Even in normal times, I often wonder if members of the controlled media consider the logical conclusions of some of their arguments. But with Trump hysteria in full-swing, it’s even easier to find examples of utter lunacy within the pages of newspapers.
On October 12th of this year, the Forest Grove News-Times published an article by Allen Warren titled “On Immigration issue, consider the long-term impact of a short-term solution.” Here are are some excerpts:
… one of the things we might find out is whether or not President-elect Trump follows through on his campaign promise to deport all illegal immigrants.
… Trump is telling his supporters that immigrants are a threat to their livelihood and even their lives. If we build a wall, if we deport illegal immigrants, if we give the deported immigrant jobs back to U.S. citizens, Trump has often said, “Our economy will be so much better… believe you me!”
… But back to the main theme: the people in our country are part of our domestic market. They rent or buy houses. They buy food, clothes, cars, and thousands of little and big things that get sold or rented every day.
If Trump was successful at deporting 11 million people, we would lose all that demand for goods and services. Even assuming the illegal immigrant incomes are only half that of the average American, those incomes still represent approximately a quarter of a trillion dollars – $275 billion – a year. That’s a pretty significant amount of income lost. In fact, it’s enough that it’d very likely throw the country into a recession.
… but the bottom line is this: if the illegal immigrants aren’t living here, they aren’t shopping here. Trump would no doubt argue the good news is they wouldn’t be here to take jobs in the construction industry; but the potentially bad news he’s not mentioning is they wouldn’t be here to demand housing, and with them gone, it’s conceivable the abandoned homes would be available for U.S. citizens to purchase or rent, meaning if no one would need to build houses for a while, those construction industry jobs previously held by illegal immigrants that are now available for U.S. citizens wouldn’t be needed anymore… or at least for a while as it’s tough to imagine demand for housing being strong in the aftermath of 11 million lost residents.
By this logic, if having 11 million illegal immigrants is “good for the economy,” then why not throw our doors open to the billion or so Africans who would love to move here? Wouldn’t that be even better for the economy? After all, that’s a billion more shoppers, a billion more tax-payers, a billion more customers for the housing industry. Such a move would make Mr. Warren ecstatic.
It appears that Allen Warren would be perfectly happy living in a world where the population density is so great that we’re packed like sardines – as long as the economy is healthy. What about the cost of such a high population/third-world immigration?
Damaged ecosystems? Who cares, as long as the economy is strong!
Setbacks for women’s rights and animal rights? Not important, as long as the stock market is healthy!
Endangered species going extinct? Of little concern, as long as Wall Street is booming!
Increased government corruption and intrusion? A small price to pay, as long as industry is roaring!
Even the most ardent Hillary supporter must (one would think) admit that population growth MUST cease at some point… right?
We’re better off controlling our population on our OWN terms, instead of waiting for the inevitable Malthusian Correction. Controlling our borders is essential to controlling population; it forces local communities to take ownership of their own population problems – rather than offloading them onto others.
Between Clinton and Trump supporters, who is most concerned about our environment? If Warren’s views are any indication, it would be Trump supporters. Clinton supporters only seem to be concerned with the welfare of Wall Street – and considering Clinton’s loyalties, this should come as no surprise.