It’s almost like they’re making arguments for President-elect Donald Trump.
Throughout the nation, there’s a hue and cry about the new Trump administration’s plans to reverse the effects of the current administration’s border crisis, in part by getting serious about deportations.
Trump has promised to use the military to carry out some of these deportations, and while Democrats have promised resistance to this (entirely legal) move, it’s worth noting that the average American isn’t likely to be opposed.
That’s because, in poll after poll, they’ve shown support for less immigration. Not less illegal immigration, but less immigration, period.
Thus, the fact that an estimated 10 million illegal aliens encountered by the Border Patrol under the Biden administration is going to at least start being reversed isn’t going to ruffle many feathers among voters. That’s especially true when you consider the ancillary effects: overwhelmed communities struggling with limited resources to deal with the influx, gang violence, and the opioid epidemic, just to name a few less-than-salutary effects this has all had.
However, the braying from those who have counted for so long on cheap illegal labor couldn’t be louder, all of a sudden, in 2024, with the prospect of a president who might do something about said border crisis.
The political class, for instance, is livid. A common complaint is that now, nobody’s going to be picking our vegetables, and food is suddenly going to become more expensive than it already is. (Democrats won’t mention how Democrat policies have already made food prohibitively expensive thanks to inflation, por supuesto.)
We’ve heard this from numerous quarters — but New York Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler, always a reliable go-to when you need a doozy of a tin-eared pull quote about something, didn’t disappoint during a January hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security and Enforcement.
“We need immigrants in this country,” Nadler said. “Forget the fact that our vegetables would rot in the ground if they weren’t being picked by many immigrants — many illegal immigrants.
“The fact is the birth rate in this country is way below replacement level, which means our population is going to start shrinking,” he added. “And the ratio of people on Social Security and Medicare is going to increase relative to the number of people supporting them.”
There were two problems with this one. First from Stephen Miller, one of two of the architects of the incoming Trump administration’s immigration policy: “Yes, all the millions of illegals from 150+ countries spanning the globe are going to Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, New York, etc. to work in the fields.” Yes, that does seem curious:
Yes, all the millions of illegals from 150+ countries spanning the globe are going to Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, New York, etc. to work in the fields.
What a tired, vapid. exhausted and stupid cliche. Just utter nonsense.
— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) January 12, 2024
A second rejoinder, from this somewhat more anonymous X user: Why are the same people who keep raising the price of food through unionization pushes and minimum wage hikes suddenly concerned about losing de facto serf labor with no minimum wage or union protection, if they’re so concerned about prices?
One of the key inflection points the GOP never pushes on because they are idiots, is that the same crowd that advocates for unionizing starbucks and a 25 dollar minimum wage will in the same breath say chattel slave wages are necessary so that fruit doesn’t get too expensive.… https://t.co/Fd3MttyZgg
— 🏛 Aristophanes 🏛 (@Aristos_Revenge) January 12, 2024
One solution seems quite a bit less cruel than the other, and it isn’t the one that involves giving your barista $22 an hour.
But don’t forget ivory-tower economists, who also manage to pull their weight in this department.
Take an article written in the heat of the campaign season for The Wall Street Journal by Dickensian-named European economic reporter Tom Fairless, which noted that “both candidates are emphasizing a crackdown on border crossings and asylum seekers.”
Instead, he said, “new research” indicated they can add value to governments’ bottom lines.
Employers pay immigrants because their labor adds value to capital, which is then taxed. When accounting for this and complementary effects on high-skilled workers, a low-skilled immigrant may contribute $128,000 to the US Treasury over their lifetime. pic.twitter.com/ECgIjKvTPm
— James Pethokoukis ⏩️⤴️ (@JimPethokoukis) October 13, 2024
“When it modeled the overall impact of recent illegal immigration on the U.S. economy earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office found a big benefit for the Treasury: $897 billion for the decade through 2034,” he wrote.
“That works out at about $3,500 per American adult—a number that economists should be shouting from the rooftops, [George Mason University economist Michael] Clemens said.”
“Clemens estimates that for every dollar of labor income, there are roughly 80 cents of capital income. Adding that factor to the National Academy of Sciences’ calculations, he finds a migrant in the U.S. with less than a high-school education actually contributes a net $128,000 over his or her lifetime to the U.S. Treasury, rather than subtracting $109,000.”
However, as New York Post columnist and Fox News contributor Miranda Devine pointed out, “Treasury Department über alles” isn’t exactly a resonant message with the average voter for a good reason:
A) the only controversy is about illegal migrants paid slave wages or being a new suck on the welfare state
B) illegal migrants only survive on slave wages because the American taxpayer subsidizes their living costs
Be honest. https://t.co/vUqrLUrIb6— Miranda Devine (@mirandadevine) October 13, 2024
The Treasury Department, one assumes, has its thumbs in its ears on those points.
And then there are the Hollywood celebs and Upper East Side elite, who will no doubt spend the next few months talking about “children in cages” or something to that effect.
Well, take it from Adrianne Curry, considering the “America’s Next Top Model” winner is one of them: There’s a reason why they’re complaining so loudly about this:
The reason celebs are mad about mass deportations of illegals is they will lose their slave labor. They hire illegals as housekeepers and nannies so they don’t have to pay living wages to Americans running cleaning companies or nanny services.
I Know this, because I saw it first…
— Adrianne Curry (@AdrianneCurry) November 13, 2024
“The reason celebs are mad about mass deportations of illegals is they will lose their slave labor. They hire illegals as housekeepers and nannies so they don’t have to pay living wages to Americans running cleaning companies or nanny services,” she wrote on X after the election.
“I Know this, because I saw it first hand. This is the ONLY reason it upsets them.”
But that’s the thing: The people you’re hearing all of this from are the ones who have a stake in hiring illegals at a reduced wage or crafting public policy that rewards their own voters while keeping costs low through importing “undocumented” serfs.
The sooner that unsustainable model is ended, and with the full force of the law, the better. As for the chorus of brayers: Do these people even hear themselves? Because we do, loud and clear, and that had a lot to do with who we chose to elect as our 47th president.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
