The Numbers Game (UPDATED)

UPDATED WITH THE PRESIDENT'S LAME SPEECH AND REAX

China has become the factory of the world. 1.2 billion Chinese ensure a seemingly limitless source for cheap, but mostly unskilled labor, even at the current one-child-only policy.

It seems the US wants to hedge its bet by competing with China and India on the Numbers Game, whilst partly hoping to keep a trump ace up its sleeve: Flooding America in the next 20 years and beyond with a new mix of skilled and unskilled labor. This is in contrast to the Chinese and Indian model where wage competitiveness relies on the seemingly never ending supply of rural, unskilled labor in the foreseeable future.

Hours before President Bush's address on immigration reform, today's report by the Heritage Foundation on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA) is an absolute must read! It highlights the fact, that the raging debate over the fate of 11 Million illegal immigrants is actually a mere sideshow given the projected influx of legal immigrants over the next 10-20 years for which the CIRA would pave the way. LGF just posted the link Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years adding that it "...should make Americans very uneasy. [...] Even if you support legal immigration, this bill seems completely nuts."

If enacted, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the U.S. over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

Much attention has been given to the fact that the bill grants amnesty to some 10 million illegal immigrants. Little or no attention has been given to the fact that the bill would quintuple the rate of legal immigration into the United States, raising, over time, the inflow of legal immigrants from around one million per year to over five million per year. The impact of this increase in legal immigration dwarfs the magnitude of the amnesty provisions. In contrast to the 103 million immigrants permitted under CIRA, current law allows 19 million legal immigrants over the next twenty years. Relative to current law, then, CIRA would add an extra 84 million legal immigrants to the nation’s population. The figure of 103 million legal immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits.

These projections are simply staggering. As the report points out, "if enacted, CIRA would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years," and would dwarf the Great Migration:

Between 1870 and 1920, the U.S. experienced a massive flow of immigration known as the “great migration”. During this period, foreign born persons hovered between 13 and 15 percent of the population. In 1924, Congress passed major legislation greatly reducing future immigration. By 1970, foreign born persons had fallen to 5 percent of the population.

In the last three decades, immigration has increased sharply. The foreign born now comprise around 12 percent of the population, approaching the levels of the early 1900’s. However, if CIRA were enacted, and 100 million new immigrants entered the country over the next twenty years, foreign born persons would rise to over one quarter of the U.S. population. There is no precedent for that level of immigration at any time in U.S. history.

And now I am going to shock you, because the Hagel/Martinez Immigration Bill may just be what the Doctor ordered; it may prove to be the smartest long-term offensive against economic sclerosis and marginalization of the U.S. in the face of growing global competitiveness. It may replicate the baby boomer phenomenon by effectively pushing the U.S. into an economic cycle akin to that of a developing country. Nothing rivals the power to boost any economy more than the net increase in spending on a large scale by a newly emerging middle class. And the Immigration Bill may just have that effect.

Keep that in mind when you listen to the President's address later today and enjoy Allah's open thread, setting the scene over @ Hot Air with the latest reax - below a quick taste to wet your appetite

The president had better pull a rabbit out of the hat tonight because no one’s buying his line on this issue anymore. Michelle has a serious case of Bush depression syndrome this morning; symptoms include a new Vent and this link extravaganza. PoliPundit’s disgusted, John Hawkins is dismissing the troops-on-the-border ploy as a “gimmick,” and Hugh Hewitt, of all people, is talking schism. Captain Ed soothes the savage beasts by noting that our best chance for real reform lies in the idiocy of open-borders advocates, which, thankfully, is plentiful.

More @ Hot Air, Gateway Pundit, QandO, Ankle Biting Pundits News, Right Wing Nut House, The Moderate Voice, La Shawn Barber, Ace of Spades HQ, Talking Points Memo, America Blog, Outside The Beltway,  Pundit Guy, Poli Blog, The Washington Monthly, ParaPundit, Confederate Yankee, The RCP Blog, Daimnation!, New York Post, Hyscience, Right Wing News, Daily Pundit, The Corner on National, Washington Post, Associated Press

UPDATE: Relax, the Chicago Tribune makes a good case that Hagel/Martinez Immigration Bill won't pass.

UPDATE II: The Address. It is quite obvious that the Administration is not committed to border control, and are just giving us lip service. This was a lame speech with some sort of an apologist center solution where 6,000 National Guard officers will be decorating the border for one year, not apprehending illegals, but ahem, deterring. Yeah right. This half way message has not even been communicated down from the President to his foot soldiers, who are clearly stating the opposite to what we are being told. Fence, what fence? Julie Myers does not even know what we are talking about. Is that a border, what border?

I have no problem with reason and patience, if we are talking about the same solution, but I fear we are not. Political suicide may be fashionable, but does it have to be televised?

John is right "He had his chance and blew it". The vultures are already circling. Jeff is right there: "And?"

Disappointing to say the least, I just hope that my assumption in my original text post above is correct, otherwise, we would have lost credibility for absolutely nothing. At the moment, even this is beginning to sound better, and the "Open border drinking game" better still. We are now resorting to reminiscing about our accomplishments, and going off the wall completely? Sorry Mr. President you have totally lost touch with reality here.This is certainly one sell he did not make. Check here and here for the rest. It's time to turn toward Mecca, and our favorite Allah.

Does the President really think we are such cheap dates? Heard it all before? Or should I say it may not end up being the way it was before....Fausta wisely thinks this is a start. I dearly hope she is right.

Right Wing News, Sister Toldjah Big Lizards, Small Town Veteran, Hotline On Call, Confederate Yankee, Fraters Libertas,  The Glittering Eye, Blue Crab Boulevard, Decision '08 

Comments

[Michael Galien]

Samuel,
it would be very interesting for you to read some of Mark Tapscott's articles
and those of Prof. Bainbridge

I myself wrote about it here, here, here, here and here.

Alexandra wrote a very interesting post about it today.

[B. Samuel Davis]

Senator:
Please tell me why the Senate is going ahead with a plan that is the functional equivalent of national suicide, and will doubtless result in the loss of both houses of Congress for Republicans? Do Republican Senators seriously think that these new citizens will vote Republican? What credit did Republicans get for the 1986 plan? And Please tell me why the Senate is going forward with this amnesty plan in the face of almost universal - and strenuous - opposition from Republican rank and file. In fact, most Democrats and independants are against the plan. So....why adopt it?

We could little have imagined that in one short year, under President Bush's leadership (or rather lack of leadership), we are now in danger of losing both houses of Congress. The reason for this isn't the war, Senator - you would have continued support from the rank and file in our war effort. It's immigration, which already may have led to the loss of conservative talk radio's ready identification with the Republican party. And for what - where is the support for this bill? What is the constituency? It isn't Republican that's for sure! Heck, it isn't Democratic!

Senator, you will never win a Presidential election by trying to be all things to all people - Kerry tried it and it didn't work. People want a leader with strong principles, who talk directly to them and who they can trust. The Senate bill is at heart a cynical and dishonest piece of legislation, and those Republicans who support it will end up paying a heavy price. In fact, however, that price is going to be paid by all Republicans, to say nothing of ordinary Americans who will bear the burden of this legislation for decades to come. Let me ask you again - who supports this bill, and why has it come up now, at the worst time for Republicans?

I assure you Senator, that it is a mistake to underestimate the real anger out there at Republican legislators and President Bush among Republicans. There was always anger on the part of Democrats but it is now joined by rank and file Republicans who see the Senate as completely abandoning principles that put the party in power. This is not forgive and forget, either. The end result of this anger, Senator, is change, and change means a Democratic Congress, and eventually the Presidency, likely for years to come.

In short, history will not kindly remember those responsible for the mess we will be in if the Senate bill passes.

Senator Frist, being a staunch Republican, I never throught I would write a letter like this one, but my bitterness at seeing all the efforts of the last 12 years simply being wasted away by an out of touch Senate and President is too much to bear. It is going to be with absolute dismay that, like many other Republicans, we intend to withold our votes in November. However, what the Senate and President are doing simply leave us no other choice. We couldn't be more bitter and upset about it.

Please note that I intend to post this note as an open letter on major blog sites to you Senator, from rank and file Republicans who are deeply upset and puzzled over the betrayal on the part of Senate Republicans on the issue of immigration and the President's amnesty plan. I've discussed its contents with my wife, the most rock solid Republican you would ever meet, who is utterly dismayed at what is going on in the Senate.

B. S. Davis

[a guy in pajamas]

D. Byron: I wonder if Republicans' new found horror over illegal immigration will give them more sympathy with the Palestinians?

Nah, 'cause there's no parallel there. Now, it might give them more sympathy for Israel ...

Of course it's only the religious/racist wing of the party that has decided to make immigration an issue.

Yeah, sure, and it's only the "godless communists calling for the destruction of the United States" wing of the Democrats that oppose them. Whatever.

The aristocrats are very happy to have a virtual slave worker class to undermine wages, and so increase profits in America. There's nothing so conservative as illegal immigration. No labor laws, no civil rights, no minimum wage -- it's perfect for Republicans.

So explain to me why the Democrats are the biggest supporters of illegal immigration. I mean, the only ones talking about ending it are some Republicans, while the Democrats are defending this clear exploitation of a poor immigrant class. Of course, this makes sense as the Democrats are the aristocrats.

