WSJ: 8% of new “citizens” are born by illegal aliens

Is this really what we want?


Filed under Uncategorized

21 responses to “WSJ: 8% of new “citizens” are born by illegal aliens

  1. pulled up in OG

    Who else is gonna wear all those leaf blowers in fifteen or twenty years?

  2. reader

    are you sure that “being born by” is correct english grammar ?

  3. Earth Ocean Sky

    I volunteer at a local food pantry and as politically incorrect as this might be to say, it’s the rare illegal woman who comes in who is not pregnant. And more, she’s already got a one-year old and a two-year old. I try not to be angry about it, but I get home and vent. It’s not right.

  4. fake Hiram

    I am as close as google:

    Born to run
    Born to be wild
    Born to Salsa

    Yes to the above:

    Born to a mom – not so much.

  5. dogwalker

    I am very liberal in my outlook on social matters, but I cannot understand why this one was not tackled long, long ago!

  6. just_looking

    I have been complaining about this for years…

    an illegal act should make all following acts illegal.

    Illegal immigrant = Offspring not entitled to automatic citizenship.

    All this does is (again) encourage bad behavior.

    Remember, then the illegals eventually stay with their now legal relative (offspring).

  7. HG

    You are all absolutely right. We are experiencing the same conditions that led concerned Americans to elect President Robert Conrad on the Know-Nothing ticket in 1860, defeating Lincoln and deferring the less important issues of the day in favor of restricting immigration of undesirable Papists. It is imperative that we pass a Constitutional Amendment correcting this policy, because walling ourselves off from the huddled masses is what has made us great in the past and can make us great again. There can be no doubt that your anti-immigration views will be validated by history.

  8. HG

    “We can have open borders or a welfare state, but not both.” One is as American as apple pie. The other isn’t. I’d respectfully suggest we focus on dismantling the un-American one.

  9. BTW, HG doesn’t live in Arizona, Texas, New Mexico or southern California border areas.

    Folks living there have had enough of being overrun by all the apple pies.

  10. HG

    CF, your Uncle Milton quote inspired me to google Friedman’s views. I came across this interesting site, which quotes Friedman specifically on immigration from Mexico, and his preference for illegal immigration vs legal immigration. I think it is fascinating.

    I assume the quotes are accurate since they are consistent with Friedman’s “radical” support for freedom.

    I recognize that Friedman’s expanded quote on the subject would suggest a policy against granting citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, but still I thought worth passing on. Presumably Friedman would say that you should be against illegal immigration or against giving their children citizenship, but not against both. (All this assumes the welfare state remains in place).

    I continue to think your basic political beliefs (freedom, small gov’t) will lead you to reverse your position on illegal immigration if you come to consider the subject more in the light of economic freedom for all Americans.

    • HG, I am all for free immigration. The Senate just enacted a law barring talented scientists from India, for instance, that only hurts us. I appreciate your giving me the full Friedman quote, which. I admit, I had not read. Bring on the talented and ambitious, and we’ll only benefit.

  11. just_looking

    @ HG, ok, how?

  12. HG

    What is the obsession with stopping Spanish-speaking grape-pickers at our borders? The market wants those people here and they are going to be here. CF is absolutely right we should have the Indian scientists–as many as we can get–but also the grape pickers. The market will allocate best but we can beat other countries if we allow more immigration, impose less regulation on business and fewer taxes on our people.

    Free speech tests our commitment by forcing us to live with despicable speech. And the presence of poor immigrants with their strange language and customs is, like despicable speech, just something that comes with allowing real freedom.

    As Milton Friedman said elsewhere, “underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

    • HG, I have a beloved nephew whose father is Mexican. A fabulous kid who got through USC on a scholarship for his prodigious talent on the French Horn. I probably pick grapes better than he does (and in fact, come to think of it, my two bi-lingual daughters are doing just that in Northern California), but this country is definitely the richer for his presence. My objection to our porous southern border is that, in this crowded world and our current welfare state, we have to get a handle on things. Indians, Mexicans, Chinese, bring them on! But with some sort of order.

  13. Cos Cobber

    Its about absorption and assimulation HG. We are at capacity. Immigration is essential, but it needs to be at a pace that we can digest.

    btw, HG, what’s your take on immigration if we were europe and being overun by muslims on a scale with our south american immigration?

  14. HG

    CC, I admit the immigration question is easier when it is Mexicans (or Indian scientists). Still, I’d say let the immigrants come from the Muslim countries, too. The Europeans have never figured out the idea of individual freedom, so they are inherently less capable of absorbing immigrants. As for Al Qaeda, I think money is better spent on hunters than fences.