Why Hillary and Her Wall Street
Donors Don’t Want Trump’s Wall
When GOP
presidential candidate Donald Trump first talked about building a “big,
beautiful wall” at the southern border of the U.S. he was met with fierce
resistance. Given the facts that the southern border is the main route used
by drug smugglers and criminal illegal immigrants (all persons
who cross the border illegal commit a Federal misdemeanor the first time, a
felony the second time) there would not seem to be a good reason to resist
lawful regulation of border entry. As usual, the answer may be in who
gains from the absence of a Wall, and what they gain. The best way to get the
answer is to follow the money.
Right now the
transfer of money from persons working in the U.S. to Mexico, called “personal
remittances” are a major source of Mexican revenue. The growth of remittance
revenue is a recent development. Mexico seized the assets of nearly all foreign
oil companies operating in Mexico
in 1938. But as American sanctuary cities flouted Federal law and
encouraged illegal immigration after 1980, those working in the U.S. started to
wire transfer money back to their families in amounts that became so large that
by the late 1990s remittances to Mexico were the second largest source of
foreign revenues, second only to oil revenues.
According to
the World Bank, in 2015 the world’s top remittance corridor was from the United
States to Mexico. As much as $25.2 billion dollars was sent
back to Mexico from people working in the U.S. Remittances are a great
source of revenue for Mexico and are more stable than all other
flows such as oil.
In 1979 the
Police Chief of Los Angeles publicly stated that he would not enforce
immigration law. Following this announcement, which was the effective beginning
of Los Angeles as a sanctuary city, remittances to Mexico from the U.S. grew
very rapidly from only $177 million in 1979 to $26.9 billion in 2007, following
the growth of those sectors of the economy such as construction where illegal
immigrants worked. After the 2007 economic peak there was a drop in 2009 to $22
billion. But in 2015 the amount of remittances climbed back to $26.2 billion,
according to the World
Bank. Ninety-eight percent of all
remittances sent to Mexico come from the U.S.
It is no
coincidence that the most rapid growth occurred from 2000 to 2008 when Vincente
Fox was the president of Mexico. This is why the most emotional and energetic
resistance to the Wall came from Vincente
Fox, who used abusive language toward Trump. His statement were
cloaked in emotion and anger, a skillfully crafted disguise for the real reason
for his concern: money.
One in
every eleven
persons born in Mexico has gone to the U.S. The National
Review reported that in
2014 $1.87 billion was spent on incarcerating illegal immigrant
criminals.
Since the
political economy of Los Angeles depends so heavily on the Federal and state
program money that supports illegal immigration, the Los AngelesTimes still
defends Special Order 40 as
essential to, paradoxically, law and order. It’s also essential to the economy
of Los Angeles but somehow the Times doesn’t mention that
fact.
One may ask
why the Federal government chooses to spend so much money on the incarceration
of criminal aliens by defying the Federal 1996 Immigration Act. But it’s
important to keep in mind the benefits the Federal government, particularly the
Democrat Party, the party of government sector teacher
unions, obtains from illegal immigration. After all, their four biggest campaign
contributors, the Service Employees International Union, the National
Education Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees and American Federation of Teachers are four of the top six
contributors from 1989 to present. And they give over 99% of their contributors
to Democrats. Today sixty
five percent of public school students in Los Angeles County are
Hispanic. In Chicago 46% are
Hispanic.
Democrats,
who have dominated almost all large metropolitan areas since FDR, are heavily
dependent on illegal immigrants and their children. Should Trump
build an effective wall, he would disrupt the flow of illegal immigrants,
public school students, teacher union donations and block grant money to all
their most important bases of electoral and demographic support. Trump’s wall
is the major threat to what they see as their party’s long term goal of
maintaining control of state governments as well as the national government.
Multimillionaire
Jorge Ramos of Univision has criticized Trump aggressively. While
Univision may have no obvious direct financial interest in remittances, their
TV network certainly stands to profit from increases in Hispanic viewership,
increases that are totally dependent on the growth of the Hispanic populations
in cities they serve.
In short,
everything that matters to Hillary and her Democrat Party is existentially
threatened by Trump’s wall. And as a personal matter, Hillary’smulti-million
dollar speech income from Wall
Street contributors is also threatened: the banks make money
from the wire transfers. Every time someone in the U.S. wires money to Mexico,
the banks, currency exchanges, and other providers of wire transfer services
make easy money. And the loss of low paying jobs to teenagers and seniors to
illegal immigrants also contributes to the recession. Hillary and her party
supporters desperately need illegal immigrants: Hillary is bought
and paid for.
We now know
that the big Wall Street banks bought her and you are paying for it in many
ways. Hillary will not reveal what she has said to big bank contributors, but
it is not unlikely that she reassured them that she will allow an open
border to exist on the Southern part of the U.S. Recent email leaks
have confirmed that she believes in open borders.
And then
there’s the humanitarian issue. After all, the rationalization for allowing
illegal immigration is that we need people to do “low paid jobs no one else
will do.” This is a racist, humiliating characterization of Hispanics from
Mexico and other Central American countries. America’s most shameful chapter in
its history was its promotion of the institution of slavery, the importation of
blacks from Africa to do “low paid jobs no one else will do.” It is hard to
understand how anyone with sensitivity toward racial
minorities can now bring up another generation of low paid workers.
Vincente Fox never discusses this abuse, or the rape trees human
smugglers construct as monuments to their criminal rape of young Hispanic women
illegally crossing the border from the South.
Those
following the money trail would say this follows the pattern perfectly: that
Hillary allows illegal immigrants to be exploited by cartels and rapists in
order for the banks she protects to collect their remittance transfer money.
Somehow these humanitarian topics are avoided. We know that Wall Street
investment banks gave tens of millions to support Barack Obama and Hillary
Clinton. These same banks make easy profits from of illegal immigrant bank
transfer fees as well as high interest rate home loans and car loans targeted
to Hispanics.
Hillary’s lack
of humanitarian concern is accompanied by a silence toward the issue of
money.
No comments:
Post a Comment