Illegal aliens are obama's sixth column

It can be far easier to tell a lie than it is to refute one. This is a fact that leftists ruthlessly exploit. For them, lying is a moral imperatives. Americans have seen this with respect to their southern border. Obama lied about illegal immigration and he lied about protecting the border and those who near it. To fully refute the lies that are told about the need for illegals one needs to use both history and economics. This is what the following article does. It is written for those who want to counter leftist arguments in favour of illegals.

While General Mola used a secret fifth column within the city of Madrid to secure it for the Spanish Nationalists Obama is doing one better by using illegal immigrants to form a sixth column (the media form his fifth column) to turn the United States into a 'elective' one-party state by giving the Democrats a permanent majority. In this he has the treasonous support of the leftwing unionocracy, the country's so-called 'progressive' media, the entertainment industry's pseudo intellectuals, and numerous billionaires, many of whom — like the loathsome Sandlers and Soros — deeply hate the United States.

Instead of exploring at this point a policy that would — if not halted — lead to the eventual destruction of the United States let us examine the main arguments that are thrown up to defend what many might justly call treason. (In my opinion, an immigration policy intended to render the constitution ineffective and install what would in effect by a dictatorship amounts to nothing less than treason.)

We can do no better than start with Comedy Central's (known to patriotic Americans as Cowardly Central) smart-aleck Stephen Colbert. This economic genius justifies flooding the US with illegal immigrants from south of border — meaning all way the down to Tierra del Fuego — because Americans are too lazy to do the work that immigrants do (Immigrant farm workers' challenge: Take our jobs).

Now I want readers to hold on to their thinking caps because Colbert's lefty nonsense can only be debunked with an economic argument and a couple of historical examples. When Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations he noted that real wages in the American colonies greatly exceeded those in England whose wages in turn exceeded those found on the Continent. This was no mystery to Smith and his contemporaries: they knew full well that it was the scarcity of labour relative to land that drove up the colonies wage rates.

A similar phenomenon occurred in fourteenth century Europe. The devastating death toll from the Black Death created a severe labour shortage that — you guessed it — drove up real wage rates. As expected, once the population began to recover there emerged an inexorable downward pressure on wages. In other words, as labour services became less scarce relative to land their prices fell and the price of land and hence rents rose.

Regardless of what that brilliant economist and economic historian Stephen Colbert might say there is absolutely no way that any form of intervention could have reversed the above process. This brings us to our poor downtrodden illegal immigrants. The ones that are doing America a favour by breaking its laws and hinting they'll vote Democrat as soon as the progressive Obama can get them a free pass.

As I said earlier, hold on to that thinking cap. The demand curve for labour is always downward sloping. This is because at each point down the curve the value of the worker's output gets lower. (Economists call this the value of the marginal product.) The point at which the supply of labour meets the demand for labour determines the wage rate. As more people enter the market the supply of labour slides down the demand curve. Any attempt to prevent this movement will raise the level of unemployment. (This explains why the wages of peasants fell once the population recovered from the effects of the plague).

In a purely agricultural society it would be clear that the limiting factor on wages and therefore the standard of living would be the quantity of fertile land. But since the industrial revolution it was the process of capital accumulation that continued to raise real wages. Expanding the capital stock shifts the demand curve for labour to the right which raises the standard of living because having more capital to work with increases productivity and hence real wages.

This process will continue so long as population growth does not exceed the rate of capital accumulation. But should a comparatively swift and significant increase in the labour force occur then at best a slowdown in the growth of real wages would emerge: at worst real wages would fall. Few Americans know that this once happened to the US. The following chart shows that the annual growth in real wages of 1.27 per cent rate that prevailed from 1855-1895 was slashed to 0.55 per cent for the period 1896-1916. This 57 per cent drop was caused by "the great Ellis Island influx in the first two decades of the 20th century"*.

The situation of New York maidservants is a graphic example of an unorganised and uneducated group whose real wages rose significantly without the help of Democrats or the thugs like the SEIU. On the eve of WWI the average wage of these girls was about $3.50: by 1922 it had jumped in real terms to about $18. So how did this happen? The war slashed the flow of cheap labour from Ireland and Scandinavia — where many of these girls came from — while the increased demand from industry absorbed female labour from the South that would have normally gone into domestic service. But the vital factor was — as always — capital accumulation. There was a massive increase in industrial investment which raised real wages for everyone. It was this factor, combined with severe immigration restrictions, that raised real wages for everyone.

