A proposal for The Freedom of Migration Act is presented here for public scrutiny. Please do not take even one word at face value; examine my facts and logic. Challenge me, have fun.

Henryk A. Kowalczyk

Read More→

Previous posts

Archive

Follow me Also on:

The leader of the deceived

Dear Mr. Trump, I challenge you to a duel over arguments about immigration. I am throwing the gauntlet at you because none of your competitors in the presidential race ever will. Jeb Bush co-authored a book about our immigration crisis. He acknowledged that the system is dysfunctional, but he did not dare to draw the only logical conclusion from the facts that he presented: that our immigration crisis has been caused not by foreigners but by our nonsensical immigration policy. Marco Rubio was in the group of eight trying a rational approach, but they also lacked courage to confront the problem head-on and produced a convoluted proposal that Rube Goldberg would be proud of. A few years ago, Scott Walker talked reasonably about our immigration problems. He backed off just before joining the presidential campaign.

There is a consensus among political gurus that no one can become President on any pro-immigration policy proposal. Mitt Romney, an otherwise very keen person, put aside his business acumen in forming his immigration policy concept and followed Washington insider pundits – to his demise. It is my suspicion that at least some GOP presidential contenders know that the solution to our immigration mess is not by building the wall but by scrapping most of our current ridiculous immigration laws. None of them is a leader brave enough to tell the majority of Americans that they are wrong in their views on immigration. I suspect, as well, Mr. Trump, that your knowledge of our immigration problems is very superficial. You are just one more among a majority of Americans completely misinformed and misguided about immigration. By joining the presidential race, you became the leader of the deceived.

I challenge you, Mr. Trump, that if the U.S. were a corporation that you owned, before you would spend your own money on building the wall, tripling the number of ICE officers, expanding e-verify and expelling 11 million residents (a risky task) – you would leave no stone unturned in a search for a policy solution that would achieve the same goal without all the expense and hassle. You promptly noticed that as a CEO of the U.S. you would be spending my money, not yours; hence, you eagerly jumped on a narrow-minded, but widely popular nativist concept of the immigration policy. As a stockholder in the corporation called the United States of America I call you on this choice. I demand a public debate. Let us get cameras rolling, let us have a live audience so that in front of millions of Americans, I can force you to acknowledge that if the presidential candidate Trump would apply to his immigration policy proposal the same due diligence that the businessman Trump applies every day in his business dealings, then his immigration policy proposal would be closer to my Freedom of Migration Act concept than to what you propose now.

Americans are misinformed about immigration, reaching back to the biased study commissioned by Congress in 1907, often known as the Dillingham Commission Report, published in 1911. In this report Eastern European immigrants were portrayed as a worse kind of people, similarly as you talk now about Latinos. As a result of this report, immigration restrictions started in 1917 and were sealed by the 1924 Immigration Act. This practically shut down the influx of cheap labor, which resulted in a rise of the overall costs of doing business, and crumpled mostly the construction industry, usually one of the driving forces of economic growth.  American pundits try not to see this as a contributing factor leading to the Great Depression.

No one wanted to immigrate to the U.S. during the Great Depression; very few could during WWII. After that, the nonsense of the Immigration Act of 1924 became obvious, but none of the updates in 1952, 1965, 1986 and 1996 changed the logic of it, which in its essence is putting government in charge of micromanaging the labor market. The government does it as efficiently as it runs the Post Office, the Veterans Administration or the public schools. Despite that, every time when Americans noticed that the existing immigration laws do not work, instead of questioning them, the government extended its powers over immigration. In this sense your proposal, Mr. Trump, of brutal treatment of illegal immigrants is nothing but the frustration of a loser desperately wanting to do with greater determination what has not worked so far. For almost one hundred years, to be precise.

I challenge you to answer why we have 11 million illegal immigrants, not only one million and not as many as 111 million. The border is porous and practically everyone who wants to come here eventually does. We know that billions would like to come. Why did they not?

