Jan 09

National Debt Solution = Immigration Solution

I asked economist Alex Nowrasteh a followup question: “And do you see that the only hope of repairing our ratio of 1.7 taxpayers to 1.0 entitlement recipients, which keeps our debt beyond our control, is a massive infusion of new taxpayers through immigration?”

Nowrasteh: “Yes.”

The National Debt Solution, Part 2: Step 5, Importing Taxpayers.

There is a solution. But does anybody really want a solution? A solution requires changing course from what led to the problem. America’s only solution requires turning away from several self destructive but very familiar, comfortable traditions.

And not just The Other Guy’s self destructive but familiar, comfortable traditions.

Yours.

In the home where rent and debt interest exceeds income, maybe the two children would be old enough to help with the rent, had mom and dad not aborted them. Now, one solution remains: bring in a couple of roommates to share the rent.

But that requires getting along with strangers. Mom and dad couldn’t even get along with their own children. How are they going to get along with strangers?

40 million more full time taxpayers is how many more we would need right now to wipe out that deficit, provided we also eliminate four controversial federal departments. (Otherwise we will need 50 million. See graph in Part 1.)

(See my article at WorldNetbDaily News for an entertaining but abbreviated explanation of America’s debt problem, its cause, and its solution.)

(Fed department budgets;   NEA budget)

40 million more full time taxpayers (and 10 million part time teens) is suspiciously close to how many more we would have right now of the 60 million we have slain by abortion, who would now be old enough to work. (There are so many variables that a precise calculation is humanly impossible, but it would be far more than that if we count those slain by contraception.)

40 million more taxpayers is probably the limit of how many we could process in the next year or two if we repealed Numerical Limitations and offered unlimited work visas, with a path from there to Legal Permanent Status and from there to citizenship.

(See “Stranger” Bible study, and List of all “stranger” verses)

The 40th anniversary of the decision that robbed the U.S. Treasury of the 40 million young taxpayers we need today to balance our budget – Roe v. Wade – falls in the very middle of our six week deadline period: January 23rd.

Are “God’s fingerprints” on the fact that (1) 40 is the exact number of millions of new full time workers we need to cover our deficit, (2) 40 is the number of millions more of full time workers we would have (so far as anyone can calculate) had we not murdered them in defiance of Leviticus 20:1-5 and Proverbs 24:10-12, (3) 40 is about the number of millions of tax-paying immigrants we might be able to process if we didn’t exclude them in defiance of Matthew 25:39-45 and Luke 6:38, (4)  the very middle of our six week deadline period, January 23, is the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and (5) 40, in the Bible, is powerfully associated with history-making periods of judgment and destruction, peace, dedication, decision, and God’s provision?

Apparently, unless we count part time workers, which brings the number needed to 50 million, as the chart in part one indicates. Other charts I’ve seen don’t count them, presumably on the theory that if they aren’t earning enough to have to pay income tax, they are not a significant net contribution to our federal balance sheet. Especially since they probably qualify for food stamps, etc. But they do pay 15.3% Social Security and Medicare taxes.

Would massive new immigration save us or destroy us? Of course, this need for 40 million income tax paying immigrants assumes they would do as much for our economy as our own children would have had we not murdered them. This is the subject of vigorous debate. (That is, over whether more legal immigration will benefit or destroy America. The murdered babies are almost never connected with this debate.)

Talk show hosts and Congressmen who want less legal immigration rely on researchers like Steven Camarota for their statistics. Camarota is Director of Research for the Center for Immigration Studies.

Camarota’s Masters and Doctorate were in Political Science and Public Policy Analysis.

Camarota recently published “Who got jobs during the Obama Administration?” He concluded that two thirds of job growth over the past four years has been grabbed up by immigrants.

One might suppose his point to be that immigrants take jobs from citizens. After all, if there is no evidence that citizens lose jobs to immigrants, what’s it to any citizen how many jobs immigrants take? But Camarota frankly said that has not yet been proved. But the possibility should be discussed, he wrote, both in his article, and in emails to me.

Camarota’s article was discussed, in print, by economists with strong evidence that numerically unrestricted immigration (that is, immigration restricted only by requirements such as background checks) would create an economic boom.

(See Alex Nowrasteh’s “Immigrants did not take your job.” . See also Patrick Oakford’s “Nativist Group Releases Hopelessly Flawed Report on Immigrants and Job Creation”.)

America needs to pay attention to this debate, if indeed it holds the key to the only solution that can save America from disaster.

Which is certainly how it looks, when the leading researcher in support of the theory that immigration takes jobs from citizens, who is not an economist, says that is not proved but is only a possibility, while several economists say all the evidence points to an economic boom as the result of massive immigration. (I am working on getting my thorough analysis of this debate published.)

As compelling as this evidence is, it isn’t resolving the debate, because people who dislike immigrants listen to the politicians and talk show hosts, while people who love immigrants listen to the economists. Neither side listens much to each other, or learns from each other, or tests their prejudices by the scrutiny of each other. The two sides do not even face each other in the same arena.

This will change when average Americans become interested in the truth. That is, unless they wait until America has already completely collapsed, after which immigrants won’t want to come here anyway.

The headline of this Part 2 says that the only national debt solution is also the only immigration solution. For details of how a smart immigration policy would work, beyond just the repeal of Numerical Limitations, see a win-win immigration solution..

As we weigh whether we should believe the politicians or the economists, about the impact of more legal immigration on our economy, we might want to consider what God says. God didn’t just earn a Ph.D. in economics at a human university. God invented economics.

God says Luke 6:38 is actually good economic advice: the key to being economically blessed is to be an economic blessing. This is such a basic principle of the Bible, that people who doubt it might want to reconsider calling themselves “Christians”.

Applied today, this means that if we don’t like how many citizens can’t get jobs, we need to stop obstructing “strangers” (God’s word for “immigrants”) from finding work. Dare we look at the number of Americans who are looking for work, and compare that with the number of immigrants whom we have kept from working legally? Because this passage predicts that the number will be the same, because God’s judgments, as well as His blessings, are proportionate.

10,734,000 citizens were looking for work in 2012. How many “strangers” were denied work? Shall we count only those living here? Shall we count those denied the right to work by our laws even if they in fact found work? Shall we count those living abroad, waiting for years in our senseless “lines” for the chance to work here?

So let me assume, for argument’s sake, that we agree the only solution for America’s debt problem is massive new legal immigration. What then? Is that all we have to change?

I wish.

That one change will save America for now, but changing that will require changing a few other things that are a lot more difficult – even harder than educating a Democrat.

NEXT: Part 3, Step 5 towards a National Debt Solution: Reaching Fellow Republicans.

#### By Dave Leach, The Partnership Machine, Inc.

About dleach

View all posts by dleach →

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. national debt solution - January 10, 2013

    [...] NEXT: Part 2, the Solution: I asked economist Alex Nowrasteh a followup question: “And do you see that the only hope of repairing our ratio of 1.7 taxpayers to 1.0 entitlement recipients, which keeps our debt beyond our control, is a massive infusion of new taxpayers through immigration?” [...]

Leave a Reply