Is there a plan?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

AP Photo/Moises Castillo

In addition to reinvigorating an economy that had been moribund for most of a decade; and in addition to finally standing up to the likes of China, North Korea and Iran, President Trump has rendered still another valuable service to the American people.

By campaigning on the issue of illegal immigration and by then seeking to actually deliver on the promises made in connection to that subject, President Trump has forced Democrats into the open. Unlike under any past or prospective president named Bush or Romney, Donald Trump has forced the Democrats to plainly and unmistakably reveal themselves. All prior statements, show votes and policy planks to the contrary notwithstanding, we now know that most of the Democratic Party favors open borders. They may pay lip service to “secure borders” or “comprehensive immigration reform.” But by their actions, their inactions and their reactions to Donald Trump, it is clear that most Democrats consider sovereign borders and the enforcement of long-standing U.S. immigration law to be immoral.

So now that we know that Democrats are OK with the thousands of illegal border crossings that take place each day, we must ask them a question.

Is there a plan?

Beyond looking for the most expeditious way to get them registered to vote, has any thought been given as to how to accommodate a hundred thousand-plus new U.S. residents every month? Can anyone explain the wisdom of every year allowing a million or so poor, low-skilled, social services-consuming strangers into a country that is $22 trillion in debt and whose cities are already coping with a burgeoning homeless problem?

The majority of illegal immigrants arrive penniless. Most are low-skilled and poorly educated. Many have health problems needing urgent attention. More than half bring children with them.

What is the plan for dealing with this influx? Where do we intend for them to live? Who is going to pay for that housing?

Who is going to pay to feed them?

How and where will they be employed? To what extent will lawful American citizens already on a low rung of the employment ladder be displaced from their jobs?

When will construction begin on the new classrooms that we’ll need to educate a massive wave of children who don’t currently speak English? Who is going to pay the teachers?

Who is going to build the additional capacity into already over-burdened local hospitals, ERs and clinics? From where will the additional physicians and nurses come?

Let’s not forget police departments. Some percentage of every human cohort is criminal. You’re naïve if you don’t believe that with respect to law enforcement, we’re going to need to staff up.

And finally, is there a plan to cap this off? Has anyone run the numbers and said, “This is the point at which we’ll be full.”? Is that number five million people? Ten million? A hundred million?

Is there a plan?

I can tell you it’s nowhere in the fine print of the Green New Deal. I just checked.

Paul Gleiser

Paul L. Gleiser is president of Gleiser Communications, LLC, licensee of radio stations KTBB 97.5 FM/AM600, 92.1 The Team FM & KYZS in Tyler-Longview, Texas.

You may also like...

15 Responses

  1. Jim Lee says:

    Very good Paul. You always seem to pinpoint the exact topic. Keep up the good work my HP friend.

  2. John Lester says:

    Excellent thinking Paul. Unfortunately, I rather doubt that neither party, but more especially the Dems, have thought this through except that they are only looking at the added votes in their favor.

  3. Most of the mainstream media noise about the Immigration crisis — and it is one — is about HOW the situation is being handled. There is a system, and the system is overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people who want to come to America.

    Curiously, what goes under reported is WHY so many people south of the border are rushing ours.

    Increasingly, I find myself the oldest person in the room. So others here might not remember as many decades as I do of news footage — black and white film on The Huntley Brinkley Report — of riots, in countries around the world, where the signs read “Yankee go home.”

    Just this week, the Trump administration announced plans to divert over $40 million in humanitarian aid for the countries FROM WHICH desperate immigrants are fleeing north. What’s the logic in THAT plan?

    And now comes yet another attempt to install a puppet regime in Venezuela, where previous USA-back coups have failed. Last time, we got caught hacking their electrical system.

    In the 1960s, the original “Mission Impossible” TV show depicted regime change tactics. Greg Morris would splice reel tape of the dictator’s speech, rearranging the narrative which Martin Landau would lip-synch in uniform wearing a fake beard.

    And with tit-for-tat drone shoot downs in the Gulf, and sociopath John Bolton and other administration chicken hawks persisting, defense contractors are doing cartwheels…as another T-trillion debt piles up. Is there a plan for avoiding war with Iran? THAT nightmare would make the Iraq fiasco look like a walk in the park.

    All our lives, the common thread in Uncle Sam’s meddling misadventures has been oil. Now as the USA is energy self-sufficient, and becoming a net energy exporter, what’s the excuse?

    Is there a plan?
    Try this one, which Pat Buchanan trumpeted that dramatic night after the New Hampshire primary: Why don’t we stay home in mind our own business?

    Squawking about EFFECT is one thing. Why don’t we stand up about CAUSE?

    • Paul Gleiser says:

      Why don’t we find some elitist think tank symposium and each of us offer to give a paper on America’s geopolitical miscues. Lord knows that I agree that there have been, and continue to be, plenty of them. And it shouldn’t be hard to find a venue. Such events happen in one or another Northern European capital city almost every week.

      By focusing our attention on events that have played out over the past 50 years, and by debating policy on Iran, aid to foreign nations and other tangentially related issues, we can do what administrations of both stripes have been doing for decades — to wit, put off dealing with an acute problem in the here and now. (And, please forgive the digression. Can we please be real about “humanitarian aid?” The vast majority of such aid is siphoned off by the kleptocrat dictators whose corrupt regimes create the very conditions that necessitate humanitarian aid in the first place.)

