the loss of the manufacturing base/jobs, there goes the middle class. Manufacturing jobs have a larger multiplier effect than your standard service job. Manufacturing supports other manufacturing and has large impact on the economy overall. Another obvious impact: it is a threat to national security to not having the capacity to make anything ourselves anymore, huge risk.

    Of course, I was extremely liberal at the time. This is pretty standard for a person in their early 20’s. Being above average in intelligence, but not brilliant by any means, well there you have it. By the age of 26-28, I did a 180 and have gone steadily further right ever since. Especially after 9/11. That made me do ALOT of reading and research. As everyone here knows, you wind up at the JQ eventually.

    I recall a Professor talking to the class about how we had to allow Japan to dump their goods here, otherwise they might impose “sanctions”. I raised my hand and asked him if he meant that we wouldn’t be getting any more SONY walkmans. Class laughed; he did not. Note: I have learned to keep my mouth shut finally, have that one down now.

    How I see open borders, aside from the political implications: This argument is the same one as we were having in the 90’s, only about labor and not about goods. I see no difference at all, it’s the exact same thing all over again. It was a bad idea then and it’s a bad idea now.

  3. Trump’s weekly update, 3 mins. In it he says that his new immigration bill says that new immigrants are NOT allowed to get ANY WELFARE BENEFITS for FIVE YEARS after their arrival. Excellent idea!

Leave a Reply. Comments Policy Forbids Insulting Other Commenters.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s