The devastating economic effect of mass migration

Summary: Open borders and a massive flow of low-skill immigrants create social and political stresses, but economists tell us they boost the economy. That ignores their costs.


Economists extol the boost to GDP produced by poorly educated and low-skill immigrants. That boosts corporate profits and makes America bigger. But it is quite daft as an overall measure of low-skill migrants’ economic impact. Economists seldom mention how this flow depresses per capita income (which is what citizens care about) and wages of low-skilled workers. Economists seldom mention that these migrants pay insufficient taxes to cover the government services they “consume” (these costs are increasing as illegal aliens become eligible for free medical care and college education).

Look at California, the extreme example in America of open borders at work. In fiscal year 2015, California’s state and local governments’ total spending total per capita was $10,586 vs. the national average of $8,856. Low skill migrants generate only a fraction of that in new taxes. On highways alone, per capita spending was $424 from general funds (the US average is $525). No surprise that California’s transportation system is overwhelmed, as many migrants do not produce the tax revenue to fund the construction needed for them. Data from the Tax Policy Center.

California’s illegal aliens are the extreme case showing how this works. Estimates vary, but there are roughly 2 million plus illegals in California. They generate very roughly $3 billion in State and local taxes each year. Granting them full Medi-Cal coverage, as recently proposed, would cost $3 billion per year. They generate enough in taxes to pay only for their health care, and no other services! For more about this, see Choose: open borders or the welfare State?

The public infrastructure

There is another set of costs almost never mentioned, and just as serious. More people means more spending required to maintain and expand public infrastructure. The flood of low skill migrants to California generates only a fraction of taxes required. Decades of this has helped transform California from the nation’s leader in government services (e.g., among the best schools) and infrastructure to one of the worst States. As of approx 2016, from a 24/7 Wall Street report, California ranked as having the fifth worse infrastructure in the nation.

  • Roads in poor condition: 17% (5th highest).
  • Deficient bridges: 6.% (19th lowest).
  • Dams at high hazard risk: 53% (6th highest).
  • State highway spending per driver: $269 (4th lowest).

More low-income migrants put pressure on State services and infrastructure, but insufficient tax revenue to pay for them. Taxes rise (as does debt), but never enough to cover the need for funds. Infrastructure deteriorates from overuse; conditions worsen because of inadequate capital spending. California, and especially the San Francisco region, have entered the next (and terminal) phase of this process: it increasingly looks like a Third-World society, and middle-class out-migration is accelerating (go here to see why).

The US had roughly $37 trillion in “built assets” – public and private buildings and infrastructure (per Arcadis). That is $110 thousand dollars per capita, 15th highest in the world. We have to spend several hundred billion dollars (several thousand dollars per capita) each year to maintain and replace those assets. Additional spending is needed to keep it stable in per capita terms. New low-income migrants do not generate the funds.


Low skill migrants boost GDP. But it is the kind of growth that can financially wreck a nation. California is demonstrating that for us, but we seem likely to ignore the lesson until too late.

Afterword – Eventually, the big quake will hit California, knocking down that mad mess and creating the worst disaster America has ever experienced. Then conditions there will get much worse, and America will face difficult choices.

This was obvious long ago

P. J. O’Rourke saw this long ago, as he explained in Parliament of Whores (1991). Affluence forces difficult choices when a society’s population grows.

Parliament of Whores
Available at Amazon.

“It the sad truth of local government, like the sad truth of national government, is that people are no longer an asset* Humans do not benefit the modern state. Total 1989 Blatherboro town expenditure – including the town’s share of county government and school-system costs – was $9.5 million, or about $1,860 per person.

“Almost all this money was raised through property taxes and automobile registration fees. A typical new family moving to Blatherboro, with a mom, dad and two kids (for families still come in that configuration in New Hampshire), would be buying a town-house condominium with a tax-assessed value of $100,000. The current property tax rate on that condominium is $2,860 a year. If the new family owns two late-model cars, Registration fees (which are based on the blue-book value of the automobile) would be about $340.

