-109 votes

Ron IS Unreliable on National Defense

Ron has now discredited every technique to secure the border against the ongoing invasion that is changing the character of the electorate.

Ron is strong on national defense when he says to bring our troops home.

But defending US territory from invasion is another matter.

I agree that a border fence is undesirable for a variety of reasons, including that it would be ineffective without massive deployment of boots on the ground which would render a fence largely moot. HOWEVER Ron's argument against the border fence -- that it could be used to "keep us in" -- can be used against any and every technique used to secure the border against the on-going invasion that is changing the character of the electorate.

Yes, I know that the other candidates are most likely lying when they talk about border security.

Yes, I know that Ron has made statements -- very strong statements -- in the past about securing the border.

But here's the problem:

Ron's muddle-headedness on the issue of border security, placed in the position of the President, would be a perpetuation of the on-going destruction of national security through massive and unprecedented changes in the very character of the electorate.

The US isn't exceptional in its right to a strong national defense. The US is exceptional only in the importance to the world of preserving it against the further destruction of its founding character. The world is filled with cultures in which the very idea of individual sovereignty is unthinkably alien. We live in a world where peoples who have no strong roots in the ideals of individual sovereignty, have become the highest growth rate in the electorate due to immigration -- legal and illegal. This "experiment" with the very core of the United States -- its People -- is not simply irresponsible. It is treason.

Ron is still, by far, the best candidate for President, but on this issue he is losing core support.

PS: Since all but a few of the responses demonstrate abysmal reading comprehension of the main point, stated in the very first sentence and reinforced repeatedly throughout, that the problem is not that Ron Paul opposes a fence but that his REASON for opposing a fence undercuts ALL techniques for securing the border, I perhaps should have used a different closing sentence. Yes, perhaps Ron is losing some "core" support from this. But more importantly, he is losing the support of intelligent leadership at a stage in his campaign where that support is the most critical. In 1991 I was credited during my testimony before Congress, by the sponsor of the legislation, with coordinating a successful national grassroots effort to privatize orbital launch services. In 1995 I was credited by a founder of the US fusion program with a legislative program to terminate the US fusion program and replace it with private risk capital. In 2008 I led the successful fight to put repeal of the 16th Amendment and demand for Constitutional Declarations of War into the Washington State GOP's platform during that State's GOP convention. I have been doing other things during this campaign that have required significant sacrifice on my part -- things that no one else was doing that needed to be done. This "mistake" by Ron Paul is causing me to significantly re-evaluate my support of his 2012 campaign.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Incentives-border patrol

The cost of a paying a smuggler(aka a coyote) to get someone across the border illegally was about $2500 a couple years ago
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/the-rise-in-mex...

This is _after_ quite a bit of beefing up of security after 911(which roughly doubled coyote fees).

Last I checked the maximum fines for employers were roughly $25000-but those fines are rarely enforced.

When I say border security is a small part of the solution-even another major push in that direction-adding soldiers and building a fence might at best double or triple the cost of a coyote.

The thing is, the incentives to immigrate illegally-and to employ illegal alien labor-are much larger than these disincentives. Entitlements are a small part of these incentives. The _big_ prize is obtained by staying around until there is yet another amnesty-or producing an anchor baby and getting the right to work in the US legally.

The value of the right to work legally in the US is at least $100,000-probably much more. I base the low value on what Indians in the dowry system pay for groom with tempory worker visas in the US vs. similar men in Indian. Some countries actually _do_ sell citizenship rights-and the price of actually getting right to work anyplace decent is often quite substantial-unless one has a skill that country wants or qualifies under family reunification policies.

Even if we killed illegal immigrants on sight, we'd still have lots of illegal immigrants in the US-conditions in many parts of the world really are that desperate-and people really do risk their lives for relatively small rewards in things like dangerous construction jobs. This is why I think increasing fines are employers-and making employers in investors responsible for all costs they pass on to the public via illegal immigration are important. Whether you think entitlements are a good thing or not-as long as these exist, employers shouldn't mine these services for private profit as long as these programs exist. Also, employers that bring in employees illegally should be accomplices for any crimes those employees commit(which account for significant insurance costs and medical costs in many states).

