Skip to comments.Will We Get Another 11 Million Illegals after an Amnesty?
Posted on 03/25/2013 7:28:46 PM PDT by neverdem
Over the weekend, Michael Barone posited that, contra claims by Steve Sailer and Mickey Kaus, he doesn’t think massive Mexican immigration will resume once the economy rebounds and if we pass an amnesty. James Pethokoukis from AEI made the same point, without really any elucidation, during the podcast we did (with Kaus and Treviño) at Ricochet a while back.
Barone points to a recent Gallup survey that finds 5 million Mexicans saying they want to move here, compared to 22 million telling Pew in 2005 they’d come here as guest workers if they could. He further points to Puerto Rico, where he claims emigration to the U.S. abruptly ended decades ago.
Sailer responds that robust immigration from Puerto Rico is actually ongoing. And I addressed the “Mexican immigration is over” narrative in some detail over at The National Interest last year. But I think the most important point is this, from Sailer’s response:
Why don’t we wait five years and see what happens with immigration before passing some massive immigration “reform” law based on suppositions about how Fortunately, It Can’t Happen Again?
Simple prudence suggests that we simply can’t know whether Mexico has permanently left its mass emigration phase until we see what happens during an economic expansion in the U.S. Deferring any consideration of a huge amnesty is also necessary to see if the administration’s claims that the border is secure are true., since there are lots of other places illegals come from, too; compared to Honduras, for instance, Mexico looks like Beverly Hills.
This is sort of what Rand Paul was getting at in saying that Congress would have to “certify” that the borders are secure annually for five years. But if I understood that part of his proposal correctly, the illegal aliens would get legal status after the first such vote, rendering subsequent votes irrelevant, since there’s no chance whatsoever that the work cards, Social Security accounts, driver’s licenses, etc., given to “provisionally” amnestied illegals would ever be taken away.
Soothing predictions about the moderate and limited effect of proposed immigration changes have a poor track record, to say the least, as do predictions about large government-policy changes generally. Maybe the most spectacular misjudgment was Ted Kennedy’s assurances about the effects of the 1965 immigration law:
First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same . . . Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset . . . Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia . . . In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. . . .
The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.
Can’t get much wronger than that. Unless you look at predictions about the cost of another disastrous 1965 consequence of Goldwater’s defeat, the establishment of Medicare. As Cato reports:
When Medicare was launched in 1965, Part A was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990, but ended up costing $67 billion. When Medicaid’s special hospitals subsidy was added in 1987, it was supposed to cost $100 million annually, but it already cost $11 billion by 1992. When Medicare’s home care benefit was added in 1988, it was projected to cost $4 billion in 1993, but ended up costing $10 billion. Or consider that when Massachusetts Commonwealth Care was put into place in 2006, it was expected to cost about $725 million annually, but the expected cost for 2009 is now almost $1 billion.
And don’t forget Dick Cheney’s infamous Iraq prediction:
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators.
I’m not trying to say that my predictions are always right and everyone else’s are wrong. It could be that Barone is right that mass immigration from Mexico is over. But he himself acknowledges “the nontrivial possibility that I could be wrong.” Given that very real possibility, it would be irresponsible to go along with the president’s demand that Congress pass an immigration bill “as soon as possible.”
You can count me as one. I’m sick of working my ass off to support these people. Time I get some some.
11 million more after the legalize the 40 million already here!
Demography is destiny. Ten million more ‘Rat voters, forever. We’re screwed.
Comprehensive means to me a de facto merger with Mexico.
We’ll get 20 or 30 million immediately and another 40 or 50 million relatives later.
I have tried to explain this before. Legalizing the 11 million doesn’t alter the reasons that they are here in the first place. As soon as the illegal population is lost there will be a vacuum created. Millions of new illegals will begin streaming in to fill that vacuum. This is THE issue for maintaining conservatism in America. Losing on this issue will be the death of liberty... period.
What’s the source for the 40 million already here? That’s the person or organization citing that figure, not Latin America and elsewhere.
Not likely because Mexican economy has done better lately than US economy with respect to jobs. With Obummer in charge, we are no longer a magnet for job seekers. However the freeloaders will still be attracted to Obummer regime.
With the 30 million that are already here, you’ll have to throw in 2 papas, 2 mamas, 4 kids, 2 tios, 2 tias, 16 to 32 cousins and a partridge in a pear tree for each one of those 30 million. Bad news for us.
11m? easy. there are 60m in Mexico city just waiting to show up
I’m totally sure my family was fighting and dying so Mexicans can enjoy e country we built
If I could get away with it, I would be living in Switzerland.
Anybody believing the current count is anywhere near as low as 11 million, needs their head examined.
No this will solve the problem ONCE AND FOR ALL!
And they will vote Republican.
And Santa Claus is coming to town.
Exactly. Once the ‘RATS put them on the freeway to “citizenship”, they’re going to demand union wages. Employers who currently use illegal alien labor now will be demanding a new wave of illegal, non-freeway to “citizenship” types to fill the vacuum. Those illegals currently here will have to shift over to unemployment and welfare for their ride down the freeway to “citizenship”. What a mess!
Reagan taught us that Amnesty produces 11 Million Illegal future Aliens plus the Millions of Aliens that Amnesty was given to.
Michael Barone as the article put it “ - - - he doesnt think - - -. “
The greedy unscrupulous employers here in the U.S. will need to find more dirt cheap illegal labor, after their newly legalized illegal employees want more money and figure out company benefits don't mean 5 minute breaks.