“Add in a few miscellaneous levies and charges, and the new family ends up contributing approximately $3,500 per annum to the Blatherboro town coffers. But that is almost $4,000 less than what the town will spend on these people. A family of four must own at least a quarter of a million dollars worth of property to carry its own weight in the Blatherboro town budget.”

The problem O’Rourke describes is manageable. But the Federal government drops dirt-poor migrants into these communities. They need more than average services and pay far less than average in taxes. The community must either decrease the services it provides or jack up taxes.

The Feds do not ask permission before putting these towns under the hammer. “Consent of the governed” is an idea from a bygone era of America.

For More Information

Ideas! For shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See about immigration, and especially these…

  1. Essential readingSee the hidden history of immigration into America (it ruins the narrative).
  2. Important: Diversity is a grand experiment. We’re the lab rats.
  3. The lies about immigration keeping the borders open.
  4. The smoke & fire of the new Sweden is our future.
  5. Prepare for mass migrants, the greatest challenge to America.
  6. The Left goes full open borders, changing America forever.
  7. Choose: open borders or the welfare State?
  8. William Lind explains how to defend against an invasion.
  9. Our rulers make a new people for America.
  10. Fast action now can solve the immigration crisis.
  11. Important: See prescient warnings about immigration, which we ignored.

Three books about immigration, all well worth reading

See George Friedman’s (founder of Stratfor) prescient predictions about the American southwest in his 2009 book The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century. He describes where we’re going, facts too disturbing for most experts to say in public. This is a useful feature of such writing: since it is just guessing, we allow statements about the obvious that are politically or socially unacceptable (just as are, in a different way, statements by a court jester).

Europe is our future. If we act quickly, we can learn and avoid their mistakes. These two books provide clear warnings.

Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West by Christopher Caldwell (2009). See this post about it: About Europe’s historic experiment with open borders.

The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam by Douglass Murray (2017). See these posts with excerpts from the book: Martin van Creveld’s reaction to Europe’s rape epidemic. Warning of the “Strange Death of Europe”, and Strange perspectives on the challenges facing Europe.

Reflections on the Revolution In Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West
Available at Amazon.
Strange Death of Europe
Available at Amazon.


37 thoughts on “The devastating economic effect of mass migration”

  1. Those immigrants will undoubtedly keep voting democrat by and large. Keeping their hold on power.

      1. I think the GOP wants the cheap labour and democrats want power and care not for good governance.

        So unless they are forced to stop they will continue.

    1. Gary Ivan Wilson

      People getting what they voted for outsourcing their governance to career ruling elites who only care about votes not voters.

      1. Gary,

        “People getting what they voted for outsourcing their governance to career ruling elites who only care about votes not voters.”

        That’s one of those things on which opinions differ, and nobody can say for certain what is best.

        • I am fine with ruling elites who want to get re-elected. Elections are how we hold them accountable, and so they should pay attention.
        • Everybody wants to keep their job. Running America should be a great gig, and pay well. We want the best.
        • I am fine with “outsourcing” making public policy decisions to experts. Many Americans believe they are competent to run America, just as they think they could coach an NFL team. That’s fun but crazy.

        The weak component in the system is, as I have so often shown, us. We elect clowns. We re-elect people who lie to us. We have shown to our elites that we are no longer interested in bearing the burden of self-govenment. So, as in the last days of Rome, they joust among themselves to decide who takes over.

        The problem is that

  2. Mass migration is a Ponzi scheme. Sooner or later the mass migration will stop and the bigger total population will age and so welfare etc will increase in costs. While this is not per se a Federal issue it is a State issue as States have to borrow or raise taxes etc to meet the demand. The only solution is for the State to get the Fed to take on the added cost burden. The Federal State is monetary sovereign, so it can spend right up to the border without any effect on taxpayers dues.

    1. John,

      “Sooner or later the mass migration will stop”

      Why? Perhaps in the distant future, if there is no longer a large income and security difference between Latin America and Africa – and the developed nations.

