Sunday, August 16, 2015

Donald Trump says he'd deport illegal immigrants

Trump laughs at your four television networks! And unlike Tom Tancredo back in 2008, he is dominating in the polls, with the most recent showing him at 25% with the next closest in the Republican field at 12%*. His campaign's official platform position on immigration is here. This is a leading presidential contender putting his name behind these things. I have vanishingly little hope in the political process, but the Trump phenomenon is something to behold. If your sentiments are similar to mine, you have to talk this guy up wherever you're able to.

Operation Wetback, carried out during the Eisenhower administration, showed that this isn't actually necessary. The threat of deportation will cause far more illegal immigrants to voluntarily self-deport than will ever actually need to be forcibly removed.

That said, this declaration is great. Carrying it out would do far, far more for American workers than any amount of minimum wage hiking ever will. It's basic supply and demand.

It's also the executive enforcing the people's laws which is, you know, the whole purpose of the executive branch of the federal government in the first place.

A few thoughts that are old hat to me but possibly novel to those who haven't been intellectually invested in the immigration debate over the last decade (or longer):

"Crops are rotting in the fields!"

Every year these ridiculous stories about 'crops rotting in the fields' crop (heh) up. It's called spoilage. It happens in virtually every industry. It's the marginal stuff that remains unpicked after the (almost literal) low-hanging fruit has been taken. It is not profitable to collect at even minimum wage, which is why it goes unpicked by agricultural laborers who are often paid by what they bring in.

The arguments that are made in favor of minimizing wages are the same arguments that can be made in favor of slavery. Without the modern welfare state, voluntary slavery would exist (in the Occident--it still exists in much of the non-Western world). Just came across a story from Rome in the early imperial period where a slave that was manumitted returned to his master a couple of weeks later pleading desperately to be returned to slavery because he had been reduced to emaciation and sleeping in public--at least slaves were fed, clothed, and given shelter. The only real difference between low wage agricultural work and slave agricultural work is that in the former the workers are paid subsistence wages while in the latter they are simply paid subsistence.

No country characterized by low labor costs is also a country with high median wages. It doesn't happen because wealth is not created by having humans perform menial tasks for minimal compensation but instead by mechanizing those menial tasks so that humans can do other things. There are lots of stories about how agricultural firms are investing in mechanized substitutes for labor they don't want to pay for. Necessity is the mother of invention and innovation. The US can either chase cheap labor like ancient Egypt, Persia, or Rome or it can industrialize and mechanize like England in the industrial revolution.

"Immigrants do jobs Americans won't do!"

The "jobs Americans won't do" canard is, well, a canard. The top ten states in terms of low unemployment rates:

1) Nebraska
2) North Dakota
3) Utah
4) Vermont
5) Iowa
t6) New Hampshire
t6) South Dakota
8) Minnesota
9) Montana
t10) Idaho
t10) Hawaii

Those are not states characterized by high levels of immigration. To the contrary, every one of those states except for Hawaii (and Hawaii's immigrants are emphatically not the same immigrants that are inundating the contiguous 48 states from south of the border) has immigrant population percentages below the national average.

It's almost as if third-world peasants aren't there to do entry level jobs at sub-poverty wage rates (that are then heavily subsidized by those of us who are net taxpayers), Americans will do the jobs Americans won't do! Who mows the lawns, washes the dishes, and builds the houses in Montana? Must be Canadian immigrants!

These states also all have relatively high monetary standards of living, low crime, relative income equality, etc.

Mexico plays us like a fiddle. They export the bottom of their society that can't make it in Mexico and in return they get tens of billions of dollars in remittances each year. Export your poverty, your criminals, and your underachievers; get boatloads of cash in return. What's not to love? What's not to love if you're Mexico, that is.

The benefit to the US is a lot harder to determine because there isn't one unless you're an employer reaping the profits of cheap labor while throwing all the costs associated with that cheap labor onto taxpayers. Privatize profits, socialize costs--it's the new motto of corporate America.

* I don't think he's going to win the GOP nomination. If he manages to stand against the entire Establishment (really, all the opinion-making organs of society are against him--both political parties, the major media, big business) through multiple debates where traps will continue to be set exclusively for him, what will likely end up happening is that as the other ~16 GOP contenders drop out of the race one by one, they'll all start throwing their support behind one of the non-Trump candidates still in, so that it'll eventually just be Trump vs top Establishment candidate and most of the ~75% of Republican voters who are spread out across non-Trump candidates right now will come together against him.

I'm hopeful that he'll make a third party bid. The Republican party, like the Conservative party in Britain, is incapable of doing what needs to be done to maintain Anglo-Saxon civilization. Trump just might be able to give birth to something akin to Britain's UKIP in the US. If he does run third party, he won't win, but he likely would get the 5% required for said third party to be able to tap over $90 million in federal campaign funding in 2020, which is a prerequisite for any chance of a serious third party coming into being down the road. That is my hopeful outcome for the 2016 election.


