President Trump carries through with America First immigration policy


Read Dave, you’re missing quite a bit of what’s going on:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the United States will need 3 million additional workers over the next decade to fill the least-skilled jobs — jobs that do not require a high school degree — in order to achieve projected economic growth. These include jobs in home health, food preparation, freight, child care, cleaning, landscaping, and construction. Over the same period, the total number of U.S. workers entering the labor force at all skill levels, between the ages of 25 and 54, will be 1.7 million. (At younger ages, 24 years and below, the labor force will actually shrink.)

Think on that a moment. Even if every single young American dropped out of college and high school now, so that at the end of the coming decade they would be performing essential less-skilled jobs, they could only fill about half of these new openings. And of course all those kids won’t and shouldn’t stop getting educated. Around 10 percent of those new labor-force entrants will have less than a high school education; around 30 percent will have high school only.

Bottom line: At least three out of four of these new, essential jobs will be filled by workers coming to the United States from abroad, or they won’t be filled at all. This has nothing to do with laziness. It’s about numbers. It’s not only that there aren’t enough less-skilled Americans to do these jobs. There aren’t enough Americans period.

What I really hope for Dave? That we don’t become Japan, who essentially tricks foreigners by the 1,000s to fill low skilled jobs. The shortages they face there are part to why their economy has stagnated.


Who claims that railroad construction workers, farmers and factory workers are “unskilled labor”? Those who have never built or created anything in their lives, that is who.

Who claims that Welfare can be withheld from legal and illegal residents for the 1st 5 years they are here? Those who refuse to recognize the many legal precedents that have nullified such Laws multiple times already by our corrupt Judiciary.

Nobody came to America for a free ride before the “Great Society” in the 1960’s because you had to work if you wanted food and shelter, no amount of history revision by pseudo intellectuals who have never accomplished anything real in their lives will change those facts.


Repetitive work, done by people with little to no prior experience?

The Chinese who helped build the the Transcontinental railroad certainly had no experience, nor did the Irish.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t qualities or attitudes that make you better suited for it, but yes, Factory-assembly work, utilizing the mass-production model, is the quite literal poster child of Unskilled Labor.

So is picking crops in the fields; unless you’re going to tell me that the 70% of Farmhands who are illegals Aliens today are somehow sitting on Masters and Phds, or even so much as a trade skill certification.

It’s either yes, these are unskilled occupations, or “Unskilled Labor” isn’t a real category. You certainly didn’t offer a substitute example, so that tells me that you’re playing with semantics RET.

Legal immigrants use less welfare than poor, native born Americans at the same income level. This is an absolute fact.

What is your excuse for not growing legal immigration now RET? For to be consistent, you also have to be a Eugenicist, and insist poor Americans who use more welfare quit having Children.

If the sustainability of Government benefits is your concern, and not freedom of people, then that’s what this all comes down to: population control.

Is that your position RET? Are you the same as the Club of Rome?


What is a “fact” is that your repeated statements about native Americans using more welfare is absolutely irrelevant to the destruction of the job market that occurs when one group of workers is subsidized by holding a gun to the head of those they are competing with.

Native welfare rats are generational, they do not participate in the job market so their subsidies do not drive wages down.

Immigration (both legal and illegal) do use the welfare subsidy to adjust down what they can work for; it takes at least a generation for the welfare system to eradicate their work ethic.

So non welfare rats must either get on welfare to compete or be priced out of the labor force.

If any of the the pseudo intellectuals at CATO had ever spent a day doing something productive instead of patting themselves on the back for how smart their piece of paper says they are they would have “studied” what is relevant instead of the non sequiturs and irrelevant “data” that they miss apply and selectively ignore.

The profound ignorance of those who fancy themselves “Educated” is only surpassed by their arrogance which insures they will never be teachable.


Long-term, neither do immigrants. Neither does automation for that matter.

Free market economists looked at the same figures compiled by George Borjas, touted by people like CIS to claim immigrants lower wages (and thus should be restricted)… and they found out that it’s only true short term.

Long-term, they grow.

Economics is a perniciously subtle affair, and you need to watch trends long term to know what the cycles produce. Some cycles are longer than a human lifetime, and are part to why people will support public policies that are unsustainable.

As I’ve also pointed out before, economics also upholds many counter-intuitive ideas:

Government spending hurts growth.

Fairtrade hurts the workers it claims to help.

That raising taxes, hurts the ability to raise tax revenue.

