Amnesty + Welfare State = Bankruptcy

David C. Stolinsky, MD
April 22, 2010

It’s just obvious you can’t have free immigration and a welfare state.
− Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate in economics

When he was asked whether his health-care plan would cover illegal immigrants, President Obama answered, “No.” But did his lawyerly response mean (1) that illegals would not be covered, or (2) that soon there would be no illegals, because of “immigration reform” − that is, amnesty? I believe the answer is (2), and that this will quickly become all too obvious.

To paraphrase Milton Friedman: open borders, a welfare state − choose one, or choose neither, but you can’t have both. The Obama administration is trying to choose both. But just because liberal theoreticians can imagine something, that doesn’t mean it is desirable, or even possible. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are effectively insolvent. Unemployment insurance is running on borrowed funds.

Liberal economists tell us that illegal immigrants are a boon to the economy. Then why is California, which has the most illegals, not enjoying prosperity instead of teetering on the brink of bankruptcy? If illegals do work Americans won’t do, why does California have an unemployment rate of 12.4%, with some areas approaching 40%?

Throughout the Southwest, public schools, public hospitals, social services, jails and prisons are overwhelmed. Yet Democratic politicians tell us that we will be able to provide more services to more recipients at less cost. What have they been smoking?

If you take 10 to 20 million illegal immigrants – or whatever the true number may be – and you push them to the front of the line, ahead of all those who are waiting patiently, and you offer them a “fast track” to legal status, what do you call it? Call it anything you like. Call it salsa dancing. But if you forgive and forget the fact that people broke the law, and you compound the error by offering them a favor that is not offered to those who followed the law, that’s amnesty.

That’s what amnesty means. The word is akin to amnesia. It means forgetting – in this case, forgetting that something illegal was done. Some people believe that’s what we should do. I believe it is not. But in any case, we should call it what it is.

Still, the real problem isn’t that this is amnesty. The real problem is that is the second amnesty. In 1986, about 3 million illegal aliens were granted amnesty, with two promises − that strict enforcement at the border and at job sites would follow, and that this would be the only amnesty. But both promises were broken. Enforcement was spotty at best, and now we are confronted by a second amnesty.

This time we are asked to grant amnesty to an estimated 10 to 20 million illegal aliens. And we are being offered the same promises – that strict enforcement at the border and at job sites will follow, and that this will be the last amnesty. You might think I am complaining that people will again believe these false promises. You would be wrong. I am complaining that nobody will believe them.

One amnesty was bad enough. But two amnesties would effectively repeal the immigration law. Repeatedly bypassing a law nullifies it. What difference will it make what the law says, if nobody believes it will be enforced? Clearly, illegal immigration will increase even more.

And what then? We will be faced by the same problem for the third time, except that it will be even bigger than ever. The response is all too predictable. We will be told, “Oh well, we did our best. We tried twice, but we failed. So the only thing left to do is to open the borders completely. Welcome to the North American Union. Have a nice day.”

As Milton Friedman pointed out, we can’t continue to offer generous welfare, health-care and retirement benefits, if there is a flood of immigrants who use these services, but who contributed little or nothing to them. When you think about this point, it seems obvious. But few think about it, and even fewer dare to talk about it.

And speaking of fairness, what about all those who have been waiting patiently for years, and have satisfied all the legal requirements? What will we tell them? “Sorry, folks, but we’ve just moved you even further back, and pushed illegals to the front of the line.” This gives “fairness” a whole new meaning.

Democrats want more Latino immigrants because about two-thirds of them vote Democratic. Some (not all) business interests want more immigrants because they want cheap labor. And these interests own some politicians, both Democratic and Republican. I know this. You know this. So why are we pretending it isn’t so?

Recall the old saying: Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The first amnesty was a mistake, though perhaps an honest mistake. A second amnesty will be a colossal blunder, but it will be an intentional one. And it will be our own fault for having tolerated the politicians who perpetrated the first amnesty. The new law is not intended to work. It is intended to fail, so the next step can be taken in dismantling the United States.

Some will call this xenophobia, or alarmism, or nativism, or even racism. I call it realism. I am descended from immigrants. So are all of us, even American Indians, whose ancestors came from Asia thousands of years ago. We use the politically correct term “Native Americans,” but there really aren’t any.

Immigration is beneficial, even essential. We benefit greatly from an influx of people with the courage to make a new home, and the ambition to succeed in it. Immigrants may be the ones who appreciate our freedom the most − they know what life is like without it.

But this presupposes that immigrants want to become Americans. This assumption was true of almost all immigrants in the past, and their children were Americanized in the public schools. But now, many immigrants arrive with the irrational desire to transplant statism and dependency on a centralized government to their new home.

Why would they want to bring with them the very problems from which they escaped? One reason is that Democratic politicians continually defame our history. The president went around apologizing for America to European and Middle Eastern nations, whose own histories compare unfavorably, to say the least.

Another reason is that our schools no longer Americanize the children of immigrants. Why should they? They no longer Americanize our own children, either. The very word “Americanize” is obsolete, and would be considered fascist and racist by many liberals today.

Instead, we now teach “multiculturalism,” which means respect for all cultures − except our own. Instead, the students at one school were told to observe Flag Day by marching with the flags of the nations from which their ancestors came, rather than their own flag. Instead, we observe Mexican Independence Day and Cinco de Mayo, rather than Washington’s and Lincoln’s Birthdays.

Why should immigrants respect a nation that no longer respects itself? From whom should they learn that respect? From liberal teachers and professors who emphasize our faults and downplay our virtues? From liberal clergy who call those who want to control our borders “Nazis”? From a liberal president who travels the world apologizing for the nation he is sworn to defend?

Whatever our views on illegal immigrants, we can agree on one point: There are many millions in this country, with more coming daily, and nobody knows who they are. We can’t have homeland security without border security. To me, this is a crucial problem. First secure the borders – then I’ll listen to what you have to say about legalizing those who are already here.

But it is difficult to discuss homeland security with people who do not understand the concept of homeland, much less security.

A prior version of this article appeared in 2007. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. Contact: dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com