      “The Federal State is monetary sovereign, so it can spend right up to the border without any effect on taxpayers dues.”

      I don’t know what “up to the border” means. But, as I wrote yesterday, the Federal govt is already borrowing at a fearsome pace. During the next recession, the deficits will be mind-blowing. Suggesting that the US increase its structural deficits (ie, the level before effects of the business cycle) is a reckless gamble.

      1. Larry, You can’t grow population forever. Sooner or later the available resources will halt it.Empowering women will see it happen less than 2 babies per woman. In conflict zones it’s up to 6 babies per woman now.

        The Federal Government doesn’t borrow, Think for a second, Why borrow from yourself? It’s totally absurd. Others may have to borrow, but as creator of the currency it has no need for saving and borrowing even 1 cent. Any mention of federal borrowing is propaganda. Don’t fall for it!

      2. John,

        “You can’t grow population forever.”

        Why is that a relevant statement? Fertility is collapsing around the world, and more nations are experiencing negative population growth. Sometime in the late 21st century, the world’s population will begin to shrink – very quickly. And that does not account for future developments in contraceptive and abortion tech (e.g., a male “pill”, which might have effects as large as the women’s pill).

        “Sooner or later the available resources will halt it”

        No. That won’t happen for a very long time, perhaps never. Contraceptive tech is already “halting” it. Population is still rising due to the low average age of the world’s population, a momentum effect.

        “The Federal Government doesn’t borrow …Others may have to borrow, but as creator of the currency it has no need for saving and borrowing even 1 cent.”

        Even the extreme proponents of Modern Monetary Theory (a fringe theory) don’t believe that (i.e., they understand that there are constraints, such as inflation). Read an Econ 101 textbook. I’ve learned that conversations about fringe economic theories are a waste of time. Further comments about imaginary econ will be deleted.

        “Think for a second, Why borrow from yourself?”

        The government borrows from other entities. Some domestic, some foreign. All want their money back.

      3. What I said doesn’t mean spending has no constraints. Just that the Fed has no need to borrow or save its own money. This Only applies to monetary sovereign government Everyone else has to save or borrow,, including the Eurozone nations who use the Euro, like Greece. You don’t know anything about MMT. It is said to be a theory, but in reality it just describes the existing economy without all the crust that the mainstream has used to distort economics, like borrowing and the household analogy and fallacies like ‘unfunded liabilities ‘and ‘budget surpluses ‘ being desirable. You can’t spend a budget surplus. It’s nonsensical. Etc.Nothing fringe there.

        Re population I didn’t say it has stopped growing. It will grow until resources stop it. That time is not far off. Already fisheries are down to having only 10% of what there was 50 years ago available today. There are many constraints but the big one is that energy is becoming expensive.Ever heard of Art Berman? he says that the USA is using its reserves in spite of producing more oil [17 mbpd] than it did in 1970, the supposed peak. He says that is troubling news. Our whole shebang runs on cheap energy. When energy is expensive people cut back and when its cheap producers run out of funds and fall over. It can’t continue like this. We just can’t say what will cause the next meltdown and when. The IMF was forecasting 3.5% annual economic growth. That means it will double in 20 years,and again in another 20 years. That doesn’t worry you? It should.

      4. John,

        “Re population I didn’t say it has stopped growing. It will grow until resources stop it. That time is not far off.”

        I’m interested if you can provide supporting studies for that. But you’re making it up.

        “Already fisheries are down to having only 10% of what there was 50 years ago available today.”

        The 2018 FAO report (the most recent) on “World Fisheries and Aquaculture” said that “fish production in 2016 reached an all-time high of 171 million tonnes.” About 1/3 of that was at unsustainable rates, but improved regulation is beginning to reduce that. There are challenges (e.g., pollution), but then there are always challenges. That’s life.

        “Ever heard of Art Berman?”

