Pages

Friday, June 14, 2019

Socialism is for Losers





Why has socialism become trendy? Why would Democrat presidential candidates laud a government system that carries a heartbreaking record of failure? Millions have died under socialism and its more virulent permutations. Hundreds of millions have suffer deprivation and bondage under this egregious form of authoritarianism. Venezuela is crumbing with people fleeing in every direction. Misery and despotism entrap North Koreans while their brethren to the south live in the eleventh richest nation on Earth. There are no boats of refugees risking life and limb to get to Cuba. Despite a mass inflow of Muslim immigrants into Sweden, the supposed Shangri la of socialism has a net emigration rate of 5.3 per thousand. Not a ringing endorsement for the Left’s utopia.

(Technically, Sweden is not socialist. They’re a welfare state adept at allowing enough free enterprise to bankroll government distribution of services. Sweden recognizes that only capitalism builds wealth. Despite slow growth and skattetrat, this model has previously worked relatively well because of a small population and homogeneous culture. This will be tested in coming years with the influx of cultures eager to seize the benefits of Swedish welfare.)

People who have lived under socialism certainly don’t like it. Eastern Europeans aren’t buying this crap. Cubans who escaped are ardent conservatives and Castro haters. Even people in Russia and Albania prefer a kleptocracy to communism. You don’t see India or China backing away from their shift to a market economy because they’ve witnessed capitalism lifting scores of millions out of poverty. 

So, again, who in the world likes socialism? To answer this question, we need to examine capitalism. Capitalism is competitive. Competition is the engine of free enterprise. Businesses and entrepreneurs strive to invent or concoct stuff people will buy. To thrive, they need the public to willingly trade hard-earned cash for products and services. It's rough and messy and stressful. You could be on top this year and find yourself run over by some whippersnapper next year. If you’re an individual contributor, you need a marketable skill or talent. If you want more of the American Dream, you need to continuously hone your skill or talent. This constant tension to invent, innovate, and work hard drives wealth creation under capitalism. Sometimes the rug gets pulled out from under you, and although you may get a tad of help from safety nets, the ultimate onus is on you to pick yourself up. Capitalism is not a laid-back system. Some thrive under it, others not so much.




Capitalism disperses power between government, business, religions, and non-profits. It also disperses it broadly. When capitalism is mentioned, most people think of big corporations, but family businesses account for 64 percent of gross domestic product and 62 percent of employment. Family businesses grow faster, hire faster. New entries that knock Fortune 500 companies off the listing come from up-and-comers that previously resided below the last ranked firm. Turmoil and change is endemic to capitalism.

Under socialism, government owns most or all the means of production. (Under fascism government and large corporations collude to the same result.) Socialism concentrates power and money in the government. Checks no longer exist because no balance exists. Power-crazed politicians hunger for socialism because it makes them and their friends all powerful. Government, enterprise, and doctrinal adherence are consolidated into a single entity. If this sounds familiar, it’s because this is the way Europe was ruled during the Middle Ages. Nobility and the Vatican colluded to hold all power in a few noble hands. The outcome was slow growth, a lack of societal advancement, and little social mobility. Everyone had a place, and everyone knew their place. Enforcement of the system led to repression and extreme concentration of wealth.

So, who in the world likes socialism? 

Losers.

Under social justice norms, calling someone a loser is a pejorative. But the fact that there are losers under capitalism is undeniable. Some who can’t make it in the rough and tumble world of capitalism join government or run for office. A few lust after the rewards of capitalism. They’re jealous of capitalists and they’re ability to accumulate wealth. They see it as a wrong. They want to get their hands on the largess of a free market system. Socialism provides the answer for these losers.

How do they sell socialism to the general populous? By appealing to people without job skills, people without education or training, people with impairments, people with addictions, people with a criminal past, people with debts, people who made poor life choices, people here illegally, and the marginalized who can’t get a fair shake. Are there enough of these people to overthrow the greatest wealth creation engine ever invented. Elections have proved no. So the power-crazed manufacture and/or import more losers.

Capitalism broke us out of feudalism and brought a decent livelihood to the masses. Socialists want to create a new nobility and make the rest of us serfs again. Being a slave to the state is no different than being a slave to a master. Others decide how you live, what work you do, and how much you are paid. To keep everyone in their place and maintain discipline, government bureaucrats control what you say and even what you think. If you don’t believe me, seek out someone who has lived under socialism.