I'm not "anti-immigration" However, I think any republican government needs to be managed for the benefit of its citizens. It seems reasonable for me for any immigrant(or visitor) to post a bond that would for example indemnify victims of a crime-and to assure they will in fact be responsible for their own expenses and those of their children in the US. The simple fact is that laws are hard to enforce among immigrants and visitors-because these folks are by definition highly mobile-and policies need to reflect that.

World market wages and reasonable returns to investment capital account for a relatively small part of US GDP. The rest is distributed according to political rules-whether we like that or not. I'd prefer for this economic rent to be distributed relatively evenly across the citizenry-and regulating immigration carefully helps achieve that. I'd also like to see the US get into a position it can accept more immigrants without economic dislocation-which might be the case if the space development policies of futurists like Gerard O'Neill were actually taken seriously.

Right now, we live in a world where poverty is the norm-even for hard working industrious people. Republics like America are a very special thing that require careful management to maintain.

Who said shoot the immigrants? Shoot the traitors!

In the absence of government corruption, it is far from clear that placing a well equipped observer every quarter mile along the border (10k miles * 4 stations * 3 shifts = 120k jobs), with appropriate mobilization of assets upon alert (National Guard), would be ineffective against the wage incentives to immigrate. What is crystal clear is that business interests are corrupting government so as to lower labor costs via immigration increase; and that includes businesses that encourage worker reliance on government welfare.

The balance you propose is based primarily on economic incentives but the economic incentives are to corrupt government against the interests of the sovereign people.

The balance I propose is to execute traitors and then get down to business enforcing the laws made in the interested of the sovereign people; which, in that environment, where treasonous business "leaders" were being routinely executed, really would simply boil down to border enforcement. Employers wouldn't have to check the citizenship status of applicants because the few illegals who had made it through the border would be captured and deported.

What we need is internal freedom, which means no internal prevention of crime but ruthless border prevention of immigration and draconian punishment of corruption.

PS: To the idiots who propose that capturing and deporting every last illegal would amount to a "show me your papers" police state, just let me point out that it is simply impossible for an illegal to obtain subsistence without connections. There are plenty of ways for local law enforcement to, over time, gather evidence that a particular person is not a citizen without doing random demands that people present their "papers". How long would it take? A small fraction of the time represented by the virtual permanent residence that illegals currently enjoy.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

To me....

The person who wrote this thread has a very narrow view that this one issue is more important than anything else.

Is he really a Ron Paul fan? Probably not. Because in view of all the other things Ron wants to do (end the Fed, bring the troops home, reduce the federal government) it seems he doesn't see the forest. Just the single tree of immigration.

Illegal Mexicans are not a threat any more than a legal immigrants are. I know this because my wife is an immigrant from the Philippines. I've met friends she's made locally from that country and some are about the laziest people I've met. Luckily my wife is very hard working as well as her closest friends.

But let's face it, you can't predict if someone will work hard in this country. The green card the government hands them does not mean they are not a burden to our society any more than if they don't have that card. That's just the truth that I came to learn first hand.

Does it mean we should let anyone in? No. But just like the drug war the harder you tighten your grip the more extreme measures immigrants will take. People prohibition has the same effect as drug prohibition.

It is not our fault

others live in fear and it isn't our job to cater to those that do.

jabowery

Whatever good You claim to have done in support of Ron Paul has been destroyed by Your ignorant words here on this forum. "Ron's muddle-headedness on the issue of border security."

You frankly should be ashamed of Your ignorance, and piss poor attempt to divide loyalties here in a gathering place for true supporters of Liberty and Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is not perfect, but He is Our best hope of turning around this country for Us and Our children.

Go significantly re-evaluate Your support of his 2012 campaign somewhere else. Your post has nearly 100 negative votes, its obvious your opinions are not the norm here.

So much for individualism

My diagnosis of the ills of society is primarily the herd mentality. Agreed, this herd is going against the larger herd and is headed in a relatively good direction. But the reality is that now is the time for the precious few of us who understand Ron Paul's significant errors (which may be insignificant compared to others) to put our full force behind raising these issues -- before Ron does more damage to his campaign or -- if he is elected -- the Nation.