        I read Art Berman’s columns back in the day at World Oil, before they fired him in 2009. He has an awesome record of being wrong, almost in same class as those as The Oil Drum (some of whom are still writing, probably with the same low accuracy).

        You are just making stuff up. I could cite more sources debunking your beliefs. But talking with doomsters is a waste of time, as I learned from scores of wasted hours.

        I’m moderating further comments. If you cite actual sources, that comment will be posted.

  3. What follows is a curiosity question and not grounded in real life so nobody needs to answer it any time soon.

    What happens in an affluent population (e.g. US or Switzerland) with a SHRINKING population? I suspect they’d need to import workers to maintain the infrastructure (which does not normally pay that well). Would the workers choose to stay?

    1. Pluto,

      “What happens in an affluent population (e.g. US or Switzerland) with a SHRINKING population?”

      I have discussed this in many posts, such as this looking at Japan. The usual answer, which you echo, is bizarrely wrong.

      It is the wrong question. Ask what happens to a nation importing hordes of low-skill workers when automation destroys a large-fraction of low-skill jobs – or a significant (but smaller) fraction of all jobs? It is beginning to happen right now (see my posts about the new industrial revolution).

      As usual, the media focus on the problems of the last cycle (just as generals fight the last war). I love how quickly our elites reprogram the America population like bots. For decades, more people were the problem. With the push of a few buttons, now we’re wetting pants over the prospect of fewer people. We are a gift to our rulers!

      1. FM, why do you assume that the question I asked had anything to do with the question you are currently interested in?

        As I indicated in my comment, it specifically is disengaged from your article and I hesitated to even post it because I did not want to interfere with the discussion of your very pertinent question about the economic future of the US. Eventually I decided to do so just in case somebody had something they could easily lay their hands on that might indicate the answer to the question.

        Unfortunately I CANNOT agree with your conclusions on Japan because I feel they are premature. As you correctly note, Japan is a unique case among unique cases. Through their remarkable set of social contracts, they’ve managed to delay the future and neither of us is smart enough to predict when the future is going break free.

        If the Japanese succeed in getting their financial house in order before that occurs (which you seem to feel is likely to happen) the Japanese will truly be in an excellent position but I doubt that will occur.

        My primary reason for doubt is that the balance sheet overhang will become ever larger on a per-person basis as the working population shrinks. Furthermore, the Japanese social contracts emphasize that the working age population should do a lot to care for the elderly non-working population (their parents), which is rapidly expanding and will steal too many resources from the effort to reduce the balance sheet overhang before it goes critical and implodes the Japanese economy.

        At some point push is going to come to shove and Japan, as a whole, is going to have to make some VERY difficult decisions. I’m going to be very glad NOT to be part of Japanese society when that occurs because none of the remaining options will be anything resembling good and the decisions will revolve around which is “less bad” and those discussions tend to get very subjective (and personal) very quickly.

        Fortunately for the rest of the world, China has long since supplanted Japan as the engine driving the growth of Asian economies so we will have some insulation from the backlash but I cannot begin to predict how much insulation China can provide or how serious the Japanese implosion will affect the rest of the world (especially if US investors go heavily into Japanese government debt).

      2. There is a certain type of person who is hooked on doom. Were they to learn, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that things were really going pretty well, they would be bitterly disappointed, not relieved.

      3. Scott,

        That nails it. There are thousands of comments on the FM website by doomsters. Based on this large sample, I’ve found talking with them is a waste of time.

  4. Beside the mentioned and the obvious:
    I think an illegal immigrant is likely to take an “illegal job,” as in no minimal wage and no taxes…

    1. Jako,

      That is an important point, and often overlooked (I forgot to mention it).

      That applies mostly to payroll taxes. Illegals pay license fees, sales and property taxes, of course.

  5. A detailed study (cited below) found that in 2013 immigration produced benefits of $437 billion for natives. Sounds good and such numbers are often cited in claiming how wonderful immigration is. But those benefits are in the form of increased profits for employers, reduced prices, and increased wages for those who face no competition from immigrants but for whom demand increases due to the larger economy. In other words, the better off.