I agree with you that we have to be selective in deciding who comes and stays among us. I will ask you who should make this decision. Will the businessman Trump hire good Mexicans or those who are rapists, gang members and drug dealers? Can the presidential candidate Trump trust the businessman Trump that the foreigners he hires are desired in our country? Who can make a better hiring decision, the businessman Trump, who puts his money on the line, or an anonymous bureaucrat in Washington, instructed by – let us say – President Trump, with both of them knowing very little about your business and the applicant?

I challenge your assessment that limiting immigration is about protecting the jobs of Americans. My personal experience from hiring people supports my conclusion from reading “Coming Apart” by Charles Murray that about 20% of our workforce are people who are unemployable due to a lack of skills and a poor work ethic. We need immigrants because someone needs to work so those Americans unfit to work can get welfare. Also, we need immigrants so American businesses can quickly fill the skill gaps. This will give us momentum lifting the well-being of most Americans. You are dead wrong by not recognizing that increased immigration is the simplest and the fastest way to get us out of recession and put the country on the path to prosperity again. Your approach equals advocating for the government to implement policies protecting lazy Americans at the cost of limiting the liberties of the most industrious and entrepreneurial ones. This is pure socialism. It has never worked anywhere it was tried, and so far it does not work here to the extent it has been implemented.

I agree with you that we should respect and enforce our laws. However, our immigration law is the problem. It is as smart and as easily enforceable as Prohibition was. By the way, it was voted in by the same people and reflects the same illusions of the era that the government has the right and the duty to tell Americans what they should or should not do. It is a clear departure from the basic American value that Americans should have the freedom to pursue happiness; in particular a freedom to hire whomever they please. It causes similarly illegal behavior by otherwise honest people doing otherwise moral things. In order to have it fully enforced we would need a Soviet-style totalitarian system. Judging by your proposal, Mr. Trump, this is what you want. Goodbye, U.S.A.; welcome, S.U.A. (Soviet Union of America). If we want to keep our American values, we should not focus on enforcing a law that is unenforceable; we should focus on sending our immigration law to the trash of history where it belongs.

I share your concerns about protecting our culture. It is not beneficial if most immigrants come from one ethnic identity. However, the blame falls on Americans themselves because our immigration law practically bans legal immigration, and Latinos have an unfair advantage of crossing the border illegally. If we allow broad immigration from all over the world, Latinos will need to compete for jobs with Ukrainians, Filipinos, Ethiopians and whoever else. What language will all of them speak if they need to work on one team in New York or in Chicago?

I challenge you to acknowledge that our immigration laws were voted in by Americans, not by illegal immigrants, and only Americans are at fault for all the havoc that they caused. If you want to make America great again, you have to have the courage to tell Americans as it is, that they brought on themselves all of the miseries of illegal immigration by betraying the basic American values, by relinquishing to government their freedoms in exchange for the illusions of the security of having a job. You should remind fellow Americans what Ben Franklin said: “He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.”

Lastly, I want to ask for details of your deportation plan. With 11 million illegal immigrants, statistically, for every 30 people each of us knows, one is an illegal immigrant. Those are our coworkers, neighbors, friends and family members. Most of us know personally at least a few illegal immigrants. Do you want to turn all Americans into secret informers, snitching to the overwhelmingly powerful government on their friends and family members? Do you plan to ask for assistance in this task from the retired operatives of Stasi, which was recognized for mastering this kind of operation in the former East Germany? Also, just for the logistics of the deportation process the government will need to hire thousands of officers chasing, catching and expelling illegal immigrants. If, let us say, within a short time all illegal immigrants are deported, will you dismiss this new government apparatus of oppression?  With the illegal immigrants gone, and no one else to blame but Americans, against whom will that apparatus of oppression be used? Was Bill O’Reilly correct that he and many other Americans speaking their minds freely might be the next to be targeted?

A version of this text was published by Huffington Post

Leave a Reply

5 Responses to The leader of the deceived

  1. George R Williams says:

    And why should he take note of you?