PS As for "dividing loyalties" there is a place for loyal opposition. Moreover, loyalty cuts both ways. If Ron is disloyal to the Nation (I don't think he really intends to be) as someone running for President, it is urgent that he be corrected now, before he loses the election or, if elected, must be executed, since good intentions are no excuse in such a position of trust and authority.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

Please people, could everyone

Please people, could everyone please let this useless thread die and resist the urge to post anymore comments on it. Anyone that hasn't figured it out after reading all these comments ain't ever going to "get it".

------------------
Turn off the TV Propaganda.
Find out what's really going on!
www.Tru-News.com
"Your portal to reality!"

To cure a problem you have to understand the cause.

The cause of illegal immigration is benefits for illegal immigration.

End all benefits for illegal immigrants, and you end illegal immigration.

Randall_burns & jabowery

You both touch on some problems but how exactly does a "secure border" stop criminals from entering the country illegally?
You will NOT stop sex trafficking with a fence.

Your right, every border security measure could be used to "keep us in."

What ideas do you propose or support?

In His Own Words Ron Paul was just stating that fining employers for hiring illegals with fake documentation is not a good idea. I agree.
That said, we should totally shit can tax id numbers that allow illegals to work legally.

Oh yeah, I don't think anyone here or RP is defending unlimited legal immigration to the US of foreign workers.

Border security is a small

Border security is a small part of the problem. Right now, it costs about $2500 to hire a coyote(human smuggler). That is after a lot of beefing up of the border after 911. I think adding border patrol folks and a fence would help that a bit-but we'd still have a lot of folks willing to try their luck. The difference between working in Mexico or China and the US is just huge.

I think the Alabama law is a step in the right direction. In addition, we need to adopt the basic stance that illegal aliens, their employers and investors need to be held accountable for all costs associated with illegal aliens. Regardless of our stand on emergency room visits, education etc, as long as they are provided, the general public should not pay for these services for illegal aliens-or recent legal immigrants/visitors. They could be paid for by visa fees, fines on illegal immigrant employers and landlords--and confiscation of the property of employers whose employees are involved in accidents or crimes. I've seen one study that put the approximate cost of each illegal alien about about $100K. That is is $1.2 Trillion for the 12 Million folks here now! (I actually think this is an overly conservative estimate.)

I think Ron Paul is just naive on the idea that expecting employers to hire legal workers is wildly intrusive. The thing is, we have clear examples of substantial companies that pretty much provide fake papers to worker they know have no legal right to work in the US. We aren't talking the guy hiring a few day laborers-but substantial operations like meat packing plants.

As far as serious human trafficking, I think property confiscation is the only approach that will really work. When banks figure out that if they underwrite a massage parlor that chains women to beds, they risk loosing their capital, they'll get real careful real fast. They need to-because dealing with women that have been scarred for life this way is horribly expensive in the long term

Ron Paul is for quantitatively unlimited legal immigration

Ron has clear qualitative limits on immigration but as to quantity, he has been clear there are no quantitative limits in principle. All 7 billion people in the world could move to the US if they were non-criminals, willing to work for businesses that "need" them here.

Ron's neolibertarian puppet masters at Mises.org speak the true principles behind Ron Paul's immigration policy and demonstrate why Ron seems so muddle-headed (since he's not sociopathic but can't bring himself to eject these influences):

when you take a coast-to-coast flight it is impossible not notice that the vast amount of land space is the U.S. is completely empty. You would swear that the country was an uninhabited wasteland. Then you reflect on the immigration debate and get the strong impression that we are fighting for room to breath around here. It’s just a strange dichotomy. It’s one thing for Japan to worry about immigration, or Switzerland, or even Austria. But the U.S.? There are other factors, I know, but it’s probably true that 10 times the world population could live comfortably in the U.S.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

Vigilantes

Randall can speak for himself but bearing in mind:

"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

-- Wendell Phillips, (1811-1884), abolitionist, orator and columnist for The Liberator, in a speech before the Massachusetts Antislavery Society in 1852, according to The Dictionary of Quotations edited by Bergen Evans

Jeffersonian dedication to individual sovereignty, necessarily including a well armed People, demands that we respect full police powers be vested in every citizen:

Vigilantes.