And the Independent Institute?
And the Mercatus Center?
And the American Enterprise Institute?
And the Frasier Institute?

And the FEE?

RET, it is not just CATO, it is a consensus among Free-market economists, that immigrants produce a small, but positive effect upon the economy. You’ll even find that most Monetarists, Neo-classical, and Keynesians take the same position.

If you don’t agree with them, then what you’re saying is that you don’t believe in Free Market ideas here.

You are explicitly saying, that you or someone you’d appoint, is a better planner of labor of than the market.

That you know how much labor the market needs, better than the Market itself.

If that’s your position, then fine; it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve seen someone try to draw an exception and claim “Markets can’t navigate this issue rationally; we need public entities to manage it”. But if that is your position, then be upfront about it.


Are you willing to finance the economic needs of the poverty stricken foreigners you wish to import into America, and guarantee they will not become a public burden, at least for a five year period?

Common sense tells us importing the worlds poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations into America is sheer lunacy, unless you, MR. A.S, are willing to finance their economic needs.



We are talking about importing the worlds poverty stricken poorly educated, low and unskilled populations into America. If it is so profitable to import this group, why don’t you agree to pay for their economic needs for five years and become a millionaire or perhaps billionaire because it is so profitable to import them?

Put up or . . .



And yet we did it in the Early 20th century, as a poorer, smaller nation.

We imported, 20-25 million people, the vast majority of whom were poor and unskilled.

Poor and Unskilled. I can say that as many times as I like, because it is the factual description of who they were.

They came here with nothing but the clothes on their backs.

And we benefited from it, despite what you and your Eugenicists compatriots tried to say.

The Eugenicists groups who in the early 20th century, claimed that the Catholic and Jewish Poles, Italians and Hungarians would never assimilate well with Americans. They were an “inferior stock” compared to Anglo and German immigrants of before, and would only be a burden to the taxpayers.

Yet, they were wrong, and economics is right. Not least surprising to those of us who understand that liberty, works, and makes the most of human potential.


What A.S. forgets is, there was no welfare during the early 1900s. Unlike today, a good portion of our population can realize more money being on welfare than working a 40 hour week. Ending all welfare for the able-bodied would leave us with all the labor we could possible need. Instead, we allow able-bodied citizens to collect welfare, and import the worlds poverty stricken who work for lower wages than America’s citizens while they also collect welfare in one form of another.

A.S. intentionally ignore factors which disprove his ridiculous absurdities.




Knew it, now you have no choice, but to buttress what Dave was saying, and forget your own talking point.

You can’t deny that most of the immigrants were poor & unskilled, THAT is lunacy.

Retreating to the “well we have welfare” canard is all you have.

Buuuuuuuuttttt JOOOOOOHNNNNY, Guess what?

There WAS Welfare in the early 20th century, and the Eugenicists used that as an excuse to try and block the immigration.

Don’t believe me? Here you go:

In this capacity, Laughlin conducted research from 1921 to 1931. He took a fact-finding trip to Europe, used free postage to conduct large-scale surveys of charitable institutions and mental hospitals, and had his results published by the Government Printing Office. His research culminated in his 1924 testimony to Congress in support of a eugenically-crafted immigration restriction bill. The Eugenics Research Association displayed a chart beneath the Rotunda of the Capitol building in Washington showing the cost to taxpayers of supporting Laughlin’s “social inadequates.”

The resulting law, the Immigration Restriction Act of 1924, was designed consciously to halt the immigration of supposedly “dysgenic” Italians and eastern European Jews, whose numbers had mushroomed during the period from 1900 to 1920. The method was simply to scale the number of immigrants from each country in proportion to their percentage of the U.S. population in the 1890 census – when northern and western Europeans were the dominant immigrants. Under the new law, the quota of southern and eastern Europeans was reduced from 45% to 15%. The 1924 Act ended the greatest era of immigration in U.S. history.

Upon signing the Act, President Calvin Coolidge commented, “America must remain American.” This phrase would become the rallying cry of anti-immigration sentiment until after World War II. The eugenic intent of the 1924 law and the quota system it established remained in place until they were repealed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

And y’know what’s hilarious? They were STILL WRONG!

John, every single last damn talking point of yours is a repeat of history, and it’s all based on you not knowing what Economies do with labor. You don’t know, you’ve never researched this topic.

Or in fact, have actually any belief in the central American ideology, that liberty is worth it. You don’t trust in that idea.

