Mike Scruggs
According to the Heritage
Foundation’s top policy expert, Robert Rector, either one of the two
amnesties being proposed by the U.S. Senate “Gang-of-Eight” and
President Obama would cost U.S. taxpayers trillions of dollars over
the next decade. Based on Rector’s previous cost estimate of
the defeated 2007 McCain-Kennedy Amnesty, either new amnesty proposal
will cost taxpayers more than $2.5 trillion in increased Medicare and
Social Security costs ALONE. This is after accounting for any increases
in tax revenues paid in by amnestied workers. There are also other formidable
costs associated with amnesty.
Are our annual fiscal deficits and the national
debt not already high enough? Are we a ship of fools? We risk
enormous catastrophe by keeping politically correct silence on the costs
of amnesty.
McCain admits that the Gang-of-Eight Amnesty
Proposal is almost identical with his 2007 amnesty proposal, and the Washington Times has confirmed this by laying out the two plans
page by page. Rector is now researching the likely cost of a 2013 amnesty
and believes either amnesty proposal will far exceed the 2007 estimate
due to larger illegal immigrant numbers and inflation since 2007. Obama’s
amnesty is the more sweeping and costly of the two potentially nation-destroying
proposals.
I cannot find anywhere that the sponsors of the
2007 Amnesty made any realistic estimate of its costs that were released
to the media or public. The degree of stealth in hiding the cost of
the 2007 Amnesty has only recently been surpassed by Obamacare. Don’t
expect things to change in 2013. Expect emotional, not factual, emphasis.
The public will be in serious need of a horse manure detector.
I am sure the proponents of these amnesties will
not mention that amnesties always cause more illegal immigration. As
Senator Sessions (R, AL) has pointed out, the record of the 1987 Amnesty
indicates that over a 20-year period we can expect two to three additional
illegal immigrants for each amnesty given. Amnesties beget more illegal
immigrants and more amnesties. The annual net fiscal drain from the
estimated 11.5 million illegal immigrants now here is over $100 billion
per year. Are we willing to see another $200 to $300 billion annual
fiscal drain? And that does not count the huge negative impact of displaced
American workers, downward pressure on American wages, and difficult-to-quantify
factors such as increased costs of educating bilingual students and
higher crime rates associated with illegal immigrants.
Rector estimates that 75 to 80 percent of illegal
immigrants have no more than a high school education. They are considerably
less skilled than the average American worker. In past generations,
immigrants were actually more skilled than the average American worker.
Workers with low skills and less than a high school education draw more
welfare expenses than taxes paid. Rector’s 2007 analysis showed that
non-high school graduates used about $20,000 more in government benefits
than the $10,000 in taxes paid during their working life. Rector expects
that this gap has increased and will make amnesty costs even higher.
Should Republicans drink the amnesty chalice?
Many are saying that they must favor amnesty or continue to alienate
Hispanic voters, who were 10 percent of the total electorate in 2012.
From 1980 to 2012, Hispanic voters gave an average of only 31 percent
support for Republican presidential candidates. The high mark was 40
percent for George W. Bush in 2004. McCain, a primary sponsor of the
2007 amnesty attempt, got only 31 percent of their vote in 2008. The
1987 Amnesty signed by Reagan performed no miracles for George H. W.
Bush in 1988. The elder Bush got only 30 percent of the Hispanic vote,
down from Reagan’s 37 percent in 1984.
Reagan, by the way, was reluctant to sign the
1987 Amnesty. He was persuaded by more liberal Republicans that it was
a trade for the stronger border security and workplace enforcement necessary
to shut down most illegal immigration. But these promises were broken,
and illegal immigration raged out of control thereafter. Asked what
was the biggest mistake in his presidency, Reagan told his close friend
and Attorney General, Ed Meese, that it was signing the 1987 Amnesty.
Border security is necessary but not sufficient
for immigration control. Workplace enforcement is absolutely necessary
and more effective.
Will agreeing to amnesty turn many Hispanics
to the Republican Party? No! Hispanic voters place social-welfare legislation
in far higher priority than amnesty. As many academic studies have shown,
what they vote for is generous government paid healthcare and social
benefits. Amnesty means more Democrats and bigger social spending.
A Pew poll in May 2012 of over 1,503 potential
voters indicated that 49 percent of Hispanic voters wanted to expand
Obamacare—the highest support of any ethnic group. Only 26 percent
of whites wanted to expand it. A total of 69 percent of Hispanics wanted
to expand it or leave it as is. This was revealingly close to
the 71 percent who voted for Obama in the November election. A
Fox News exit poll revealed that Obamacare was the most telling issue
motivating Obama voters. Ninety-two percent of those wanting to expand
Obamacare voted for Obama. Obama ran ads in both English and Spanish.
His Spanish ads emphasized Obamacare, not immigration issues. His English
language ads did not mention Obamcare or amnesty directly.
Voting for amnesty will not gain Hispanic votes
for Republicans. It will only make conservative voters who normally
vote Republican stay at home. Republicans cannot out-liberal the Democrats
on immigration, healthcare, or anything else. Time Magazine, indisputably
one of the most powerful liberal political influences in America, has Gang-of-Eight member, Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) on its prestigious
cover this week, calling him the Republican Party’s “savior.”
Are we a ship of fools? Amnesty is Republican suicide, and the Democrats
and liberal media hope enough wobbly and clueless Republicans can be
found to stampede their party into drinking a deadly potion from which
they could never recover.
The Republicrat party started on their slow self inflicted suicide attempt during the reign of King George II , they may as well finish the job.
ReplyDeleteYup.
DeleteWish I'd said that. Perfect. Republican voter 1955-2005, sadly.
ReplyDeleteUntil Ron Paul tickled your fancy.:)
DeleteI suspect the GOP will break out the funnel and brag about how much they can chug.
ReplyDeleteHopeless.
Delete