Politicians ought to forthrightly debate the human and financial cost of forcing equality among commoners. Unfortunately, socialism consumes wealth until it's gone or hijacked by politicians. But that not the primary reason to avoid socialism. 

The real crime of socialism is that it sucks the heart out of a nation and its people.





Tuesday, June 4, 2019

World Politics in Turmoil … and It’s all Trump’s Fault


“As to those philosophical gentlemen, those Citizens of the World as they call themselves, I do not wish to see any of them in our public Councils. I do not trust them.” Gouverneur Morris, Penman of the Constitution



Harmonic tremors are disrupting governments the world over. In the seismic discipline, harmonic tremors presage a tectonic shift. Are we heading toward a massive political tilt to the right? Nothing is clear yet, but ensconced politicians are pretending that nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Behind the curtain, however, the Globalists are trembling. Their fear? President Trump’s election was not a one-off.

Recent elections have sent out shockwaves that terrify elected officials.


  • In Britain, a six-week old Brexit Party crushed the Conservative and Labour Parties in the recent EU elections. The Brexit Party’s victory broke a two-hundred-year tradition of Conservative Party leadership on the right. British voters even sent anti-EU evangelist Nigel Farage to Brussels as a Member of the European Parliament. Now, that’s rich.
  • In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) won more seats in the elections for European Parliament than any other party. With 23% of the vote, the RN finished ahead of En Marche. Take that Macron.
  • In Australia, Scott Morrison’s Liberal Party was not supposed to defeat the Labor Party. The conservative Morrison is now prime minister and Labor is rubbernecking trying to figure out what happened.
  • In Italy, Matteo Salvini’s League defied polls in 2018 to become the third largest party in Italy with 17.4% of the vote. Salvini is now Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior. Flash in the pan? Not hardly. In the EU elections last week, The League pulled 34 percent of the votes to become the largest party in Italy.
  • In Hungry, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stopped the flow of illegal migrants and even had the audacity to figuratively throw George Soros out of his birth country. In a snit, Soros moved his college to Switzerland.
  • In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won a record fifth term in office. He couldn’t cobble together a majority, so will face another election in September. Polls show him still leading his opponents. Bet that angered Obama, who’s notoriously tried to tilt a previous Israeli election away from Netanyahu.
  • In Sweden, the Swedish Social Democrats continue to lose support. They won the recent European Parliament vote, but they saw their worst performance (23.6 percent) in party history. The all-time low comes after the Social Democrats scored a previous historic low in the 2018 national election. The trend’s not always your friend.
  • In Germany and Spain, Alternative für Deutschland and Vox have grown steadily more popular.

Most progressive politicians dismiss these elections as bursts of outrage from the unwashed. London Mayor Sadiq Khan remains an unrepentant doofus, but he at least acknowledges reality.
The far right is on the rise around the world… Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Matteo Salvini in Italy, Marine Le Pen in France and Nigel Farage here in the UK are using the same divisive tropes of the fascists of the 20th century to garner support.

That’s the ticket. When you lose, call your opponents fascist. That argument is so thin we can see right through it.

Progressives tell us that the post-nationalist movement is all goodness. We should embrace globalism. But somehow, the people on the receiving end of these policies disagree. Vehemently. EU election turnout rose to over 50% for first time ever. Few seem happy with the economic, immigration, or social justice agenda of the Left.

Will the Left find its footing and avoid a seismic event? Not likely. The ruling class is pissed that the unruly are rising up.

In Britain, the Labour Party endorsed a second Brexit referendum. Tony Blair oddly believes that the EU election results signaled that his country needs to cancel Brexit. The European Council chief, Donald Tusk, bragged that, “The vast majority voted for a more effective, stronger and united EU while rejecting those who want a weak Europe.” A former leader of Luxembourg suggested the EU’s negotiations with Britain warned other nations that Brussels would make leaving the bloc as difficult as possible. Archbishop Hollerich downplayed the importance of Salvini’s victory, noting that 34 percent “is not the majority of the population.”

This doesn’t sound like the Globalists have learned a thing. They still march relentlessly on with policies that anger the electorate.This is how Globalists see the world. Our economy sucks and we don't want to fix it, so we'll send you our poor and you send us your money. Somehow, that doesn’t resonate with taxpaying citizens.