  2. George R Williams says:

    “Do you want to turn all Americans into secret informers, snitching to the overwhelmingly powerful government on their friends and family members? Do you plan to ask for assistance in this task from the retired operatives of Stasi, which was recognized for mastering this kind of operation in the former East Germany?”

    I do not accept the comparison of our police or immigration people with the Stasi. This is simply hyperbole that has no validity, and meant to slander our legal system and our enforcement authorities for the purpose of making your irrelevant points. And I would not vilify people who report violations of our laws to the authorities as snitches, anymore than I would someone who was aware of a wanted criminal in his midst and called the police. You selectively vilify citizens who do their civic duty only to put down those who believe in rule of law. Perhaps you should have taken some civic lessons after you emigrated from your native Poland. You seem to view this country from the eyes of a man still under the rule of a dictatorship. This is not Warsaw Pact Poland, and deporting people to their homeland after violation of a sovereign nation’s immigrations laws is something done in every democracy in the world. This is a republic under the finest constitution in the world. All our laws, including those for immigration were enacted by the duly elected representatives of the people, not established in the dark recesses of a politburo. I find your comparison of this, your adopted country and its body of laws with that of the Soviets, contemptible.

    And no mass deportations are required. Implementation of E-verify, and prosecution of employers who violate our employment laws will deny illegal aliens employment. Heavy confiscatory fines, like those in other Western and Asian countries would make many reconsider the risk of staying in this country after accumulating any earnings. Require proof of citizenship or legal residency for enrollment of children in our schools. Require proof of citizenship and legal residency for registering automobiles and driver’s licenses. Deny the legitimacy of matricular consular cards from Mexico as legal forms of identification. Make possession of a forged identification card a felony, with consequences of 5 years in a federal prison. There are many things that could be done that make life in this country so miserable for illegal aliens that they would return home or never come in the first place. Your arguments, as always, are meant to present the false choice of mass deportation, when other measures are available to our authorities.

  3. George R Williams says:

    “In this report Eastern European immigrants were portrayed as a worse kind of people, similarly as you talk now about Latinos.”

    Do I have to point out the human and drug trafficking on our border with Mexico? Do I have to point out the invasion of drug traffickers who post their minions on our side of the border, and the marijuana fields cultivated by Mexican nationals on US territory that make it unsafe for our citizens to visit? Do I have to point out the thousands of gang members from El Salvador that ravage Los Angeles and other Latino ghettos in this country. Do I have to remind you of the many deaths of Americans at the hands of criminal aliens form south of our border, all because the party in charge of the White House fails to control our border, releases criminal aliens into our streets and permits sanctuary cities. Unlike past discrimination of Eastern Europeans, there are very valid reasons to suspect the motivations of people who cross our borders without permission. That you make such comparisons just shows how dishonest you are in what should be a clear headed discussion of our government’s immigration policies. The fact is that Hispanics are not discriminated against as a legal immigrant group and are one of largest groups of peoples granted permanent residency in this country today. Notwithstanding our generosity with permitting more legal immigrant visas than all the countries combined, you would disparage this country for having any limitations on immigration, regardless of its impact on a nation that has the lowest worker participation rate since several decades ago. And you bellyache that you, as an entrepreneur, that you should have your way and add to the working population with additional immigration. Well, it’s too bad. Our politicians work for citizens, not just for you or your illegal alien friends who march, demanding special privilege to be immune from the fairness of our immigration laws that side with those who apply and are granted legal residency through our current system. Giving these people amnesty is immoral, and says damn you to those who await their turn, and tells others that they need not follow our laws, that our sovereign borders mean as little as they did to the communists. Just as Joe Stalin’s communism recognized no nation’s borders as legitimate, the Marxists that Henryk makes as his bedfellows deny the US its international right to its sovereign borders. I find this ironic from a man who fled communist Poland, only to come here to disparage ours as a country of rule of law.

