Sunday, January 28, 2018

The Crazed Anti-Family Position President Trump Took in Davos

I have regularly pointed out here at EPJ that President Trump thinks like a statist.

This was on full display when he delivered his speech on Friday at the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

His most troubling comments came when he discussed immigration. He actually uttered these words:
We must replace our current system of extended family chain migration...
How anti-family can you get? The problem with immigration is not extended families migrating. The problem is government coddling of immigrants with government handout privileges.  As with most everything else, with immigration, Trump has spotted a government created problem but instead of eliminating the spot where the problem exists ( advocating for a welfare wall that prevents immigrants from handouts), he takes a statist route and, in this case, simply declares who, and who can not, come into the country.

As Friedrich Hayek guides us to think, What conceit!

But Trump didn't stop there, he continued his statist perspective at the podium in Davos with this call for specific kind of centrally planned managed immigration. Stating that he wants:
a merit-based system of admissions that selects new arrivals based on their ability to contribute to our economy, to support themselves financially, and to strengthen our country.
How exactly is Trump going to determine who contributes to the economy based on some kind of "merit-based system" that is somehow better than the market? Again, this is central planning conceit. Perhaps what we need in the United States is more low-skilled individuals to cut our grass and clean our offices so that higher skilled Americans are free to do more complex tasks, rather than those that can pass some kind of merit test--or maybe we need both.

It's obvious this specific kind of anti-family, merit-based immigration nonsense that Trump is spouting is being designed by Stephen Miller, clearly a Trump control. He is ignorant when it comes to the economics of immigration, as I have discussed in The Problem with Stephen Miller, but he sure knows how to control Trump.



  1. "How exactly is Trump going to determine who contributes to the economy based on some kind of "merit-based system""

    Many nations have economic contribution requirements to gain citizenship or to work and live there. It's nothing new so there are already models to choose from. People looking to leave the USA and US citizenship are well aware of how other countries require immigrants invest in their economies or fill some role that's needed or not take a job away from an existing citizen and so on.

    I am not arguing its good or bad, but simply that it's already been done elsewhere.

    1. That doesn't answer the question Robert is posing, namely, how a central planner can determine who contributes and who doesn't? A central planner cannot. The systems set up in other countries suffer from the same flaw.

    2. Re: Jimmie Joe Meeker,

      --- Many nations have economic contribution requirements to gain citizenship ---

      You're talking about governments, J. Governments impose such imitations, motivated by politics. Economically speaking, there's NO way bureaucrats and politicians can know what are the needs of national markets.

      --- take a job away from an existing citizen and so on. ---

      Jobs belong to employers, not to these "citizens" you speak of.

  2. Would you rather have had Hillary? You'd be in a gulag right now.

    1. RW and the libertardians who post here will alway miss that point. And the fact that the majority of these wonderful immigrant will vote left every time.

    2. why would they vote left every time? when have you ever seen the right getting off its ass to explain why you shouldn't vote left. hell it doesn't get off it fat ass to do anything. So the field is wide open to to the left who can simply say those guys are racists and go on to win.

    3. Re: Mace,

      --- Would you rather have had Hillary? ---

      How quaint. A False Dilemma fallacy. Just like everybody's Socialist uncle used to make.

  3. I see your point RW, but we don't need the clan here. If family is important, they can always stay home.

    The handout need to end. SS is looted in part by Cubans who come here and practically guaranteed a monthly check.

    1. Re: The Lab Mismanager,

      --- but we don't need the clan here ---

      There's no "we", Mismanager, unless you forgot to take your Thorazine.

      --- The handout need to end. ---

      Of course, but Trumpistas in the WH have no intention of offering such simple a solution, because anti-immigrant sentiments have nothing to do with people's preoccupation with who gets welfare.

  4. The 14 Americans who were shot in San Bernardino 2 years ago would still be alive if we didn't suffer chain migration.

    1. Re: Marmite,

      What killed the 58 in Las Vegas? A lack of condoms?

      Stop making those ridiculous associations, M.

    2. Excellent point Francisco.

      You could add the recent one. The school shooting in Kentucky by a WHITE 15 year malconent misfit.

      Or other mass shootings in America like Sandy Hook, Columbine or Washington Navy Yard. Marmite just started a game he can't win