    On the other hand, the same study found that immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year. Of course, those are the less well off. So over 90% of the “benefit” is an income transfer from the less well off to the better off. No wonder the elites like immigration.

    That still leaves a net economic benefit of $35 billion for natives. Peanuts, but not negative. Except that government transfers amount to $55 billion from natives to immigrants. The $20 billion net negative may not be all that much, but the real impact of mass immigration is to undermine our society, by increasing inequality and undermining social cohesion.

    1. Mike,

      Thanks for those numbers! But as this post shows, that $35billion for natives is dwarfed by the cost to maintain and upgrade infrastructure to support low-wage migrants, whose taxes and fees provide only a drop of money towards these projects. If that’s not done, than natives suffer from a decaying physical plant.

      Also, I have not read that study. But the others I’ve seen ignore the costs the government incurs to service migrants (I doubt that is accidental). Not just welfare, but routine government services. I don’t recall the number, but households with incomes of ($~35000) are net drains on government finances. Substantially more so as income declines below that level.

      1. John,

        That’s a good article. Unfortunately, it gives remittances only in dollars – which means little. Translated into percent of national GDP, it gives eye-popping numbers. El Salvador: 17%!

        I can’t imagine what a solution would be from them, other than political evolution over centuries. But it is their problem to solve. Fleeing to other nations doesn’t help. It might even slow their reformation. Certainly draining those nations of their best educated and most aggressive people doesn’t help them (we don’t even compensate the donor nations for the money they spent raising and educating migrants).

      2. Yes, South African education circles complain that their brain drain from the educated migrating to Australis is costing them disproportionally and we don’t compensate SA either. So it’s far from just Latin America suffering.

        Considering Australia and Argentina shared top spot in the world economies in 1900, the difference today is stark It is corruption? We all have that to some degree. Was it Britain, turning on Argentina for nationalising their contribution? We didn’t do that here but we tried nationalising the Banks, post WW2 and that government was voted out of power for 23 years. Do we lr=earn from history, or does it just rhyme?

  6. “Low skill migrants boost GDP. But it is the kind of growth that can financially wreck a nation. California is demonstrating that for us…”

    Sadly disappointing article. California has a $21.5B budget surplus, the biggest in more than 20 years. We’re going to need better argumentation than this to convince Americans to reject mass immigration.

    What about Texas and Florida? Both have also experienced decades of mass immigration, yet both have thriving economies.

    The US Chamber of Commerce supports mass immigration because the overall benefits to business are self-evident.

    1. glouconx,

      “The US Chamber of Commerce supports mass immigration because the overall benefits to business are self-evident.”

      If you would read the post, you would see that I explicitly mentioned that.

      “What about Texas and Florida?”

      Those are nice examples of my point. Like California, both have massively degrading infrastructure and high poverty rates. Cal: 35th worst (much worse when adjusted for its high cost of living). FL: 38th worst. TX: 39th worst. Per 2014 Census from Wikipedia table.

      If you would read my post, you would see that aggregate GDP is not a particularly useful measure of how well people are doing in a community, State, or nation. That’s not what it is designed to measure.

      “California has a $21.5B budget surplus”

      Nope. California’s arcane budget combines the difference between income and spending (surplus/deficit) AND the accumulated reserves. The latter are held in two funds:

      • SFEU = Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties (discretionary reserve), and
      • BSA = 8udget Stabilization Account (constitutional reserve).

      The budget balances for 2018-19 per the Jan 19 report of the Legislative Analysts Office (the last one I looked at) was estimated at:

      • Deficit of $3,490,
      • Plus transfer of ~$3637 to the BSA and new Safety Net reserve ($900B), shown as an expenditure.
      • Result a “deficit” of $7,127, covered by a reduction in the SFEU of $7,136.

      The easy way to look at this is consider the three funds to be the State’s “checkbook balance.” It was $21,790 at the end of 2017-18; it is projected to be $18,291 at the end of 2018-19. A drop of $3,499.

      Journalists report this “checking account balance” (which is the State’s accumulated savings) as a “surplus.” Which it is, in the accounting sense of an accumulated surplus – but not an annual fiscal surplus.

      These numbers are changes in fund balances, which include interest gained, so they don’t exactly add up.

      More importantly, the State’s budget has lots of problems.
      First, it is structurally unstable. In recessions, income tax revenue (including capital gains revenue, a big chunk of revenue) plunge while expenses skyrocket. See the LOA’s 2018 report, “Building Reserves to Prepare for a Recession.” Those reserves will be burned away quickly in even a moderate recession.

      Second, the State has massive accumulated deficits in its retirement plans (those of local governments in California are even larger). Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism has been warning about this for years. Third, the budget surplus results in large part from many years of underfunding infrastructure and schools (the latter is a complex problem).

      1. I hope your arguments can convince the Chamber of Commerce and other powerful business interests to stop supporting mass immigration, but I doubt they would ever support a slower rate of population growth which would be the result if mass immigration were slowed or stopped.

        Regarding your immigration produces devastation economic effects narrative, I doubt the preponderance of the corporate mass media will ever allow that narrative to compete with the traditional one of the noble immigrant who produces only benefits in the long run. I have been following the polling on the issue which I believe you have posted at various times and it doesn’t look like the needle has moved much on the issue.

        I guess my main point is that I don’t see much hope in curbing mass immigration as long as most business interests continue to back it. The business of America is business was the truest thing any American president ever said.

      2. glouconx,

        All posts about political reform in America produce the same reaction in comments, just like yours: apathy and defeatism. Which is why the Republic is dying.

        Perhaps you should look at American history. Previous generations did not share your weakness of spirit, and accomplished what you say is impossible. It often took time and effort, as does anything worthwhile.

        Samuel Adams and his fellow activists in 1764 Boston organized the first of the Committees of Correspondence. They formed the nucleus of shadow governments, which later formed the basis of revolutionary governments, and then the USA.

        In 1787 William Wilberforce began his crusade in Parliament against slavery in the UK. Full victory came in 1833.

        Benjamin Franklin helped organize America’s first Abolitionist Society at Pennsylvania in 1785. These spread across the nation. Partial victory came in 1865. Full victory came in 1964.

        The first women’s rights convention was held at Seneca Falls NY in 1848. The first National Women’s Rights Convention was held in Worcester, MA in October 1850. The 19th Amendment became law in August 1920.

        Also look at the long struggles to limit immigration (1880-1930) and force businesses to stop pouring filth into our air and water (first successes were the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 and the Air Pollution Control Act of 1955).

    2. glouconx,

      “Sadly disappointing article. California has a $21.5B budget surplus, the biggest in more than 20 years.”

      That’s an odd statement for two reasons. First, California’s revenue in 2017-18 was $131,495. The “surplus” was $21,790. That is 17% of revenue. How could anyone believe that is the annual surplus? It makes more sense as an accumulated surplus (aka “savings”). The actual surplus in 2017-18 was $7B plus whatever was put into the Budget Stabilization Account. And of course the folks in Sacramento put the govt back into deficit the next year, as expenditures rose by $19,383 (from $124,699 to $144,082).

      Also, that accumulated surplus has grown during the longest expansion in US history, during one of (perhaps the) biggest stock market bubble ever. Thinking that is a measure of health is confusing a an extraordinary string of good luck with being smart.

  7. I was not careful enough in a previous post and got slammed as I said we failed to have enough kids. I should have put it more clearly, a nation where one child as the ideal, is a shrinking demographic.

    I was not calling for more immigration, but more domestic kids, I have three (just over two marriages), but two in the second they don’t cost that much more than one, they will all get jobs and create the type of growth that is stable.

    Eldest is in a mechanical engineer apprenticeship, learning tech CAD, CNC and Fusion 360 based work, that is high tech that can stay in the West, youngest son is undecided, but 12, daughter loves things medical and wants to be a nurse like her Aunt, but she is 11.