Let us take a look at another example, this time from England. Industrial development is never 'even' in that everyone is affected the same way, England was no different. Sir James Caird estimated that even as late as 1851 the average weekly agricultural wages in 20 southern counties were 8s 5d compared with 11s 6d for 12 northern counties. He correctly noted

that the higher-wages of the Northern counties is altogether due to the proximity of manufacturing and mining enterprise. (Sir James Caird, English Agriculture in 1850-51, London: Longman, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1852, pp. 511-12.)

So what Sir James found is that where population increased but industrial development remained absent real wages stagnated. Once again we are back to capital accumulation as the key to raising the standard of living. This in turn brings us back to smarty-pants Colbert, illegal immigrants and all those lovely jobs that good-for-nothing rednecks refuse to do. Once a country starts accumulating capital at a far faster rate than the growth in population it eventually becomes capital intensive, which means that as the competition for labour raises wages more labour intensive industries have to raise their wages or otherwise lose labour. This is why barbers get paid vastly more today than they did 150 years ago.

Those who cannot successfully compete for labour must abandon their enterprises. This situation is not to be lamented but celebrated. It means that the standard of living is rising, not falling. This is where the phony labour shortage comes in. If it is found, for example, that parts of agriculture cannot pay enough to attract the labour it needs then it will complain of a labour shortages. But in these circumstances this is to say no more than the prices of their products will not cover the market wage.

To try and solve this 'labour shortage' by flooding the labour market with immigrants is to promote a policy of lowering real wages. It is, in effect, a strategy for using imported labour to offset the beneficial effects of capital accumulation. Taken to its logical conclusion this policy would push American wage rates down to the Mexican level if not lower. It is, in fact, a deeply anti-growth policy.(For those who doubt me I refer to a study produced a few years ago by the UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center that concluded that the flow of illegals had driven down local wages by 11 per cent. Imagine the situation if the flow was to rapidly expand.)

Economic logic tells us that by bringing in more and more labour jobs that had once disappeared can reappear. No doubt that great economic theorist and scintillating wit Stephen Colbert would point to this as evidence that the jobs were always there but Americans just wouldn't do them. This would be the response of an economic illiterate, which is exactly what Colbert is, apart from also being a lefty bigot.

One could argue — and many do — that illegals could be turned into guest workers, at least for agriculture. Why bother? It would be much better for America and Mexico if those US operations that need illegal labour because they cannot afford US labour packed up and moved south of the border. This would release resources in America for more valuable activities while at the same time creating more job opportunities in Mexico.

Ultimately jobs are a function of price. This leads to the conclusion that the re-emergence and spread of low paid jobs would be evidence of either capital consumption or the population growing faster than the rate of capital accumulation. If Colbert and his lefty mates get their way it will certainly be the latter case. And why would Colbert and Hollywood's celluloid intellectuals (Jimmy Smits for one) support a policy that cuts real wages? (The wages of others, that is.) Think about it, where else can these caring and compassionate liberals get cheap labour to cut their grass, do their laundry, change their beds, dust their antiques, wash their cars, babysit the kids and mindlessly vote for corrupt Democrats?

And this is where Obama's sixth column appears. If this leftist and the rest of those political gangsters called the Democratic Party thought for a moment that illegals would overwhelmingly vote for the Republicans not only would they be sending them back by the trainload they themselves would be down on their hands and knees at border laying anti-personnel mines — and Jimmy Smits and the rest of the corrupt Hollywood crowd would be down helping them while Comedy Central put on skits about Mexicans playing hopscotch in mine fields.

Obama has basically said that while he remains president the border will to all intents and purposes cease to exist. What he is doing is inviting into America an army of illegals that he later hopes the Democrats can pardon in exchange for their votes. This is no different in principle from them bringing in an invading army to keep themselves in power. There is a word for this kind of behaviour.

Why would Obama do this to his country? Because he is a dedicated leftist who hates America and despises its people. No wonder he found a home in the Democratic Party.

http://www.brookesnews.com/100507immigration.html