With no enlightenment on the Left, the discord against Globalism will continue to spread. How did all this happen? Like Reagan with the Berlin Wall, all it took was Donald Trump telling the world that the emperor has no clothes. People recognize the truth when they hear it.

My prognostication? Hold on tight. The next tremor will be Earth shattering.





Friday, May 31, 2019

Mueller Mayhem and Democrat Lies





Democrats have invented a narrative that Attorney General Barr misrepresented the Mueller report and the redacted full report is full of impeachable offenses. These untruths have been amplified by Muller's public statement this week.

Both characterizations are lies. Not simple lies or errors, but unartful deceits easily disproved.
Let’s look at these two narratives in sequence.

Did the Barr Letter Misrepresent the Mueller Investigation?

In his letter, Barr quotes the Mueller report: 
“[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
This is a full exoneration of the collusion charge and no one has challenged the accuracy of this Mueller quote. In fact, you can listen to Democrat Rep. Scanlon read the passage here. 

After an exhaustive investigation, Robert Mueller and his team of prosecutorial hitmen could find no evidence of Russia collusion. None. Barr’s letter went further: 
“the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA.” 
No one has challenged this conclusion. (Not surprising because Mueller was probably protecting Hillary, not Trump.)

Despite today's spin, it was Mueller’s Report, not Barr’s letter, that destroyed the accusations of Russia collusion. (Collusion is not a crime; that’s why Mueller used “conspired,” which is a crime.)

What about obstruction of justice? Barr quoted the most provocative sentence in the report:
“The Special Counsel states that ‘while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.’”
If Barr meant to misrepresent the findings of the Mueller Report, that is the sentence he would have omitted.

Finally, Barr was exceptionally clear that Mueller made no determination on the obstruction issue and that it was he, in consultation with others at the Department of Justice, who made the determination that the ten listed issues did not rise to a criminal offense. As attorney general, a determination on obstruction not only fell within his authority, it was his duty.

The entire misrepresentation narrative is obvious propaganda intended to provide hyper-partisans with talking points to repeat ad nauseum.  A lie repeated often enough and from numerous sources begins to be accepted as truthful. Any reasonable person knows that Attorney General Barr did not misrepresent the conclusions of the Mueller report. If you don’t believe me, read it again here.

Is the Redacted Full Report Full of Impeachable Offenses?

Mueller investigated ten issues that may have represented obstruction. When the full report was released, I waited for the headline exclaiming that new and damning information had been discovered. No such headline ever emerged. None of Mueller’s listed obstruction allegations were news. Everything in his report was already public knowledge. With all that manpower and expertise, all they could come up with was a Nexis search?

Democrats have nothing. The public was already aware of those supposed transgressions, yet no fervor for impeachment occurred. You can tell Democrats don't have a case by the absence of specificity in their impeachment harangues. If they had the goods, they'd impeach, not rummage through unrelated material looking for an impeachable tidbit. Like Strzok famously told Page, there’s no there there. But Democrats cannot accept that an FBI investigation, a Senate inquiry, a House inquiry, and a special counsel investigation couldn’t find a smoking gun. If the hoax falls apart, voters will punish them in 2020, so they have no choice but to noisily charge into the abyss.

The Mueller Press Conference

The Mueller quote that, “while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him,” was unprofessional, partisan, and unscrupulous. Prosecutors do not exonerate. This was a cowardly way to slip from under the Democrat pressure to nail the S.O.B.

Mueller further demonstrated his lack of courage at his press conference on May 29, 2019, where he doubled down on his “does not exonerate him” legal blasphemy.
As set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
Also at the press conference, Mueller used the phrase “insufficient evidence.” That’s not what was written in his report.
“the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”
Mueller now claims that due to DOJ policies, he couldn’t indict a sitting president. Another deflection. He always had the authority to determine whether a crime had been committed. He didn’t because he had no evidence. The press conference was a complete co-out.

Determined to remain unaccountable, Mueller didn’t want to be questioned, so he held the press conference in lieu of testifying before congress. He also didn’t accept questions from the press. Without evidence of criminal activity, he carefully worded his statement to cause the maximum damage to the president.

Mueller is cautious, but he irreparable humiliated himself. Why? This could only have been due to enormous pressure from Democrats. It was almost as if he had been ordered to put the impeachment train back on the tracks.

Nothing endangers liberty more than a dishonest prosecutor, and Mueller and his team are partisan players out to advance the Democrat agenda. If corrupt prosecution and police state tactics don't scare the hell out of you … then you are the problem.


