Do you really think that immigrants built America? If you do, I think you must be smoking something. This blog is going to try to set the record straight.
When the first Europeans came to Jamestown in 1608, 90% of the Native Americans had already died from small pox. It had been introduced by sailing ships that were trading with the Native Americans for the prior 100 years. Remember that Columbus discovered this place in 1492. My family did not come to Jamestown for another 116 years! It was not until 1790 that the United States was formed and it only included the 13 most Eastern states. There were near zero Europeans in the other 37 states.
Immigrants did come to the USA, but it was to exploit the natural resources that were here, like fish, fur, timber, coal, farm land and oil. The other point, what was the type of skill set needed? To farm, you had to be able to walk behind a mule. To mine coal, you needed a strong back. For none of these jobs did they need to be able to read or write and most could not. I have driven over much of the USA and I did not see any signs for "free land" or "farmers wanted". I guess that it is because we do not need anymore farmers, miners or loggers.
If immigrants built and made us so rich, why didn't immigrants go to the Sahara Desert and make that place rich? How about Hatti? The place has plenty of people and it is not rich? Look at India, it also has plenty of people and it is clear that they are not rich. You have to start thinking that it was not the fact that immigrants came to the USA that made us rich, the wealth was already here in the form of our natural resources. Would more immigrants to Hatti and India make those two countries more wealthy? I think that you can clearly see that it would not and in fact, it would make both much poorer. If immigrants would make those two places poorer, why would you think that immigrants coming here would make the USA richer? I could have thrown in Mexico and the answer would be the same.
Now, look at the other side of the coin. Would Mexico be richer if a bunch of their low skilled people immigrated "out" of Mexico and into the USA? I think that you know the answer to that one. The same would be true of Hatti and India where many of their immigrants who come here send money back home. Do you think that makes the USA richer?
In a prior blog, I talked about the "objective". Exactly what is the objective for us citizens of the USA? I propose that a good one might be "median quality of life". Remember that there are a lot of people in Mexico, Hatti and India who have a very good quality of life, but for the "median" families, it is very low. I had a maid and a gardener when I lived in Argentina, but back here in the USA, I can not afford either. That is why I picked "median". If you figure income equals quality of life, then the objective could be "median family income". As it turns out (4th grade math), when you add in a bunch of immigrants who earn less than the current median income, it lowers the median income for the USA. Got that? This points up another way that a country can improve the "median quality of life". What do you think that is? Get rid of those people who do not have the skills or ability to earn more! Sounds cruel doesn't it? Well, this is exactly what countries like Switzerland and Japan have done. They don't have a lot of criminal dead beats at the bottom pulling down the median quality of life like the USA does.
What do you think would happen if the USA had fewer people committing crimes? I am talking about all the drug dealing and murders that we see in some of our larger cities. This is not about getting rid of guns. I know people who have several hundred guns, yet I do not know one person who has ever shot someone. What if we eliminated the people who claim disability, but who are clearly able to work from milking us tax payers? It would raise the median family income and quality of life.
Every time you listen to a politician or a new government program or policy, ask yourself if it raises or lowers the median income. If it lowers the median income, you have to speak out against it. If it doesn't change or changes only slightly the median income, you also have to be against it. Our government has more important things to do than busy work that does not lead any place. Realize also that our government always errors on the side of being too optimistic. Their programs always cost more and provide less. You have to take that into account. Look a Obamacare for a recent example. It would have been better to have done "nothing".
This is getting a little long, but it is all related to what our immigration policy should be. We need to think more about our own children and less about people around the world who had kids they could not afford to take care of. We could all do with a little more tough love!
When the first Europeans came to Jamestown in 1608, 90% of the Native Americans had already died from small pox. It had been introduced by sailing ships that were trading with the Native Americans for the prior 100 years. Remember that Columbus discovered this place in 1492. My family did not come to Jamestown for another 116 years! It was not until 1790 that the United States was formed and it only included the 13 most Eastern states. There were near zero Europeans in the other 37 states.
Immigrants did come to the USA, but it was to exploit the natural resources that were here, like fish, fur, timber, coal, farm land and oil. The other point, what was the type of skill set needed? To farm, you had to be able to walk behind a mule. To mine coal, you needed a strong back. For none of these jobs did they need to be able to read or write and most could not. I have driven over much of the USA and I did not see any signs for "free land" or "farmers wanted". I guess that it is because we do not need anymore farmers, miners or loggers.
If immigrants built and made us so rich, why didn't immigrants go to the Sahara Desert and make that place rich? How about Hatti? The place has plenty of people and it is not rich? Look at India, it also has plenty of people and it is clear that they are not rich. You have to start thinking that it was not the fact that immigrants came to the USA that made us rich, the wealth was already here in the form of our natural resources. Would more immigrants to Hatti and India make those two countries more wealthy? I think that you can clearly see that it would not and in fact, it would make both much poorer. If immigrants would make those two places poorer, why would you think that immigrants coming here would make the USA richer? I could have thrown in Mexico and the answer would be the same.
Now, look at the other side of the coin. Would Mexico be richer if a bunch of their low skilled people immigrated "out" of Mexico and into the USA? I think that you know the answer to that one. The same would be true of Hatti and India where many of their immigrants who come here send money back home. Do you think that makes the USA richer?
In a prior blog, I talked about the "objective". Exactly what is the objective for us citizens of the USA? I propose that a good one might be "median quality of life". Remember that there are a lot of people in Mexico, Hatti and India who have a very good quality of life, but for the "median" families, it is very low. I had a maid and a gardener when I lived in Argentina, but back here in the USA, I can not afford either. That is why I picked "median". If you figure income equals quality of life, then the objective could be "median family income". As it turns out (4th grade math), when you add in a bunch of immigrants who earn less than the current median income, it lowers the median income for the USA. Got that? This points up another way that a country can improve the "median quality of life". What do you think that is? Get rid of those people who do not have the skills or ability to earn more! Sounds cruel doesn't it? Well, this is exactly what countries like Switzerland and Japan have done. They don't have a lot of criminal dead beats at the bottom pulling down the median quality of life like the USA does.
What do you think would happen if the USA had fewer people committing crimes? I am talking about all the drug dealing and murders that we see in some of our larger cities. This is not about getting rid of guns. I know people who have several hundred guns, yet I do not know one person who has ever shot someone. What if we eliminated the people who claim disability, but who are clearly able to work from milking us tax payers? It would raise the median family income and quality of life.
Every time you listen to a politician or a new government program or policy, ask yourself if it raises or lowers the median income. If it lowers the median income, you have to speak out against it. If it doesn't change or changes only slightly the median income, you also have to be against it. Our government has more important things to do than busy work that does not lead any place. Realize also that our government always errors on the side of being too optimistic. Their programs always cost more and provide less. You have to take that into account. Look a Obamacare for a recent example. It would have been better to have done "nothing".
This is getting a little long, but it is all related to what our immigration policy should be. We need to think more about our own children and less about people around the world who had kids they could not afford to take care of. We could all do with a little more tough love!