Don’t trust in the American dream, don’t trust that America can be a boiler plate for anyone to come here, and prove their worth through their own grit and determination.

No; you think, like loans, or a choosy country club, you have to already be successful before you be allowed to come here.

Because you think Carpenters and Stone Masons are useful as Factory workers and cab drivers… clearly, no one else could do that work. In your world, only the mismatched & overqualified need apply.


They had NOTHING resembling the modern Welfare State in the early 1900’s and crediting the economic rise to increased immigration is utter buffoonery.

Immigration FOLLOWS economic growth and opportunity, it does not precede it. North Dakota experienced a huge boom recently and had a massive influx of people migrating there, now many are leaving; the fracking boom preceded the migration and a leveling off of oil demand caused an exodus of many of those migrants.

NOBODY migrates to an impoverished place with no opportunity unless the Welfare is great.

The immigration boom in the early 1900’s was no different, and when the workforce outgrew demand we had The Great Depression; which lasted until a World War artificially raised demand for labor and fighting men high enough to compensate for the glut.

Citing a barrage of opinions from people who have no idea what they are talking about and who have no idea how the system is being worked encapsulates the entire problem, all the decisions are being made by ignoramus’s who know nothing but hearsay on the subject.

The only advantage to the immigration system that the Left are advocating for in this thread is an insurmountable majority for the Democrat Party via the universal government dependence of all but the few Cronies at the top who buy political favor.


I… didn’t. Immigration does help to make the growth period larger though, as it’s a matter of getting labor, where it is in demand, when it’s being demanded.

Having a mobile work force willing to do that for you is a boon; oil that slickens the gears of the economy.

Immigration can also help during recession for the same reason; they’ll travel to the places in the economy that haven’t gone dead, and help to plug-in labor gaps, which will spur on activity in places that are being grinded by the recession.

And Immigration in America wax and wanes alongside economic cycles.

During good years, it increases, during bad years, immigration stagnates, or even declines.

If Welfare was the main thing they were after, what we should expect to see is a rising trend that basically never abates.But it’s not what we see. What we see is a clear tit-for-tat relationship of immigration to economic performance; to the business cycle.

I mean, here RET, this of the Netherlands, they have a far more generous Welfare Net than we do, notice any correlation between these two trends?:

Actually, the Great Depression basically lasted until 1946, but you’re not wrong that labor demand slackened in the 30s, and lasted until WWII.

They aren’t “making decision”, they’re doing the opposite. They’re saying Quit fiddling with the economy, Dammit!

The Economy needs labor, whether or not a Welfare state exists. That is beyond reproach. We needed labor before the Welfare State, and we still need labor with it.

The claim you are making is that you can usefully determine how much labor the economy needs. And I’m calling BS. You cannot possibly have that knowledge. No one knows that RET, NO ONE.

If you did have that knowledge, you could tell me how many people need to move between Texas and any other state. Or, you could usefully set controls on the supply of corn, based on how the Gov’t subsidizes it. The variables involved would be just as complicated.

But since I know you don’t know either of those things, I know you don’t know this.

Only the Free Market exchange of goods, capital, and labor, gives us the best possible result. Not Government micromanagement. Not even when the Government subsidizes it. You’re overestimating what Central Planning knows.


Everybody does get that the whole point of our screwed up immigration system is to keep a large supply of legally circumscribed labor, right? As I understand it, even some legally contracted foreign workers are allowed to work under different rules to make their labor cheaper. To my way of thinking, illegal immigration is not so much an artifact of the immigration laws as it is of the tax and regulatory codes.


The claim that having labor subsidized for non citizens by creating massive bureaucracies that take money by force from productive citizens and (after skimming massive amounts off the top) giving that money to non citizens who can then work for far less than citizens can afford to work for; and then calling this “the free exchange of labor in an economy that is not fiddled with” would be hilarious if it was not destroying the lives of the innocent.

The economy does not “need labor”, we have one of the lowest worker participation rates in our history right now.

Subsidized labor is NOT “cheaper”, it costs far more than just letting the Labor Market find its own balance between the cost of living in a given area and those who require local labor to perpetuate their enterprises.

Right now in the San Francisco Bay Area; six figure tech workers are living in cars on public streets or in warehouses converted to dorms while illegal immigrants are living in homes and apartments in spite of earning less than 20 dollars per hour in basic labor jobs.