Thursday, April 11, 2019

Election Interference is a Big Deal





For nearly three years, Americans have suffered under the misbelief that Russia colluded with candidate Trump to sway the election in his direction. People were outraged. Talking heads, pundits, and editorialists went apoplectic. Politicians spewed out so many spittle-stained insults that they ran out of loathsome adjectives. Some Republicans switched teams; others hid behind obfuscation. The Twitter sphere became a war zone. Democrats wailed that the election had been stolen. Republicans screamed hoax and witch hunt. Robert Mueller was appointed special counsel to investigate the whole muddled mess. Bureaucrats lost their job; others hung onto their careers by fingertips. Then the Senate investigation wrapped up. The House investigation finished. And Mueller delivered his report to the attorney general.

No one found collusion.

The whole ugly scandal was a dud.

Did things return to normal? Hell no.

Democrats now claim that Mueller’s full report includes proof-positive evidence that Trump committed impeachable offenses. When the full, redacted report is released, Democrats will wail that there are impeachable nuggets buried beneath the color-coded redactions. If an unredacted report is finally released, Democrats will parse each word until they fatigue even the most diehard Trump supporter. If all else fails, they’ll fall back to “it’s all inconsequential anyway.”

Is this just normal politics writ large? Not on your life.

On April 10, 2019, Attorney General Bill Barr said in a Senate hearing “I think spying did occur,” and after being challenged, added, “I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal. It’s a big deal.”

I concur.

To quote Joe Biden, “this is a big f'king deal.”

Nixon was run out of office for using a private band of zealots to burgle a Democrat office. Imagine if he had used active CIA and FBI operatives. Imagine the spying ten times larger. Imagine that Nixon had corrupted intelligence agencies to cover up his crimes and manufacture opponent misdeeds, used illegal entrapment strategies, lied to Congress and the courts, planted false stories in pliant media outlets, packed the investigative team with rabid partisans, and lured in foreign intelligence agencies as partners in crime. All in a quest to retain power. Russiagate makes Watergate look like a molehill. 

It's a big f’ing deal.

Don't pretend to be outraged by foreign government election interference and then shrug off domestic government interference. Unauthorized release of genuine emails and paltry Facebook postings don’t equate to weaponizing the federal bureaucracy against a political opponent. It doesn’t matter if we did it to ourselves, election interference by the most powerful government in the world is unamerican and totally unacceptable. It’s the stuff of banana republics and people’s republics.

All government interference in elections is abhorrent:
  • Foreign government interference can influence results
  • Domestic government interference can change results
Attorney General Bill Barr said in a Senate hearing Wednesday that he believes Trump’s campaign was spied on during the 2016 election. He added, “I am going to be reviewing both the genesis and the conduct of intelligence activities directed at the Trump campaign during 2016.”

We can only hope that he's true to his word.



Wednesday, March 6, 2019

Capitalism beats socialism ... every time


"Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell



Socialism takes from people who produce to give goods and services to the "less fortunate." It is done under the premise of fairness. Everyone should benefit from the largess of the wonderful world that surrounds us all.

The prior paragraph may sound appealing, but there are three fatal errors embedded in the premise.

1. Fortune has little to do with income
2. Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder
3. The world is dangerous, not wonderful.

The term “less fortunate” makes it sound like success depends on luck. Except, what happens to “luck” under a socialist system. Under socialism, scarcity is the order of the day. Even commodities like toilet paper are in short supply. If “luck” brought all these goods to market under capitalism, why doesn’t “luck” deliver the goods under socialism?

If a person produces something through brawn, wits, or practiced skill, that person believes that fairness dictates that they should be able to keep what they produce. It doesn’t matter whether that “fortunate” person is a plumber, entrepreneur, or NFL player. Socialism sees fairness differently. People with more must give their “fair share” of what they produce to others. The recipient probably thinks it’s fair, but producers feels abused.

Advanced societies live in a wonderful world, but its wonders are due to capitalism. Our hardscrabble world offers no “largess” free for the taking. Before Adam Smith, the hoi polloi found food scarce, work backbreaking, bug-ridden shelters unpleasant, support systems nil, and life short. That was the world before capitalism. In fact, that’s the world today in the underdeveloped world. Life is harsh without capitalists to scrape the burrs off.

Those who can’t demand more than minimum wage want to believe that their problems result not from sloth, but from ill fortune, theft, or a rigged system. Socialism appeals to the indebted, the lazy, and the unskilled. For a period, socialism works, but socialism soon converts the productive into the skillfully lazy. Everyone is equal, but equally without. Except for the commissars and their friends and family. They live well. You see, socialism is really about trading places. The politically powerful trade places with the people who used to build stuff, create nifty things, or get it to market. The operative phrase in that sentence is used to. They no longer own the product of their sweat or wits, so they live off their already accumulated wealth, move, or cozy up to the state. Thus, no toilet paper.

Whenever capitalism and socialism are pitted against each other, capitalism always wins. Wherever and whenever free markets are allowed to reign, people are better off. All the people. Inequality grows, but inequality grows under socialism as well. The difference is that the socialist ruling class disguise their lifestyle while under capitalism, the rich revel in it. Why does capitalism work so much better than romanticized socialism? I can explain in one word.

Rewards. 

That’s why capitalism wins. Always. Rewards for hard work. Rewards for being clever. Rewards for endless training in a sport or performing art. Rewards for taking risks. Rewards for developing skills needed by society. Even rewards for showing up on time.

Socialism? Not so much. Under socialism the only rewards are for exercising raw political power or being connected to raw political power.

That’s why socialism sucks. Big time.



Tuesday, February 26, 2019

Tax Rate Follies



Think of high taxes as a motivation to go out and make more money.

Leftist like to point out that the top marginal tax rate in 1960 was 91%. Democrats propose restoring these rates, but they fail to mention that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 eliminated deductions that allowed the wealthy to avoid taxes. As an executive during the early Eighties, one of my non-taxable benefits was a CPA versed in avoiding taxes. Nobody paid the advertised rate. The entire tax code was a scam. Publicize high rates to the hoi polloi to quell jealousy but insert enough loopholes into the law to allow the wealthy to retain their earnings. After the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the rich actually paid more to the IRS with lower rates and fewer loopholes. 

Here’s the big, dark secret: Since billionaires are a major Democrat constituency, expect the same shenanigans in the future.

Excessively high tax rates don’t increase government revenue. If loopholes aren’t available, people move themselves or their money to avoid confiscation. Progressives constantly propose this same ruse because they want votes, not money. Promising that the rich will pay for more free stuff for the rest of us gathers up votes faster than policy proposals … and Democrats have run completely dry on policy. 

One oft-mentioned justification for higher taxes is that Europeans pay substantially higher rates than Americans, but the comparison is not straightforward. Europeans do not have a federal system like the United States where federal income taxes are but a part of a far more complex scheme. Our total taxes include state income tax, local income taxes in many districts, inescapable payroll taxes that hit the self-employed with a non-deductible fifteen percent right off the top, multi-jurisdictional sales taxes, property taxes, fuel/energy taxes, plus many, many more. Tally it up. If you or your family make low six figures, you’re already paying well over fifty percent in taxes. So are the rich, by the way.

As Ronald Reagan said, ““The American people are not undertaxed, the government in Washington is overfed.”

Those on the left disagree. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposes that income over ten million a year be taxed at seventy percent. Her rationale is that no reasonable lifestyle requires over ten million a year. This is just an entry point. If she wins this argument, then voters will readily accept an income limit of five million, and then one million. After all, the original top tax rate in 1913, was 7 percent on income that exceeded half a million, the equivalent of about ten million today. 

Progressives believe fairness dictates that the rich contribute more to the “less fortunate.” The term “less fortunate” makes it sound like financial success depends on luck. If that were the case, why do breadlines form when the previously rich cease producing. Did all the luck dry up? Do the rich have a way to hoard luck? For that matter, why did the producers quit producing? What happened on the way to Utopia?

Progressive can’t or won’t answer these questions. Let me explain some obvious truths about human nature.

Suppose you run a business and you’ve earned ten million in profit by the end of summer. Further suppose that Ocasio-Cortez has successfully passed her high tax rate. From this point forward, every dollar you earn will cost you seventy cents in federal tax and more when state and local taxes are included. You’ll probably be lucky to keep ten cents.

What do you do? Here are your choices:

1. Keep working for the public good.
2. Find a tax deduction (loophole)
3. Move to another country
4. Golf or go on vacation.

