Then what?
Roy Beck director of Numbers USA has a good piece this week in which he quotes from an article by economist Robert Samuelson.
Beck and Samuelson are discussing the issue of how high immigration levels lead to higher poverty and why on earth would thinking people and our leaders be purposefully increasing poverty levels. Beck gets to the point in his discussion where he concludes that for the Left it’s all about the redistribution of wealth. Why some Republican leaders are supporting more poverty remains a mystery. But it strikes me that they still don’t want to say what seems obvious to me—immigrants are the pawns in a power play to bring crisis and chaos as taught by the masters of the diabolical strategy—Cloward and Piven— to bring down our form of government.
Here is Beck:
Samuelson bluntly gives the reason why all those experts don’t question:
Poverty ‘experts’ don’t dwell on immigration, because it implies that more restrictive policies might reduce U.S. poverty.
For some reason, nearly all of our policy elites in think tanks, universities, government agencies and political office are so wedded to high immigration that they would rather keep adding to poverty than to acknowledge the problem and have to be confronted with the possible option of reducing immigration.
Samuelson offers the reader a reason why this might true.
He quotes Robert Rector (one of the few Washington opinion elites who actually looked at the data and decided immigration policy had to be changed). Rector suggests that all the various things that are defining and creating larger populations in poverty in the United States are also serving the interests of those who desire to see more income redistribution, to which Samuelson says:
He has a point.
For liberal backers of mass immigration, Samuelson’s comments have to raise questions about why they would promote a policy that makes the United States a place of so much greater economic disparity. [You guys have got to read Saul Alinsky—to create constant turmoil and chaos there must be a battle of the Have-nots against the Haves—ed]
For the conservative backers of mass immigration (who have control of the national Republican Party machinery), one has to ask why they would continue to promote a policy that every year creates more and more pressure for bigger and bigger government and greater and greater income redistribution.
In this last paragraph, I take issue with Beck’s use of the word “conservative” in describing what really are Republican Washington, DC insiders who support mass immigration and I can only surmise that those insiders are looking to help business interests keep their cheap labor. True conservatives are not out promoting more immigration.
The Leftists who control the Democratic Party right now use immigrants to increase their voting power and to bring about a new form of government. Some of the Republican insiders use immigrants for cheap labor and because they are really Corporatists—those are big businesses and their supporters in Washington who see the writing on the wall (I’m hoping the writing is not going to stay on the wall!) and use government to advance their financial agenda. Judy described it well in her post a year ago entitled, “Socialism, communism, fascism or corporatism?” where she discusses Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism (a must read!)
….let’s confine our label to corporatism. I don’t think most American big businesses are interested in hero-worship and the other stuff. But some of them sure do want the government to be their partner in making profits easier for them — bringing in immigrants to work cheaply, stifling competition through regulation, giving them subsidies or bailouts, and so on.
This corporatist tendency has been growing for decades — that’s one reason almost all large businesses and business associations have big lobbying staffs in Washington. They’re either defending their businesses from government’s heavy hand or looking for a handout from government. But Obama is bringing it to new and ominous heights. We’re better off using the word “corporatism” because it doesn’t set off the crazed reaction that “fascism” does. But as far as I can see, except for the extreme nationalism that was typical of European fascism, the latter term describes much of Obama’s agenda.
If the Left (Cloward-Piven acolytes) succeeds in bringing down our form of government there will be some big businesses that will survive by having completely burrowed into the system with the help of the Republican insiders who are corporatists NOT conservatives!
Who loses? The average American ‘forgotten man’ and the immigrant pawns.