The reason is NOT a “Free Labor Market”, the reason is because the illegals are protected from prosecution by “Sanctuary City” policies and their cost of living is subsidized so massively that their actual paycheck doesn’t need to cover much more than beer and gas money.

The “Labor Shortage” is manufactured by allowing unlimited immigration and subsidizing those immigrants so much that the cost of living does not play a factor in the negotiation of their labor rates.

This may be the Lefts definition of a “Free Market” but giving your own citizens only two choices, either go on Welfare so you can compete or move somewhere without an imported subsidized labor pool is not in any way “Letting the Market work”.

This is the definition of managing the economy with government and all it accomplishes is massive dependence, high poverty rates and insurmountable majorities of Democrats in every level of the government to insure this sorry state of affairs is perpetuated in perpetuity.


Yes! You.

Not only are you hilarious and pathetic with your deflections, half truths, omissions, and never ending obfuscations, but you still avoid answering a legitimate question with regard to your ideas regarding immigration.

We are talking about importing the worlds poverty stricken poorly educated, low and unskilled populations into America. If it is so profitable to import this group, why don’t you agree to pay for their economic needs for five years and become a millionaire or perhaps billionaire because it is so profitable to import them?

Put up or . . .



Yes it does. We do not have a singular, uniform labor market in this country RET, THAT is an error in your thinking.

We have MULTIPLE, DISCRETE, labor markets all across the country, some of which have unemployment, some of which have shortages.

Immigrants go to where the shortages are (disproportionately in rural counties), and help to right-side those localized labor markets. This in turn helps our economy, helps to spur activity in the cities, and allows for more jobs to exist.

And all the Americans who live there are subsidized.

You’re not going back to the source to fix the problem, you’re only attacking a symptom.

Fix the welfare. That’s the proper approach. It’s the welfare creating the distortion, while immigration is a natural economic occurrence. Quit pretending that the latter is the problem.

Our corn isn’t “free market”, it’s been subsidized for decades. That doesn’t mean that you know what the supply of corn should be restricted to.

Subsidies, do not magically give you the knowledge of what supply should be. You do not know this RET, no one does.

Once again, we have MULTIPLE labor markets, many of which REALLY DO have shortages, but you’ve ignored that. You’re taking the picture of one labor market, and are assuming its the same everywhere else.

You’ve never gone to ask growers in North Carolina, or meat packers in Iowa and Missouri, or a Dairy farmer in upstate Maine, what they would do, if they couldn’t get this labor. And the answer is “go out of business”, because the American labor, doesn’t exist for them.

And then we’d be importing all that food, instead of making it here. Does that sound good to you RET?

Uh, Illegals and poorer Americans are leaving California in droves. Heading for Texas and other more prosperous states.

San Francisco may be an eddie, because they offer more subsidies than other places… but I doubt it scales very well.

And what you talked about warehouses doesn’t sound like a punishment, it sounds like what you’re seeing is Gentrification, a broader trend where young, affluent people, move into poor neighborhoods, and basically transform it.

No, dictating labor supply is Government management.

Food stamps are a subsidy, burning corps is management. And the latter is far & away more stupid.

You don’t have the knowledge to know where labor is needed, and where it isn’t. You’re making yourself a central planner, and you’re assuming knowledge you don’t have.

That is Hayek’s Pretense of Knowledge. You are assuming that you know how much labor the markets need.

But I know, you don’t have that knowledge. Again, no one does. That is information which is impossible to observe, much less centralize. Subsidies do not in anyway make that knowledge more accessible.

That’s the assumption the LEFT makes with healthcare, and they’re just as wrong.


Yes, just as we did in the Early 20th century. You cannot sidestep the truth of that.

A poorer America pulled off what you say is lunacy. Without subsidizing anyone.

You still don’t have an explanation for how it worked then, do you John?

The vast majority of our immigration has always been poor & unksilled, now is no different than what came before.

You’re just rehashing Eugenicist rhetoric at this point.


BS–again–AS. Illegal Immigrants aren’t going where there is a shortage of labor. They’re going to “sanctuary cities” where corrupt governments are BOTH “protecting” them and subsidizing them.


Yes they do; their growth in North Dakota and Texas has been far faster than California or Illinois.

Give you one guess as to why.

Economic growth attracts immigrants. Even RET was saying it.


Please read Thomas Jefferson in his case for war against England:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Why, you are correct. I do believe just that. So did the Founding Fathers.