    The chatter about excess immigration is getting louder and this debate is just one of many sites and events. The only worry is doing it peacefully and when events change the flow rates.

    1. Just a guy,

      “a nation where one child as the ideal, is a shrinking demographic.”

      You should be careful what you ask for. Marriage and the family under attack, and being destroyed. A society where children are raised by single mothers – with their associated higher rate of social pathologies – might not be so fine.

      I’m unconvinced that such a society can have a high total fertility rate. Having children is too difficult for one person.

      But all that is probably moot. Girls were raised to become mothers – to want children and know how to raise them. This is “pronatalist” ideology. It is being systematically rooted out from US society. My guess (guess!) is that we’ll find that women have only a weak biological drive to have kids. Without pronatalist indoctrination, few will even want to have kids. Children will be a feature of the upper class – a form of conspicuous consumption – and lower classes (on whose streets society’s indoctrination is weak, and life is lived at a more traditional level).

      1. True, I am and always will be a pronatal domestically, as well as pro-family.

        I agree about one child and single parenthood, I don’t want for more of that demographic,but I do want more families, I taught all day and came home to a meal cooked for me and my ironing done. Friday I don’t teach and my wife will come home to a meal cooked by me and I will do her oil and filter change on her car. Yes, I am a traditionalist, I believe in family and see it as a fight as important as stopping immigration.

        Search engine, rape gangs in any European country or UK and the victims girls and boys are dis-proportionally from single parent.

        I help train boxing to kids and I see what a firm, but fair male figure does for many boys (and girls) from single parent households. My Masters degree pales into insignificance to having a large 20 years man come up to you in a Supermarket and put his fists up, then say its x y z, I’m at uni or in an apprenticeship, and thanks mate, no one else ever believed in me.

  8. I choose honest self-assessment over hopey-changey emotionalism. You can call it defeatism, but sometimes one side wins and the other side loses, that’s why your site isn’t named after a Carthaginian. I accept the reality that I live in a county dominated by big business interests. The big business interests narrative of the noble immigrant has won the day over the fear and devastation narrative that Trump waited way too long (2015) to decide to promote. The legal Hispanic population was 4M or 3.5% in 1960 and is now 60M and heading for 111M and nearly 30% of the population by 2060–that is an undeniably overwhelming victory for the pro-immigrant side. To reverse it would require expulsion of tens of millions requiring the US to become a pariah Nazi-style ethnic cleansing state. It’s never going to happen because it wouldn’t be good for the smooth operation of business. To think otherwise is to adopt the attitude of Hilter in his bunker waiting for miracles.

    1. glouconx,

      “I choose honest self-assessment over hopey-changey emotionalism.”

      I call that apathy and passivity. It’s a good quality for pleasant peasants, but unsuited for citizens.

      “You can call it defeatism”

      Yep. It’s a willful refusal to see that previous generations of Americans confronted similar problems, at similar or worse odds – and won.

      “I accept the reality that I live in a county dominated by big business interests.”

      Poor baby. Do you feel that previous generations of Americans, such as those in the Gilded Age, faced easier odds?

      As for the rest, I’m impressed at your imagination – and how you use it to justify your passivity. It’s cheap and easy to imagine reasons why defeat is certain. Anyway, please at least get out of the way of those trying to build a better future.

    2. glouconx,

      Moving on from big picture stuff, I’m more interested in how people assimilate information. I linked for you – and explained – the California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) report on the budgets 2017 – 2020. This showed that the current year ran a fiscal deficit – not a surplus (although the State’s savings account had credit balance, aka an accumulated surplus).

      I didn’t see you mention a reaction to that. Esp as that was the basis for your statement that this post was “disappointing.” Do you care to say anything? After all, if information is ignored – then there is no point me providing it.

  9. Pingback: the real reasons behind Democrats disastrous immigration policies – Santa Cruz AZ GOP

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: