Letter to a Trump Supporter #1: Undocumented Immigration

We will all remember this election. Our children and grandchildren will read about it. They will ask us what it was like to live through it. They will want to know what we did, where we stood, how we voted.

This is the record I will leave behind.

Throughout this election season, I have been corresponding with a family friend who supports Donald Trump. I have explained, point by point, why I oppose Mr. Trump and why I see the country so differently than he does. In this final month leading up to Election Day, I will publish these “Letters to a Trump Supporter” on this blog.

I will begin with the issue that started it all: undocumented immigration.

He sent me this video as an argument in favor of Mr. Trump’s rhetoric on this issue. Below is my response.

~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Mr. ——,

Thank you for sending this video. It’s interesting to see the fears that people have about undocumented immigration.

Hopefully, it’ll comfort you to learn that most of those fears are unwarranted.

First and most importantly, the undocumented immigrant population is shrinking. It peaked in 2007 at 12.2 million people. Now, there are only 11.1 million. So, contrary to all the accusations in this video, undocumented immigrants have been leaving more than they’ve been coming here during the Obama administration.

Contrast that with the Bush administration, during which the population grew from 8 to 12 million…a 50 percent increase!

Second, President Obama never said that he welcomed undocumented immigrants to cross the border. Notice that they never show him saying such a thing. That’s because such a video doesn’t exist. He never said it.

Third, immigrants actually commit fewer crimes than native-born American citizens. This shouldn’t be surprising, when you consider the fact that violent crime rates have plummeted nationally over the past couple decades when undocumented immigration has been rising. What this video is doing is pure racism, assuming that foreigners are more “dangerous” when the facts say the exact opposite.

They’re trying to scare you. Don’t be fooled.

Fourth, there are very, very few undocumented immigrants who are granted asylum on the border. In 2013, for example, only 155 Mexican immigrants were granted “defensive asylum.” The numbers from other Central American countries are even lower.

That shouldn’t be surprising, since it’s not nearly as easy as this video alleges. The Border Patrol has no control over it, and neither does the President. The asylum-seeker has to prove their case before an immigration judge.

Fifth, it is not true that immigrants run to the Border Patrol. On the contrary, the Border Patrol is regularly accused of using excessive force, to the point that it “has normalized policing practices that would be considered patently unconstitutional if carried out by local police.”

Sixth, undocumented immigrants cannot receive “free heart surgery.” The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) explicitly prohibited undocumented immigrants from receiving subsidized health insurance. Some community clinics provide charity care, but they do not do expensive operations. Even those options are few, however, and too underfunded to serve most of the undocumented population.

Finally, I want to point out how this is a classic case of biased, unprofessional journalism. Notice that he only presents one side of the case: He only interviews Border Patrol workers. He never interviews a single undocumented immigrant!

This presentation would fail even the most basic journalism class. It’s not news. It’s propaganda.

Best regards,
Anthony

Wall Street’s Rap Sheet Tells a Harrowing Story

There’s a serial killer on the loose.

This heartless criminal is slaughtering nations left and right.

For two decades, it’s been feasting on unsuspecting governments.

With each victim, its power grows.

And now, it’s at our front door.

The first reported crime occurred in 1982. That was the year when Mexico defaulted on its debt. For over two decades, Mexico and its Latin American neighbors had been borrowing money from American banks to finance their growing economies. The 1960s was a good time to be a finance minister south of the Rio Grande. Governments were flush with cash from the economic boom, largely financed by loans. When inflation drove U.S. interest rates into the double digits, Latin American governments found themselves with whopping interest payments. By the 1980s, they simply stopped paying the bills. Lenders fled, and a massive financial crisis swept through the region.

But interest rates eventually came back down, and the lenders returned. Again banks like Goldman Sachs lent money to the Mexican government, and again investors panicked. In 1994, another financial crisis struck Mexico and — in a so-called “tequila effect” — spread to Brazil. This time, the American government stepped in. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who used to be the Co-Chairman of Goldman Sachs, engineered a $20 billion bailout that saved his old firm’s ass.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the “East Asian miracle” was lapping up the money that was spilling out of Latin America. Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan — the “Four Asian Tigers,” they were called — were industrializing faster than any country ever before, and Wall Street was more than happy to slake their thirst for investment funds with the cool liquid of debt. Until, of course, the bubble burst. In 1997, it became clear that investors had been too optimistic and asset prices had gone too high, especially in real estate. Lenders ran for the exits, and the local economies took a bloodbath.

When the “East Asian miracle” turned into the “East Asian crisis,” investors started to question all their foreign holdings, especially the loans they made to the Russian government. Just to be safe, they fled Russia too, leaving the Kremlin no choice but to default on much of its debt. The shockwave rippled all the way to Wall Street, where the mammoth hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management nearly crumbled from a bet gone bad. Their bankruptcy probably would have brought down the global economy, had the big American banks not stepped in and bailed them out.

These titans of Wall Street were hardly daunted by this near-death experience. First, they plowed their money into the American stock market and then, when that tanked at the turn of the century, into the American housing market. This too fell, and with it, the global economy.

But that was not all they bet their chips on. Led by Goldman Sachs yet again, the American banks spread their money across Europe — trading with hedge funds in Iceland, buying up mortgages in Spain, and yes, funding a widening budget deficit in Greece. When the bubbles burst, tax revenues plummeted, and governments started running out of money. Without central banks to buy their bonds, several countries ran the risk of defaulting on their debt. But the powers-that-be didn’t want that. They wanted the big banks to be repaid. So they took it out on the workers, slashing government spending and making the recession worse.

