ON BALANCE: To reject a crackdown on Mexican illegals is to ask for trouble in America’s black communities

methink1 Given the liberal obsession with “fake news”, I thought it might be timely to take one of The Donald’s most controversial and ridiculed policies, and examine the objective ramifications of building or not building The Wall. My conclusion is that the civil rights of America’s poorest indigenous groups are being damaged by illegal immigration, but that the Wall itself is something of a red herring. A better solution will, however, need Trump to tackle entrenched interests head on.

Here are some very simple facts about immigration into the US; they are all and only from Government institutions, University social studies and professional research organisations. These people – the “experts” so beloved of Leftlibs on the losing side – have been wrong countless times before…so I can’t guarantee any of their conclusions. But I can cast an expert eye over the data, and reach some of my own.

  • Illegal immigrants in the US peaked in 2007 at a level of 12.2 million. The total is now stable at 11.1 million. But it stabilised because the US upped the level of control and security along the border under Dubya’s Secure Fence Act.
  • Hillary Clinton and over half the Senate’s Democrats voted for it.


  • Based on the homeland security chart above, the Act cut the 5-year growth in illegals from 35% to minus -17%. In terms of Congress majority aims, therefore, it worked extremely well.
  • Mexican illegals make up just over half (52%) of all unauthorised entries into the US. As they’re only 28% of legal immigration, this makes them the key group in any attempt to reduce the levels involved – if the levels are perceived as a problem.
  • The problem does not seem to be a financial one for the US: although the cost in terms of welfare and pension liabilities is estimated at $113 billion per annum, “taxes gathered” on them via payroll data suggest the cost is cancelled out.
  • Looked at in terms of a Mexican economy in terms of social benefits, however, the recession there and high unemployment plus the much smaller gdp means that, in effect, the US burden is a huge “free” subsidy for the Mexican government.
  • At a qualitative demographic level, however, there is a different story: surprisingly, the bulk of illegals are aged 40+….at a rate 20% above the indigenous US average….and the level of college education is very low – compared to 44% for all legal migrants to the United States. Over time, therefore, it is likely that costs for public health and unemployment benefit will escalate. (Access to these, for some unfathomable reason, seems to be remarkable easy to obtain without paperwork – as yet, I can’t find definitive data on that)
  • Given those facts – and well documented cases of neocon employers knowingly employing cheap Mexican labour – 8 million of the 11 million illegals have jobs, mostly low-paid. But looking at the demography, the real figure of those of working age with jobs is nearer 8/9.8 – or just over 81%
  • Although I have no faith at all in official figures on black unemployment in the US, the rate is alleged to be 9.2% (twice the white rate). There are 8.8 million citizens self-designated as of African origin, which would mean 800,000 unemployed African Americans. With 8 million illegals filling lowpaid jobs, that would seem unfair on the black unemployed population.
  • It can be argued that if Mexican illegals take jobs in states with low black populations, the unfairness argument is weakened. But this does not seem to be the case. One of the biggest centres of illegals is Washington DC – a town with massive black unemployment problems. By far the biggest number settle in California, where the Black jobless rate is high at 10.7%. Overall, the overlap between blacks and hispanics in US urban centres is high. This is hardly surprising, but it is disturbing.

From a pro-Trump standpoint, these data represent some (but  not total) support for his Wall. Bush’s 2007 Fence Act removed the growth in illegal hispanic immigration…but not the cost going forward of simply ‘looking the other way’ in relation to unauthorised entry.

Further, giving a free subsidy to the Mexican government is unfair to US taxpayers, and simply letting them stay exacerbates the problem of falling wage rates and an increasingly disgruntled black population.

What strikes one as hypocritical is Clinton’s mocking of The Wall given she and most of her Congressional colleagues voted for its predecessor.

However, tightening security on the border (while important) is a relatively indirect solution: by far the biggest difference would be achieved by deporting illegals more effectively.

Part of that finding revolves around exploding the myth of “much-needed young workers” via illegal hispanic immigration. The demography of illegals conclusively refutes that liberal argument.

But to protect existing poor legal citizens means taking on both the neocon Establishment – which just loves all that competition for jobs and depressed wage levels – and the liberal Establishment – which, bafflingly, thinks the detection of criminal behaviour and doing something about it to be an infringement of “human rights”.

I am on record as saying that there is no such thing as human rights. But in any given collection of citizenry under a largely approved statehood at whatever level, there most certainly ought to be civil rights. The evasion of formalities and cheating of the State cannot be tolerated when that seriously affects the civil rights of the indigenous population….particularly if that section of society is already gravely alienated and at war with many forms of authority. I don’t condone that: it is simply a fact – and one which any responsible Executive would be honour bound to take into account.

If, once inaugurated, Donald Trump announces an effective programme of deporting illegals – alongside a programme of improved wage levels for a readily available, poor workforce to fill their jobs – it would evoke widespread criticism from two extremes supposed to be on opposite sides. For that reason alone, I suspect, it would prove to be very good governance.

At the weekend Slog: the infinitely naive hypocrisy of the British Left