Idiocy from the Forest Grove News

Even in normal times, I often wonder if members of the controlled media consider the logical conclusions of some of their arguments. But with Trump hysteria in full-swing, it’s even easier to find examples of utter lunacy within the pages of newspapers.

On October 12th of this year, the Forest Grove News-Times published an article by Allen Warren titled “On Immigration issue, consider the long-term impact of a short-term solution.” Here are are some excerpts:

… one of the things we might find out is whether or not President-elect Trump follows through on his campaign promise to deport all illegal immigrants.

… Trump is telling his supporters that immigrants are a threat to their livelihood and even their lives. If we build a wall, if we deport illegal immigrants, if we give the deported immigrant jobs back to U.S. citizens, Trump has often said, “Our economy will be so much better… believe you me!”

… But back to the main theme: the people in our country are part of our domestic market. They rent or buy houses. They buy food, clothes, cars, and thousands of little and big things that get sold or rented every day.

If Trump was successful at deporting 11 million people, we would lose all that demand for goods and services. Even assuming the illegal immigrant incomes are only half that of the average American, those incomes still represent approximately a quarter of a trillion dollars – $275 billion – a year. That’s a pretty significant amount of income lost. In fact, it’s enough that it’d very likely throw the country into a recession.

… but the bottom line is this: if the illegal immigrants aren’t living here, they aren’t shopping here. Trump would no doubt argue the good news is they wouldn’t be here to take jobs in the construction industry; but the potentially bad news he’s not mentioning is they wouldn’t be here to demand housing, and with them gone, it’s conceivable the abandoned homes would be available for U.S. citizens to purchase or rent, meaning if no one would need to build houses for a while, those construction industry jobs previously held by illegal immigrants that are now available for U.S. citizens wouldn’t be needed anymore… or at least for a while as it’s tough to imagine demand for housing being strong in the aftermath of 11 million lost residents.

By this logic, if having 11 million illegal immigrants is “good for the economy,” then why not throw our doors open to the billion or so Africans who would love to move here? Wouldn’t that be even better for the economy? After all, that’s a billion more shoppers, a billion more tax-payers, a billion more customers for the housing industry. Such a move would make Mr. Warren ecstatic.

It appears that Allen Warren would be perfectly happy living in a world where the population density is so great that we’re packed like sardines – as long as the economy is healthy. What about the cost of such a high population/third-world immigration?

Damaged ecosystems? Who cares, as long as the economy is strong!

Setbacks for women’s rights and animal rights? Not important, as long as the stock market is healthy!

Endangered species going extinct? Of little concern, as long as Wall Street is booming!

Increased government corruption and intrusion? A small price to pay, as long as industry is roaring!

Even the most ardent Hillary supporter must (one would think) admit that population growth MUST cease at some point… right?

We’re better off controlling our population on our OWN terms, instead of waiting for the inevitable Malthusian Correction. Controlling our borders is essential to controlling population; it forces local communities to take ownership of their own population problems – rather than offloading them onto others.

Between Clinton and Trump supporters, who is most concerned about our environment? If Warren’s views are any indication, it would be Trump supporters. Clinton supporters only seem to be concerned with the welfare of Wall Street – and considering Clinton’s loyalties, this should come as no surprise.

This entry was posted in examples of propaganda, immigration/ Hispanics, Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Idiocy from the Forest Grove News

  1. Robin says:

    Is not the idea to depopulate the country down to 66 million by 2025, was 2050 but they couldn’t wait it seems.
    This should be interesting to say the least

  2. Lon Spector says:

    So you still believe the fantsay that this election is legit, and Trump is a genuine candidate?
    Trump is nothing but a stealth candidate, an interloper playing a role to put the most wicked
    candidate in U.S. history in office. The reasons are evident enough. They both serve the same
    master: Satan himself!
    He who lives by the media (Which is an arm of Satan.) will die by the media. A true danse
    macarbe, the victims being ordinary folks. Satan is going full thorittle. He thinks if he
    destroys America he can destroy Western civilazation. Most of us won’t be around to see
    the outcome. We’re fortunate.

  3. Lon Spector says:

    If the electrite doesn’t change, nothing will. The way most people are, we wouldn’t even
    know a good candidate if we saw one. The quality of the citizenry is declining, and the
    flooding of immagrents isn’t going to help.
    I don’t even think we have honest elections anymore. With early voting, Hillary might
    already be President. If this “witch” wins by an electorial landslide, the wicked media and
    her demonic co-harts will claim “mandate.” She will slaughter the “deporables” en masse.

  4. Stuart says:

    The loss of immigrants’ consumption caused by deportation cannot harm the economy. This loss of consumption, in an of itself, means that there will be more goods and services available to citizens and other legal residents.

    To the extent that there are economic disadvantages to deportation, they stem primarily from the loss of the immigrants’ PRODUCTION. This loss of production means that there will be fewer goods and services available to citizens and other legal residents. However, studies have shown that the value created by the immigrants’ production goes almost entirely to the immigrants themselves, i.e. it is almost entirely offset by their consumption. Thus, deportation will have little effect on the AVERAGE income of citizens and other legal residents.

    Deportation, by decreasing the number of workers, will increase the relative share of national income going to labor (as opposed to capital), particularly in the case of unskilled workers who directly compete with immigrants.

    It is true that workers in certain particular industries may be harmed, at least temporarily, by deportation. If the immigrants consumed more than they produced of a particular product, their deportation will lead to a decline in the industry producing that product, and workers in that industry will get lower wages or need to look for jobs in other industries.

  5. Lon Spector says:

    But there will be no deportation.
    The “ref” will IMPORT the lower part of his body into the bodies of the native women.
    The land will be swamped with half castes. White guys will be distant memeries.

  6. Stary Wylk says:

    It’s clear that rents would be less if there were no immigrants in the U.S. It’s clear that wages would be higher, though many jobs would leave the country. The wages from the jobs that stay would also stay in the U.S., unlike the uncertain percentage sent abroad by immigrants.

    The level of trust would be greater, from seeing more faces like our own, so less would be needed for police and security. More Black people would have jobs and legitimate incomes, which would also bring down crime.

    Halting and reversing immigration looks like a win-win-win to me.

Leave a Reply

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