  4. George R Williams says:

    “There is a consensus among political gurus that no one can become President on any pro-immigration policy proposal. ”

    Another shameful mischaracterization of the issue. Nearly every GOP candidate is pro-immigration, as long as the immigration is done under rule of law, that prospective immigrants apply, are vetted for potential records, and are not prospective welfare clients. The author loves to leave out the fact that this country is one in which welfare costs are growing astronomically, and that a great number of the 11 million or so illegal aliens have children who were born here that are eligible for welfare, and indeed they do collect such money, and that their numbers are growing. In the past the author has acknowledge this as unsustainable. In past publications he has decried the fact that they collect welfare, but do you hear him making the case against such welfare? No, because he can’t openly make this a condition of his open borders concept because he would be kicked off the HuffPo by his Marxist friends who occasionally deign to give him a voice. The fact is that illegal aliens from south of our border are uneducated and unskilled, two categories that have never been declared as making the best of citizens. I’ve been alive for 63 years and I can recall my early years where my parents and society declared that our nation only benefits from an educated and skilled society. Do people like the author ever differentiate between the immigrants who are skilled and educated and those who are not? Hardly ever. On the contrary, they deliberately ignore the difference. To hear them tell it, our country must benefit from an inundation of both groups.

    “I share your concerns about protecting our culture. It is not beneficial if most immigrants come from one ethnic identity. ”

    As to diversity, I have yet to hear an explanation of why it is so imperative that our country is like an ecological stew, where animals and plants exert a symbiosis and dependency that exert influence on the existence of the whole. Diversity of humanity is left wing construct that has little importance, meant to create categories of political groups for the power hungry. The term Hispanic, for example, is a political construct used to rope peoples of different races and different countries together with nothing more in common than the Spanish language, all for the purpose of building a political empire. You won’t find the term Hispanic or Latino outside the US, as the peoples comprising this group view themselves as Mexicans, El Salvadorans, Venezuelans, etc. Only when they cross our border to the Marxists and their ignorant tools get to label them Hispanic or Latino. As to the imperative of diversity for a people’s success, China existed for millennium as as very successful culture without the presence of Westerners.

  5. George R Williams says:

    The readers should read ”

    HOW ACTIVISTS, BUREAUCRATS, AND MEDIA CONSTRUCTED A NEW AMERICAN

    Making Hispanics

    G. CRISTINA MORA

    I direct the reader to the book, “HOW ACTIVISTS, BUREAUCRATS, AND MEDIA CONSTRUCTED A NEW AMERICAN” by G. CRISTINA MORA, The book describes origins of the terms Latino and Hispanic. The following is a review of the book. The Marxists have been fooling useful tools for years into thinking that peoples described by these terms are somehow a single ethnic group, one required for a diverse nation. Just because you speak Spanish doesn’t make you a distinct part of humanity from non-speakers.

    http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo15345128.html

    How did Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, and Cubans become known as “Hispanics” and “Latinos” in the United States? How did several distinct cultures and nationalities become portrayed as one? Cristina Mora answers both these questions and details the scope of this phenomenon inMaking Hispanics. She uses an organizational lens and traces how activists, bureaucrats, and media executives in the 1970s and ’80s created a new identity category—and by doing so, permanently changed the racial and political landscape of the nation.
    Some argue that these cultures are fundamentally similar and that the Spanish language is a natural basis for a unified Hispanic identity. But Mora shows very clearly that the idea of ethnic grouping was historically constructed and institutionalized in the United States. During the 1960 census, reports classified Latin American immigrants as “white,” grouping them with European Americans. Not only was this decision controversial, but also Latino activists claimed that this classification hindered their ability to portray their constituents as underrepresented minorities. Therefore, they called for a separate classification: Hispanic. Once these populations could be quantified, businesses saw opportunities and the media responded. Spanish-language television began to expand its reach to serve the now large, and newly unified, Hispanic community with news and entertainment programming. Through archival research, oral histories, and interviews, Mora reveals the broad, national-level process that led to the emergence of Hispanicity in America.