As Bush's complete failure as a president becomes clearer (he's the most unpopular president since polling began - a 71% disapproval vs Nixon's second "best" score of 66% disapproval)

Whoah, here you step off into outer space. Popularity is the measure of a president's success? No wonder your side is led by Hollywood instead of serious politicians.

they've wanted to reject him but can't admit they were wrong about their fanatical support for him for five years so rather than pick a real issue, they wanted a new issue

Nah, they have had plenty of disagreements with Bush over the last five years (budgets, anyone?), but the overall themes of Bush's presidency they've supported. However, with illegal immigration, the base's idea of what must be done for security don't jive with Bush's idea, and there is a legitimate disconnect here. If Bush changed his mind, there wouldn't be a problem.

Thus he is now getting blamed for a policy all Republican party leaders have always had and always will have.

Actually, he is being blamed for policy all Democrat politicians support, a legitimate complaint for Republicans who, you know, thought they voted for Republicans and are disappointed they seem to be acting like Democrats.

[igout]

"And now I am going to shock you...." Sounds good on paper, A, but: Isn't that approximately the calculation those hack politicans made in Europe in admitting all those millions and millions of Muslims? I am not impressed at the result.

[DavidByron]

LOL. I wonder if Republicans' new found horror over illegal immigration will give them more sympathy with the Palestinians?

Of course it's only the religious/racist wing of the party that has decided to make immigration an issue. The aristocrats are very happy to have a virtual slave worker class to undermine wages, and so increase profits in America. There's nothing so conservative as illegal immigration. No labor laws, no civil rights, no minimum wage -- it's perfect for Republicans. Since it is the aristocrats who own the government with the religious/racist wing just "useful idiots" no Republican president will ever try to reduce illegal immigration.

It would be easy to solve this fake issue by fining the employers -- which is the last thing any Republican aristocrat will allow. The prefered solution is simply to lie to the useful idiots like they always do. Stir them up over a fake "cultural" (ie bigoted) issue and then do nothing. So why didn't that work this time?

I guess the useful idiots have been looking to become rats deserting the sinking ship. As Bush's complete failure as a president becomes clearer (he's the most unpopular president since polling began - a 71% disapproval vs Nixon's second "best" score of 66% disapproval) they've wanted to reject him but can't admit they were wrong about their fanatical support for him for five years so rather than pick a real issue, they wanted a new issue that would allow them to call Bush a "liberal". Thus he is now getting blamed for a policy all Republican party leaders have always had and always will have.

But the real issue is that the Republican religious/racist wing doesn't like supporting failures. Nobody likes to admit they've been had --- not just fooled once either. Shame on them!

Of course there's no "crisis" in immigration at all. It's a fake issue for 2006 elections, like flag burning, abortion and gay rights-- intended to stir up the religious/racist right without anyone expecting anything to ever happen afterwards. Back to the drawing board Karl! I guess he's had other things on his mind a lot recently.

[gringoman]

"Is George Bush Over?" Illustrated, graphically. (Guidance suggested for minors.)

Point: Does anyone really believe that the solution lies in Mexico invading the USA, while the USA--so as not to be disliked or disturbing the World Court gnomes or the Libstream Brain Trust--refrains from invading Mexico and cleaning it up?

[a guy in pajamas]

Mexican President Fox is a friend (e.g., standing up to Hugo Chavez), but he has to take care of his own as well. Remittances from Mexican immigrants in the US make a significant contribution to Mexico's economy, so strict enforcement leading to deportation of millions of Mexicans in the US illegally will damage the Mexican economy, and Fox. Mexico's economic problems are one of the problems driving illegal immigration to the US, so making their economy worse doesn't make a lot of sense.

Additionally, deporting millions of illegals will generate much greater anti-American sentiment south of the border, which will play into the hands of enemies trying to infiltrate that border, not to mention the Chavezers who are gaining power. We don't need that.

So, what about a multilateral solution? Give current illegal aliens one-year work visas, and tie their fate to changes in their home nations laws to improve their economies and liberalize immigration for US citizens.

E.g., in Mexico, non-citizens can't own property within 50 km of a coast, and they can't own more than 49% of a company. If Mexico legislates exceptions for American immigrants (so I can go open a dive shop in Qintana Roo, and actually own and run it myself instead of having to get a Mexican senior partner), and if Mexico makes other changes that will improve economic conditions there, we let their people stay, and the remittance money continues to flow.

I've outlined this idea in more detail here.

[Fausta]

I see the President's speech as a start.

[MT]

The Hagel/Martinez bill won't pass...at least if the conservatives in the House stick to their guns.

Bush did not give the speech that many conservatives were hoping for tonight, including me. Screw "comprehensive". Shut the border down, and enforce existing laws. I personally don't care if it takes another 10-20 years to bring the subject up again...the laws are currently there to deal with "illegals". Just do it.

There was a great thread here yesterday. I'm fed up, and not seeing any light at the end of the tunnel. It's a long ride and I have patience, but I'm very concerned that too many of the lifetime politicians in today's Senate are so self-absorbed that they've lost all common-sense.

Someone help me off the ledge!!!