SociallyExtinct said...

That said, this declaration is great. Carrying it out would do far, far more for American workers than any amount of minimum wage hiking ever will. It's basic supply and demand.

Supply and demand is always at work. Cheap illegal laborers siphon the supply while hacking the demand, skewing the wages.

Getting rid of the illegal workers will allow supply and demand to resume its normal televised ECON101 schedule. Prepare to pay more for your SWPL kale affectations!

Joshua Sinistar said...

This system is on its last legs. The Government has lost the people. Trump has the solution to prevent imminent collapse, but fortunately they will freeze him out. There is no point in continuing this farce. Whites have nothing that they owe these parasites. These inferior creatures see White altruism and charity as weakness. They do not understand kindness. They only understand force. Force is all they know, and the pain must be meted out to them for them to respect Whites again.

Robert said...

There will be no main stream political solution (not even a third party), our bureaucracies are too large, and our demographics have passed the tipping point. America and Europe are lost. The only way to take them back is with this "holds up hand in the shape of a gun."

Anonymous said...

Any level of discussion at a lower college level leads to the above conclusions, namely unskilled immigration hurts the poor, and skilled immigration can take a native born person's job. Simple fact. Keep spreading this truth; people are waking up.

Your blog provides the hard data. Thanks.

Orthodox said...

Trump has 25% of the vote. He only needs about 10-15% more to win because there's going to be at least a 3-way race. The talk of a third party is crazy at this point. Also, wait and see what happens if Walker, Cruz or another candidate turns right on immigration (Santorum is already right and Walker has spoken in Trumpian terms before; Cruz would have to flip flop to move right). The media/mainstream think immigration is a loser, but in another couple of months, the only guys with a shot at the nomination may all be moderate to right-wing on immigration. (Trump's plan is a moderate one historically.)

Anonymous said...

So I sometimes peruse through a wn website, and the creatures who comment there constantly complain about New Hampshire is being swamped by the Latino hordes and Minnesota is being swamped by the Black hordes. So either New Hampshire and Minnesota have much higher immigration levels than you would admit, or the wn creatures are being hysterical if even one Latino/Black family moves into their state.

Audacious Epigone said...


In Ann Coulter's book she asserts that Minnesota is "20 percent African immigrant". The figure immediately jumped out at me as absurdly high. The US Census pegs the total foreign-born population percentage in Minnesota at 7.3% from 2009-2013. I'm ignorant of what is going on there.

Anonymous said...


I think we both can conclude that Ann Coulter is a hysterical liar. The total Black population of Minnsota is only about 5%, and not all of them are Somalian immigrants.

After speaking with both extreme left wing anti-Whites and extreme right wing white supremacists, I can only conclude that both sides are full of liars.

icr said...

In Ann Coulter's book she asserts that Minnesota is "20 percent African immigrant"

Maybe she meant that Minneapolis (not Minnesota) is 20% black (African-Americans plus Africans):
As of the 2006-2008 American Community Survey, the racial composition was as follows:

Black or African American: 17.4%
American Indian: 1.7%
Asian: 4.9%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander: 0.0%
Some other race: 2.8%
Two or more races: 3.0%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 9.2%

But it must be more than 20% black by now.

Audacious Epigone said...


Exactly what crossed my mind. I reread the sentence to make sure I wasn't mistaking Minnesota for Minneapolis, but I wasn't and the assertion was prefaced with a statement along the lines of "Minnesota used to be 99% German, Finn, and English" but now it's "20% African immigrant". Pretty sloppy. I'm fairly familiar with the immigration 'literature' and she does a good job with most of it, but glaring mistakes like that make me wonder why drafts aren't run by some amateur enthusiasts like, say, us, to help prevent things like this from happening.

Anonymous said...


hahaha Coulter is just digging her own grave. btw, she's one of those "racially aware" White individuals who has had a Colored partner in the past. I don't even think she truly believes in the stuff she says. She is probably just a histrionic who says outrageous things for the sake of saying outrageous things.

To be fair, there are tons and tons (sometimes literally) of people who are leftist mirror images of her. I hate those people just as much.

Miller Smith said...

Hitting all employers with civil forfeiture for having employees that are illegal will cause a mass exodus of illegals out of the county and put much needed funds in the treasury. One does not have to arrest a single illegal. Since employers can find out if an employee is legal via a SSN check, they will have to provide an affirmative defense to prevent civil action and loss of all assets to the government.

Shut down all financial transactions leaving and entering the county of a certain profile, and pass a Constitutional Amendment that forbids the governments both state and federal, from providing any financial or material assistance to illegals (other than life saving emergencies), and a flood will occur back across the border.

The downside will be some serious inflation due to the sudden and severe rising cost of finding citizen employees to do the jobs the near slaves.