Only one culprit has been present at all of these crime scenes. It doesn’t take a detective to see that Wall Street has been duping naïve borrowers into excess debt time and time again, only to get away with it and strike again in a new location. In fact, after each conquest, the American banks found themselves bigger and more powerful, systematically demolishing the regulations that had prevented them from such predatory behavior since the 1930s.

In recent years, we have developed an unhealthy habit of blaming the borrower, but there are two parties in every financial contract — and the lender is almost always the more experienced, more sophisticated, and more powerful of the two.

For far too many years, we have allowed our banks to run roughshod over the world. And now, while our nation grinds through high unemployment and Europe suffers through worse, the Republicans have the inexplicable gall to nominate a Wall Street tycoon as their presidential candidate. To these thugs, I say: Leave us alone. Haunt us no more. Haven’t you done enough?

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Outsourcing Isn’t an Excuse to Abandon the Working Class

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney agree on one thing: Outsourcing is a problem.

Of course, they disagree on who’s to blame. To Obama, it’s private equity firms like Romney’s Bain Capital. To Romney, it’s deficit spending like Obama’s 2009 fiscal stimulus.

(As I pointed out two weeks ago, there’s plenty of evidence that the 2009 stimulus created millions of jobs right here in America. But never mind.)

“Countries around the world are…giving their workers and companies every advantage possible,” says Obama, but “we can win that competition.”

On Romney’s website, you can find the same language. He says our tax code “needs to be more competitive and business friendly.” We need to create a “level playing field for American products in foreign markets.”

This rhetoric is more dangerous than it seems.

It’s true that many of our exports are at a disadvantage. In countries that we trade with, the average manufacturing wage is 65 percent of the American average. In Mexico, manufacturing workers earn 11 percent of what their U.S. counterparts make. In China, they earn 3 percent.

So, the question is: Just how “level” does Mitt Romney want the “playing field” to be?

When it comes to outsourcing, Romney has a solution, but he won’t say it…because you won’t like it: The easiest way to create a “level playing field” is to lower American wages.

The dirty secret about Republican economics is that it’s all about cheap labor.

While most of the industrialized world (and much of the developing world) has experienced rising real wages in the past thirty years, American wages have stagnated.

Union membership has plummeted. The minimum wage has failed to keep up with inflation. Taxes and regulations that previously restricted the rich from siphoning the wealth of the middle class have been eviscerated.

In short, Mitt Romney’s game plan has already been put to the test.

We were told that it was a new era. We were told that we needed to sacrifice our job security, our wage increases, our retirement benefits — all in the name of globalization. We were told that America couldn’t compete with those costs around its neck. We were told that the manufacturing sector was deadweight. We were told that the working class was pulling us down. We were promised a better world filled with high-tech jobs and rapid innovation, low taxes and rising asset prices, cheap imports and even cheaper investments.

We did everything we were told. We gave up our protections and our power. And, in return, we got lower economic growth, higher inequality, productivity growth that went almost entirely to the top 1 percent, and — irony of all ironies — even bigger trade deficits.

All that cheap labor didn’t make us “competitive” after all.

All it did was line corporate coffers with more profits than ever before.

But not everyone made that mistake. According to the conservative Heritage Foundation, U.S. tax revenue is currently 27 percent of GDP. In Denmark, it’s a whopping 49 percent. They have the world’s highest minimum wage and arguably the lowest level of income inequality. Yet their unemployment rate (7.7 percent) is currently lower than ours (8.1 percent), and their economy grew at the same rate as ours from 1979 to 2007.

For another comparison, look at Sweden, where tax revenue is 48 percent of GDP. They consistently battle Denmark for the world’s lowest level of income inequality, yet they’re also ranked as the second most competitive country in the world (after Switzerland). Their unemployment rate (7.8 percent) is also lower than ours, and their economy grew faster than ours from 1979 to 2007.

Needless to say, unions are more prevalent and powerful in both of these countries than in the U.S. But arguably the most heavily unionized country is Germany, where employee representatives sit on corporate boards and have a say in industry-wide decisions. Germany’s unemployment rate (5.6 percent) is way lower than ours, and they boast a large trade surplus.

Clearly, we can raise wages and compete in the global economy at the same time. We don’t need a “level playing field” to beat outsourcing. We just need a proactive government.

==========

This op-ed was published in today’s South Florida Sun-Sentinel.

Quote of the Day: Mike Whitney

Imagine what your reaction would be if the Mexican government agreed to pay Barack Obama $1.4 billion to deploy US troops and armored vehicles to New York, Los Angeles and Chicago to conduct military operations, set up check points, and engage in fire-fights that end up killing 35,000 US civilians on the streets of American cities.

This is exactly how the US is treating Mexico, and it’s been going on since 2006.

— Mike Whitney (CounterPunch)

buy ventolin online

“Fool Me Twice!” Pleads Secretary Clinton

Mexico is “looking more and more like Colombia looked 20 years ago,” according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Oh good, I thought, we’re finally learning from our mistakes.

At this time last year, I was reporting the results of our War on Drugs in Colombia, where we targeted the rebel forces known as “FARC”:

What most Americans do not know is that our tax dollars are largely responsible for the rise of the FARC in the first place.   Continue reading ““Fool Me Twice!” Pleads Secretary Clinton”