Donald Trump has made a lot of people angry. Why? Because he stated that a lot of the immigrants coming to the United States, from Mexico and elsewhere, are criminals, thieves, rapists, etc.
His critics — including, apparently, NBC, who fired him for his comments — claim or imply that to criticize immigrants at all automatically makes you a racist. [See the below video.]
I don’t know, or claim to know, what most immigrants are like. I have not met most of them. However, this fight between Trump and his critics misses the point.
In one important respect, Trump is right. Having open or no borders is dangerous for a country. Particularly for a country like the United States, where most people on the planet (including all of the immigrants in question) prefer to live. America is a highly desired place, but also a highly hated place, primarily because of envy. Envy is a form of hatred, and people who envy America wish to attack or destroy it. Others love freedom, and are willing to take on the responsibility for one’s own well-being that freedom requires.
The bigger issue that nobody wants to discuss — including Trump, at least so far and to my knowledge — is the welfare state itself. We all know that America’s welfare state — defined broadly as public schools, public welfare, corporate and agricultural subsidies, and, most of all, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security — is beyond broke. In fact, the more people scream and shout about things like gay marriage and immigration, from either direction, the more I’m convinced they wish not to face the real crisis of our times, which is the fiscally and otherwise disintegrating welfare state.
The people who immigrate to this country from places like Mexico and Central America are, by definition, poorer than the poorest who already live here. For that reason, they are almost automatically qualified for virtually everything the welfare state has to offer. To some people, including presumably Donald Trump, this does not seem fair. Why should people who have lived here and paid taxes for years have the same benefits as people who enter the country and, overnight, Obama declares citizens because he presumably wants them on the welfare rolls, to keep his own party securely in power?
The welfare state is an endless, exponentially growing bottomless pit. It’s a black hole of emotional and fiscal wants, needs and desires. At some point, if left unchecked it will consume the entire economy itself, thanks primarily to Medicare and Social Security. Immigrants who (regardless of personal motivation) cash in on that welfare state the moment they enter the country are more the symptom than the cause of our problems; the cause is the welfare state itself. I’m waiting for one presidential candidate — just one — to acknowledge this fact. Will it be Donald Trump?
Here’s a possible solution. Don’t let immigrants have welfare or any benefits until they establish themselves in the United States. If they cannot or will not do so, then they do not belong here.
There has to be a reason nobody credible is suggesting this, at least not yet. The only reason I can think of? Fear of being called “mean” by progressives, the media, intellectually lightweight Hollywood actors, and other self-anointed moralists. Maybe even Donald Trump is afraid to state the obvious. If we (1) keep out known criminals and terrorists, of course; but (2) also only allow into the country people willing to work (say for five years) without the benefit of a welfare state, including public schools, then maybe we’ll attract the kind of independent-minded and self-reliant people who started the whole nation in the first place. These kinds of people obviously still exist. If they didn’t, there would be no country at all, because the productive and the capable are the ones who keep any society going, not those who need or claim entitlement to the earnings or property of others.
This suggestion does not arise out of racism. In fact, quite the opposite. Unlike an actual racist, I sincerely believe that there are plenty of people — Hispanic, or of any other racial descent — who are both able and willing to make their way in the United States without the benefit of a welfare or entitlement state. Those are the ones our country desperately needs the most, and it serves the self-interest of everyone to allow such individuals citizenship. Let them earn it.
Just to be clear, my premise is that there should not be a welfare or entitlement state in the first place — not for anyone. It’s always wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is not what any government is supposed to do. It’s not morally right, and it’s not economically practical. Governments are supposed to protect us from criminals, not engage in criminal activity itself; and no matter what you call wealth redistribution, it’s still the violent use of force and coercion against peaceful citizens. It’s not how the United States began, and we never should have gone there as started (most definitively) in the twentieth century. When we first did so, people who opposed it warned that welfare programs and entitlement subsidies would eventually lead to debt, injustice, fiscal calamity and loss of personal responsibility. Gee, that’s actually what’s happening now. Who knew?
I know that many would argue that this is discrimination, and therefore wrong. But the United States government is going broke. We have no idea how long we can sustain ourselves with all this government debt. How long can the Federal Reserve, using fiat currency (as opposed to a gold standard or some other free market mechanism), hold it all together so that the government can “print out” or electronically generate an infinite amount of currency to ensure that entitlement and welfare benefits never cease, and always continue to grow, grow and grow? Economists have no answer, because there is no precedent in all of human history for a debt on this unimaginable a scale. Debt and taxation do not produce growth, that’s for sure. On the scale we’re contemplating, they will only lead to stagnation, decline and ultimately collapse (think: former Soviet Union; think: Greece).
Productive people who already live as citizens in this nation already have to work non-stop from January into April, or even June, by some estimates, just to pay their debt to the government — which means primarily to the welfare state, since that’s overwhelmingly what the federal government now does. We have to discriminate, in this context, if we’re to prevent ourselves from going totally over the cliff; and even these steps will not be enough. Ultimately, only repealing and phasing out the whole welfare state will attain justice and economic sustainability. Nobody’s facing that, either. Which is probably why nobody argues about immigration in any terms other than, “You’re either for immigration as Obama defines it, or you’re a racist.”
So I would like to know what Donald Trump thinks of eliminating the welfare state for immigrants, for at least the first five years of citizenship in this country. I’d also like to know if he favors continuing with a government-coerced welfare and education state, or whether he’d like to see some steps at least in the direction of privatization. If he won’t take a position, than he’s not the original or forthright kind of candidate he claims to be.
Indiscriminate immigration, which Obama and his partisans in collectivism seek, will hasten our fiscal and social collapse. However, ruling out all immigration on principle fosters racism and keeps away the best and the brightest out of our country — at at time when we desperately need them. Why not encourage the best kind of immigrants, and in the process begin the transition to a free market, individualist society?
Be sure to “friend” Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1