Having been in that situation, I can tell you the likely course. Quit working so hard. Do enough to keep things going but quit trying to aggressively grow earnings. It’s not worth the effort. There is no reason to make more money, grow the business, or hire people. What does this mean in the aggregate? Slow economic growth. Lackluster employment. Limited upward mobility in the labor force. Stagnation. (See Europe.)

Economic growth is never uniform. Rapid growth comes from a few innovative industries that have hot, new products. When you penalize high earners, you throttle innovation, entrepreneurship, and the animal passions that move mankind forward. When industrialists take a vacation, the rest of us suffer. In one way, Ocasio-Cortez is right. No one really needs over ten million dollars a year to live a luxury lifestyle. But entrepreneurs need tons of money to build their dream so all of us can have an easier or more entertaining life.

Super-high marginal tax rates are a political game that has been played many times before. Never have ordinary people come out ahead.

Good news for my staff. I'm going to adjust their salaries so they pay less taxes.

Thursday, January 10, 2019

Six Reasons illegals are different than legal immigrants





We’re a nation of immigrants. Progressives repeat this platitude ad nauseam. It's true, of course, but for the most part we’re a nation of legal immigrants. (For our first hundred years, all immigrants were legal because there were no laws restricting immigration.) 

They purposely conflate legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. But there’s a big difference between the two. Differences they want us to ignore.

1. Legal Immigrants respect our country.
Legal immigrants fled oppression or came here for the American dream. They went through an arduous process to come to America because they wanted to become Americans. They admired our principles and way of life. Illegal immigrants threw aside our laws of entry and sneaked in knowing they couldn't earn money without committing a felony by using forged documents.
2. Legal immigrants build a life for themselves and their family
Legal immigrants are generally educated, family oriented, and many build businesses. They save, earn their keep, and shun welfare. Illegal immigrants are generally uneducated and work menial jobs. Illegals accept benefits offered. Most send money back to their home country. ($69 billion to Mexico alone in 2016.) Their home-country economy sucks, and they don't want to fix it, so they sneak in here, earn what they can, and transfer our national wealth across the border.
3. Legal immigrants are grateful for their new home
Legal immigrants make model citizens who are grateful to finally get to America. They worked hard for the right. After they gain entry, they study our Constitution and actively seek citizenship. They are model Americans and are pleased to have left the old country behind. Illegal immigrants often dislike this country and the people already here. They ask, why should they be hunted since we stole the land from others. They’re just returning the favor in kind. They do not study our way of government. Some actively seek to make our government more like where they came from. 
4. Legal immigrants integrate into American society
Legal immigrants go through the lengthy immigration process to come to American. They were not content where they came from and suffered years of heartache to gain legal entry. Legal immigrants want to be part of our society. Illegal immigrants can’t become Americans, at least not without amnesty. They stay clustered among their own countrymen and neither have the will nor the opportunity to integrate. Many don’t encourage their children to integrate. Illegal immigrants are generally at least a generation behind legal immigrants in assimilating into American society.
5. Legal immigrants are law biding
Legal immigrants respect our laws. They admire our culture so much they took pains to gain legitimate access to it. Illegal immigrants started life in America by breaking our immigration laws. They further broke laws by securing work with forged documents. They have been conditioned to ignore our laws. They believe our laws unjust. Progressives tout studies that show immigrants commit less crimes than natural born citizens. Some of these studies conflate legal and illegal immigrants, but all are based on convictions. The argument for sanctuary is that illegals will trust authority when they no longer fear authority. Nice theory, but not reality. Ask anyone in law enforcement about the difficulty of capturing and convicting an illegal immigrant. Most abscond before cops even arrive. 
6. Legal immigrants are generally centrist or conservative
Here’s the rub. Most illegal immigrants vote for Democrats. Legal immigrates trend to vote for traditional conservative candidates. The most conservative legal immigrants come from Cuba, Eastern Europe, or Christians from Muslim counties. They know government oppression first hand and want nothing to do with it in their new home.
Number 6 is the bottom line. 

The immigration debate is about Democrats taking and holding power.  An old saying, as California goes, so goes the nation. The Democrats piloted their program for mass importation of new Democrat voters in California. Even they must be shocked at the speed of their success. California, like Mexico, now has true one-party rule. They even jiggered the election laws so that in many general elections, voters only have a choice between two Democrats. No wonder they push open borders, amnesty, paths to citizenship, sanction cities/states, and want to get rid of ICE. These non-Americans are their people. Their voters.

Democrats have given up on political policy and have gone for base arithmetic.