The very term has been so smeared with connotations that vigilance itself is now a virtual sin according to the new state religion.

Any border land owner should not be punished for the efforts of border vigilantes that he allows on his land. If a border land owner refuses to allow vigilantes on his land then he has ceded that territory to Mexico by default and it is up to his more inland neighbors to allow vigilantes on their lands. That would quickly establish the true border of the US vs Mexico -- and do so in such a way that it is enforceable.

Any laws prohibiting this kind of vigilante law enforcement are a treasonous attack on the sovereign People.

Moreover, any laws that promote further immigration, legal or illegal, are de facto treason in the present environment and must be punished as treason -- through vigilante arrests and people's courts if the government's law enforcement mechanisms are unable to secure the Nation. By the way, I recognize that a Ron Paul Presidency would likely precipitate this, true, revolution. The good thing about integrity such as Ron Paul's, is that the issues are clarified via reductio ad absurdum. He might be hanged for treason but the Nation would, nevertheless, have benefited by clearing the decks for action, leaving the essential issues, such as the natural constitution of the People, exposed to the light of day.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

Ron is not wrong on defense

but I wish his message wasn't so bare knuckled.

Instead of saying "the fence might be used to keep us in," he could have said "yes, we need to defend our borders, but we should be careful to follow the Constitution and not sacrify individual liberties by making federal ID cards or building fences and increasing border security that might burden the freedom of movement of American citizens."

Instead of saying "Iran is not a danger to us and Israel" he might have said: "yes, Iran is a danger to us and to Israel, but we should be careful to follow the Constitution and start military operations only if there's a direct credible threat to our national security and only if the war is declared by the Congress."

That simple change in wording his message would make the difference between 10% and 30% in polls.

what are you so paranoid

what are you so paranoid about?? an invasion from Mexico??

the drug cartels?? - thats a simple solution through legalization

Puff Puff

Wonder WHY he's so paranoid? :)

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Where's the faith?

Ron Paul is the only candidate and man that voices:

1) The best defense is a well armed citizenry (militia), 2nd Amnd.; granted therefore. And wants National Reserves home.

2) The audacity to recognize and care that there are real "kooks," that very well would "fence" legal citizens in; or use "martial style rounding", for their advantage which they deem fit.

3) Defensive Military vs Military Complex.

Dr. Paul refers to the Constitution for his position on how to defend this nation. Problems with that document, too, may I presume? How does one not support a guy, for a defensive military that clarifies protecting; not picking the fight? I feel more safe, already, knowing others understand this! Most especially at a time when our "domestic" policing is quite large with massive control?

Wake up America, reality is what it is. Let's deal with this all the way to the core so, we can go forward in a safe and free society. I think safe and free morphed into safety. There's a lot of high dollar safety with less safe and free. We will never control humans unless; by force. That is not the intent, indeed, at least not in the USA!

Just a suggestion

I'd like to suggest to the site owners and mods to pay attention to multiple accounts being made under the same IP's if you aren't already.

A person might have one or even maybe two accounts but 3 or more would be suspicious in my book.

I have a feeling that people are joining and when they get negative feedback are just making new accounts to spread the same tired crap and or pretending to be a larger crowd versus actually being a much smaller one.

I've seen sockpuppet accounts on more than one site before so...

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

In his own words

http://www.vdare.com/articles/worse-than-a-crime-a-blunder-r...
"Don't punish third parties for not being keen to act as law enforcement agents in regard to illegal immigration. Blaming American employers and fining them for hiring an individual, directly or indirectly, with counterfeit identification strikes me as a compulsory servitude not permitted under the constitution. Determining who is legal or not is police and court function, not a responsibility of private business."