      Credit where it’s due, however, your comment does make some valid points. But in so doing, it ducks the central question of the piece. Democrats in Congress have made it clear that they will not lift a finger to stop the flood of illegals washing over our border at this very moment. In fact, they have sent the message out into the world loud and clear that the USA is one giant horn ‘o plenty open to anyone who can manage to get here to partake. That’s the largest single factor leading to the crisis born of “the sheer numbers of people who want to come to America.” Blame “Yanqui go Home” placards from the 1960s all you want. The biggest driver of the assault on our border today is the belief held by millions of poor, uneducated people currently living in hellhole countries that if they can make it into the United States they can gain access to food, shelter and medical care all at no cost.

      So, drone shoot downs, Venezuela, Iran policy and misadventures of the past all set aside to be debated at another time, can we get back to the original question of my piece? Hundreds of thousands of poor people are flooding into our country right now — today. Aside from getting them registered to vote (Democrat) by the most expeditious means possible, is there a plan for accommodating them? Absent a plan, the consequences are going to be extreme.

  4. Not so fast amigo.

    As you dismiss Uncle Sam’s here-and-now meddling overseas, we learn this week that 500 U.S. troops are deploying to fortify Prince Sultan Air Base near Riyahd. The airstrip is being upgraded to accommodate advanced U.S. fighter jets and we’re installing PATRIOT MISSILES. Raytheon will work directly with the Saudis on the kind of precision-guided weapons tech that’s been killing civilians in war-torn Yemen, “the worst humanitarian crisis in the world” per the U.N.

    After the grizzly death-and-dismemberment to Jamal Khashoggi — and STILL unanswered questions about Saudi Arabia’s hand in 911 — are you even a LITTLE uncomfortable with Trump so-buddy-buddy with ruthless murderer MBS?

    WAS Pat Buchanan wrong?

    • Paul Gleiser says:

      I thought I wrote this week’s piece about illegal immigration. I thought I asked if anyone had a plan as to how to feed, clothe, house, employ and medicate a million new poor people every year.

      How did the subject move from illegal immigration to Patriot missiles, Jamal Khashoggi and airbases near Riyahd?

      No, to digress and answer your question, Pat Buchanan was not entirely wrong. But please don’t duck my question by changing the subject.

  5. Ron Eagleman says:

    A very important topic for discussion. Yes Paul, I think that there is a “plan”, but it does not include maintaining our free enterprise economy. The “plan” seems to be the destruction of our capitalistic economic system to the extent that the citizens (and non-citizens) will be begging for the government to take control. Once this occurs, hello Third World! In the meantime, the “plan” is to squeeze the remaining producers out of their last penny; except for the legislators, who will profit greatly from this conversion to Socialism. Taxpayers making less than $50,000/yr now pay 7% of the total income tax revenue, while those making over $50,000/yr pay 93%. Income tax revenue from those earning over $100,000/yr accounts for 78%. I feel sure that the “plan” will include increasing those tax rates to 100% for those who are unable to leave the country. However, the Second Amendment and an awakened electorate could pose a stumbling block to this plan. These power-hungry politicians are immoral and greedy, but they are not stupid. Some may even be familiar with the fate of the ruling class during the French Revolution; however, the march on Washington will not be with pitchforks!

  6. Buddy Saunders says:

    For a moment there I though Mr. Cooke would contribute something useful to the subject at hand as so thoughtfully outlined by Paul, but reading on, I saw that moment of lucidity pass quickly as Mr. Cooke, having no answers to the questioned posed regarding immigration, reverted to the left’s tired old manta of blame America. The solution to the border/illegal immigration problem is both simple and obvious and begins with enforcing laws we already have but don’t enforce. But the Democrats need more voters and to get them they are willing to destroy our country. Paul, citing the inevitable consequences of wide open borders, describes just how that destruction will happen.

  7. Darrell Durham says:

    All of the Democratic candidates have made some parts of their plan plainly evident. Free stuff for all who “need it” to be paid for by those that “have it” and turning the U.S. non-white by talking trash about ANYTHING from a white person. How they can criticize anyone for being racist by pointing to that person’s race is beside the point. Previous comments prove your point. There is no “plan” except to distract and divert attention from any attempt to actually DO something to solve the problem.

  8. Darrell Durham says:

    A Seattle-based restaurant business with 14 locations is filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy due in no small part to being unable to raise prices enough to compensate for the increase in payroll a $15/hr minimum wage requires. Another CEO admitted having to “restructure kitchens to accomplish tasks with less employees.” Yet the Democrats are dead set on a nationwide increase. They don’t understand the US is not a one-size-fits-all nation.

  9. Ron Eagleman says:

    Our immigration laws were enacted primarily to prevent the type of chaos that we are now witnessing on our southern border. Asylum is a benevolent provision of our immigration laws that offers refuge for those who truly are being oppressed in other countries. As in so many other cases, the left twists our laws to attract those who will likely be reliable votes to seize and then permanently assure them of power. In my opinion, Buddy and Darrell are exactly correct in their assessment of the “plan”, and it is amazing that some are unable (or unwilling) to see the obvious. A democracy or republic system of governing has never lasted very long in the historical perspective of civilization. It just takes a while for the non-producers to realize that they can legally take from the producers, using the same system that gave them freedom and self-determination. It is unbelievable that we must have this discussion about enforcing laws that were duly enacted. When laws are ignored, the cornerstone of our society is eroded, and we become just another banana republic. Even in the face of these challenges, we need to be “woke”, and “Keep America Great”!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *