"...under President Biden's liberal immigration policies" is a strange way of phrasing what happened over the last four years. One might instead have phrased it "under President Biden's flat refusal to keep his oath of office and enforce the laws of the United States on the subject of immigration."
I don't get the sense that people on the political left actually realize that this crisis we are having now is predicated on their own lawbreaking. When their side's President refuses to enforce a law, and indeed actively undermines the enforcement of it, that's "policy." When their opponent's President doesn't cross every t and dot every i of the law, such as when this President called out the National Guard in California without either involving the governor or invoking the Insurrection Act, suddenly they start talking about the importance of "the rule of law" and the "lawlessness" of their opponents.
The only reason we're here at all is those titanic spikes over the last four years. Those were illegal. Does that matter?
Perhaps not really. I notice the same effect when they violate the 2nd Amendment. It's not that they're cognizant of behaving in a blatantly unconstitutional manner; it's that they just can't see that it really is part of the constitution and has to be treated with respect.
It has been amazing to see left-wing judges citing the 10th Amendment, though. That one is one of my favorites, and it's been treated like an absolutely dead letter for a century. Of course, the judges only apply it to the President -- not to themselves. Of course a Federal judge can tell everyone in every state how to behave, just not the Federal executive.
To return to the economics for a moment, the Post focuses on heartbreak and rising costs -- but they also admit that this will mean rising wages for American workers. That's always been the big thing driving the mass illegal immigration: corporations' desire for an easily exploited class of cheaper labor that can't turn to the courts for protection because they lack legal status. They don't want to pay Americans market rates, and they don't want to have to deal with OSHA or other worker protections. Even President Trump is backing off for that reason, but see what the Post quietly allows to slip in:
“We are heartbroken. Their sudden removal is both destabilizing and deeply unjust,” said Blumberg, who expects her labor costs to rise by $600,000 a year as she tries to attract new workers with higher wages. “Unfortunately, higher costs will be passed on to the residents of every senior living facility in the entire country that’s affected.”
So, she is planning to start paying higher wages to American workers instead. Duly noted.
UPDATE: The NY Post says the number of people who have self-deported already is about one million.
Given that the courts have assumed that the 10th Amendment was more or less a dead letter since 1954 (Brown et al vs. Topeka Board of Education et al), using the 10th always surprises me.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
I had not made the connection that the composition of the No Kings and anti-ICE protests - older middle-class females - might be tied to exactly which immigrants they depend on for inexpensive labor. Their parents are/were in nursing homes and they are looking to assisted living for themselves sooner rather than later, and maintenance staffs are an expense they need to be concerned about. They are likely nice people who are polite to these caregivers and caretakers and do not directly think that they need them to have low wages. More likely, they have a vague fear of what might happen if there suddenly were not enough of them, driving the price of replacements up.
ReplyDeleteAdd in that liberals have fewer children of their own who might be a support or a help, and the temptation to appear more moral than others. Hmm.
After writing this, Instapundit had an example. https://instapundit.com/726329/
ReplyDelete