One basic problem is this:
folks in a country that isn't theirs are often not on their best behavior. Illegal aliens for example have a high rate of drunk driving incidents-and often drive without insurance or ability to compensate victims of accidents. These costs get passed on to US citizens-which is an indirect subsidy to the employers of illegal aliens-who are the ones really making the big bucks here.

Mexicans cannot be extradited for capital offenses legally. Extradition is not practical in many cases where it legally permitted. That means that illegal aliens can be used for all kinds of nefarious purposes. Employers can profit by bringin workers that will predictably commit crimes-and pass on costs to the public with no cost to themselves.

I'm not a huge fan of "the fence". I think border security is only a small part of the problem. Just sending folks home when caught is only part of the solution.

This is especially the case for folks that aren't even in the US "voluntarily".
www.texasmonthly.com/2010-04-01/feature3.php

Every year there are thousands of women trafficked into the US for a sexual trade that amounts to a modern version of slavery. Many more are brought in by employers under conditions of fraud. Nothing short of severe employer sanctions will make a dent in these practices. The property of these modern day slavers-and their investors can and ought to be confiscated to cover the costs they are imposing on their victims and the American tax payers.

I like Ron Paul compared to the GOP alternatives-but until he develops a real spine on the modern day slave trade-and its effects on American workers-he may be able to raise a lot of funds-but he won't be winning elections.

Actually...

the reality is, the accident victims are not bringing charges themselves...the state has no contract-juridiction over the "illegals", they are freer than most americans. However, if they cause damage, the injured party does have standing and can create a valid claim against the "illegal person"(see: free person)

However, the state never has standing, only presumptions of contract, which is absent because the "illegals" don't bother acquiring "licences-adhesion contracts" with the DMV.

They could never prove their claim that illegals dont have right to travel cause they cannot even prove who is illegal or not. Just goes to prove the "public" has the right to travel freely upon "public roads", we just have to challenge their presumptions.

This actually applies to all situations, people are complaining with their voices but not putting it into writing and documenting every detail and brining it all into court and forcing the other side to publicly declare their "claims" on and for the record.

Because then, we could show the whole world our court record of their defiance of the law aka contract. It could be declared to the military, to foreign nations. Do people really think they would allow it to go that far? Nope, as long as we complain with our mouths nothing will change.

The moment we start putting all this in writing and putting actual claims together that cannot be disproven with people who understand how to maintain their contract in court, it is all over.

We don't truly own the earth, we are merely stewards of it.
Not even "the government" aka "the public" aka "me as member of public" own the land..only the creator truly owns it. But we do have "equity-interest" in certain lands.

Bottom line, the world is only worse off in any situation if we fail to respond to the situation inteliigently and with an open mind

I also like RP, compared to the GOP alternatives.

And I also don't care who you are, or who Jabowery is, or what either of you thinks.

You are the peanut gallery.
And you are wasting valuable time and bandwidth here on this site
We know the issues and the positions, and we don't like being brow-beaten by one-issue zealots.
Go away.

3days

and already fell out of love lol.

You fickle bunch you.. I have a feeling many of the "new" people were never about liking Dr.Paul so much to begin with.

Just wondering what you'd think would happen to the influx of illegals if the benefits were taken away as he has proposed.

Add into that question the addition of a large amount of troops deployed on the border.

They'd probably swim the long way round huh?

Oh ye of little common sense and less faith.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Nope

Most of what you said makes little sense when put up against what he has said he'd do to secure it.

He's mentioned already that he'd bring the troops home and have them positioned along the border.

He's also mentioned many other ways to fix that. Another is cutting the benefits that illegals get for breaking our law.

What's further puzzling is this statement of yours...

'Ron is still, by far, the best candidate for President, but on this issue he is losing core support.'

Saying he is by far the best candidate then saying you'd have to rethink your own support. Seems a might odd.

Are you hoping to get to the weaker minded people? I don't believe there's a whole lot of them here.. You nor anyone else could shake my resolve for anything in the world.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Rethinking my support

Saying he is by far the best candidate then saying you'd have to rethink your own support. Seems a might odd.

If Ron Paul wins the Presidency, he will do everything in his power as President and leader of a revolution to pull out the stops on LEGAL immigration of non-criminal "willing workers" from "friendly nations" that are invited to the US by businesses here. He has basically said as much. I was willing to discount these statements and try to interpret them in another way -- that he just hadn't thought deeply enough about immigration yet -- until his attack on any practical means of securing the border. With that statement, I am no longer willing to discount those statements. It now appears that he is not in control of his faculties of reason and is, in fact on the issue of immigration, not his own man. Who is pulling his strings? Just the standard neo-libertarians dogma that results in statements on the Mises.org site like:

I know this observation is ridiculously aggregated, but when you take a coast-to-coast flight it is impossible not notice that the vast amount of land space is the U.S. is completely empty. You would swear that the country was an uninhabited wasteland. Then you reflect on the immigration debate and get the strong impression that we are fighting for room to breath around here. It’s just a strange dichotomy. It’s one thing for Japan to worry about immigration, or Switzerland, or even Austria. But the U.S.?

Given that this will merely delay the destruction of the Republic by making it an unrecoverable situation due to demographics, I have decided to invest my time preparing for that eventuality.

The thing that makes his Presidency so much more desirable than the other candidates is that he might lay the groundwork for the devolution of sovereignty to the States to the extent that the States are actually able to control their own borders -- not just from other countries, but from other States.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

Oh?

I think all of that is just silly. I also think you need a new assignment and maybe a new alias on DP perhaps. Either way, I wish you luck on your new vote of confidence for Perry, Romney, Obama or Chris perhaps if he chooses to run.

Have a safe trip.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

let this dumb thread die

let this dumb thread die

Amen

The quicker the better!

You don't like being informed...

For example, Randall Burns guts the main argument defending unlimited legal immigration to the US of foreign workers:

Social Security, Medicare/Obamacare/Medicaid are together less than 10% of US GDP. Food Stamps, education are also fairly small.

What you need to get your head around:
The entire workforce of the US could be replaced for less than 9% of the current US GDP by importing workers from really low wage areas like China and India.
http://www.vdare.com/posts/econ-101the-iron-law-of-wages-and...

Mexico is NOT a poor country-it is a middle income country by global standards.

Capital markets are already largely global. Anyone that wants to invest in the US already can. However, EVERY developed country regulates immigration-and has since WW I.

The right to legally work in the US is enormously valuable. If you really want to live in a zero tax country-there are a variety of countries that will sell you permanent residency(going rate is typically $100-150K). The problem is that unless you have your own retirement fund, you may find it rather hard to survive there.

If you read nothing else, read this: A Contract Between Americans

Of course I like being

Of course I like being informed. What I don't like is someone declaring that Ron Paul IS unreliable at the top of their DP posting. You could have reworded the title so that when I look at the list of topics I don't have to be sickened by the very sight of it. Why couldn't you have said something like, Ron Paul on Immigration? Have a little respect please.

You don't get it.

If you are as ardent of a supporter as you claim perhaps it is your lack of comprehension that is suspect. If all the government programs which make it so attractive for the illegals to come here were eliminated as Dr. Paul proposes, the border fence would then, unquestionably, become a moot point. Intellectual snobbishness doesn't become or suit you.

There are no politicians or bankers in foxholes.

I know Jabowery personally. I

I know Jabowery personally. I have seen him make significant personal sacrifice to support Ron Paul. The thing is, Ron Paul significantly changed his tone on immigration in his latest publication this spring

http://www.vdare.com/articles/worse-than-a-crime-a-blunder-r...

Immigration is a point that divides libertarians significantly. The cato folks would love to have open borders. Many libertarian voters believe strong national boundaries are essential in a world were de facto slave economies are a fact of life.

My personal stand is that the issue will become larger if any portion of Ron Paul's policies are adopted. The US work force could be replaced by 9% of present GDP. The return on present capital stock of the US accounts for a tiny part of the remainder. If you open borders, you can create a windfall for US investors-but the price on US workers is going be huge-much larger than is typically understood.

Few folks understand just how large the demand for US immigration rights is. We get 10 Million applicants for immigration each year-and admit only about 10% of those-most of which are allocated on the basis of family reunification.