Progressives Demand Two Migrants for Every U.S. Baby

The U.S. government must end the “venomous nativism” of ordinary patriotic Americans by flooding it with tens of millions of immigrants, according to two immigrants, Indian-born Deepak Bhargava and South Korean-born Rich Stolz.

Americans’ “politics of fear and racism” must be drowned by even more poor immigrants, say the two Democratic-aligned progressive activist-authors:

Under our proposal, the US would admit 75 million immigrants over the next decade, which would double the foreign-born population from 15% to over 30%, giving it the largest share of any developed nation. Admitting 7.5 million people a year would be a dramatic increase compared with recent history – in the Obama years, the US admitted 1 million immigrants a year, and that number shrank dramatically under Trump.

The two authors’ “Statue of Liberty Plan” would force Americans to accept an annual inflow of 7.5 million migrants — or two migrants for each American newborn.

The progressive plan would require the federal government to suppress and trash the much-polled preferences and the economic self-interest of 330 million varied Americans.

The plan would be a massive, three-sided elite smack to ordinary Americans:

That massive migration would reduce the labor-market power and cut wages for tens of millions of American employees by flooding the blue-collar and white-collar labor markets with a massive wave of perhaps 50 million low-wage and compliant workers.

The inflow would also drive up prices by adding 75 million consumers and renters to the U.S. market. The migrants also would dramatically increase the purchase of autos and gasoline, and spike the cost of homes and apartments. That would put a middle-class life out of reach for tens of millions more Americans.

The flood would also wreck Americans’ ability to locally govern their society, schools, and civic support programs by injecting more chaotic diversity into their already-fractured society. The economic and civic chaos enforced by the migration would help the business-backed progressives seize more power over ordinary Americans.

The two foreign-born authors justify the wholesale replacement of American culture and people as the righteous progressive answer to Americans’ beneficial solidarity with each other and their society, which they deride as “nativism.”

In a September 23 article in the Guardian, the two authors call for the flood to help to wash away the sins and crimes of U.S. businesses:

Invasions, annexations, coups and mercenary wars are a bloody throughline in the history of US relations with Latin America. US corporations profit from extreme exploitation, while US trade and sanctions policies have increased poverty, notably in Venezuela where sanctions have increased extreme hardship.

The climate crisis is also a growing cause of migration. In Central America and the Caribbean, nearly a third of migrants in hard-hit areas cite climate-induced lack of food as the main reason for becoming migrants. The number of climate migrants will surely grow; the World Bank estimates that 216 million people worldwide will be forced to migrate by 2050.

In reality, Americans’ free-market economy has enormously helped the developing world, especially the countries that focus on trade. For example, the nations of South Korea, China, Vietnam, and India have become far richer in a few decades — after spending thousands of years mired in poverty, autocracy, and caste culture.

Moreover, Wall Street likely will support the progressive plan.

The progressives’ plan would extract vast human resources from developing countries — and deliver the migrants to U.S. businesses and Wall Street to serve as 75 million more workers, consumers, and renters in the relatively low-corruption United States.

“If the U.S. is going to be a place where people want to migrate [illegally] for economic reasons, let’s have an immigration system that recognizes and takes advantage of that,” a top business lobbyist said in November 2021. “That, I think, is something that will be true five years now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now,” said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a pro-migration economist who formerly worked for President George W. Bush when he was pushing the open borders “any willing worker” claim.

Billionaire investors routinely call for more migration. For example, CNN reported on September 23:

Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge fund manager and activist investor, has an alternative idea to fight inflation: Increase immigration.

…

“Inflation can be mitigated by reducing demand and/or by increasing supply,” tweeted Ackman of Pershing Square Capital. “Doesn’t it make more sense to moderate wage inflation with increased immigration than by raising rates, destroying demand, putting people out of work, and causing a recession?

Business groups already are applauding the semi-open border policies enforced by President Joe Biden and his Cuban-born homeland security chief, Alejandro Mayorkas. This unpopular policy is on track to extract roughly 2 million southern economic migrants in 2022 from poor countries — alongside another roughly 2 million legal immigrants, visa workers, visa overstayers, and workers who arrive on tourist visas. The 2022 inflow is delivering at least three migrants for every four American newborns.

The progressives’ pro-migration groups are already funded by business-backed progressives, such as the West Coast investor-billionaires at FWD.us.

This Extraction Migration economic strategy is enthusiastically pushed by progressives who wish to transform the U.S. from a society governed by European-origin civic culture into an economic empire of jealous identity groups overseen by progressive hall monitors.

“We’re trying to become the first multiracial, multi-ethnic superpower in the world,” Rep. Rohit Khanna (D-CA) told the New York Times in March 2022. “It will be an extraordinary achievement. … We will ultimately triumph,” he boasted. In September 2022, Khanna called for a revival of President George W. Bush’s “Any Willing Worker” “guest worker” plan that would pressure employers to replace millions of American employees with low-wage Indians and other foreigners.

Progressives who want more migration also argue that is a good counter to China: “We probably need to grow the country threefold [from 330 million] — to one billion Americans,” said author Matthew Yglesias, an elite-leftist progressive founder of Vox.com.

The nation-changing plan is backed by the Democrats’ progressive establishment at the Roosevelt Institute, which published the plan. The institute’s board includes a roster of establishment names, managers, and union leaders, such as James Hoffa and Randi Weingarten.

Some of the pro-migration progressives come from poor countries whose histories, cultures, and status are subordinate to Americans’ colossal accomplishments since 1776.

Stolz, for example, was born in South Korea, before he began working for the far-left Center for Community Change. He now runs OneAmerica, a pro-migration lobby in Washington State. His co-author, Deepak Bhargava, was an activist at the far-left  ACORN group and is now a “distinguished lecturer” at the School of Labor and Urban Studies at the City University of New York.

Similarly, Jia Lynn Yang is the top editor for domestic news at the New York Times. She is the child of Chinese immigrants and the progressive author of a 2020 pro-migration book, titled “One Mighty and Irresistible Tide” where she argues that immigration should sever America from its cultural roots in Europe:

For those Americans who want ethnic pluralism to be a foundation value of their nation, there is unfinished work. The current generation of immigrants and children of immigrants — like those who came before us — must articulate a new vision for the current era, one that embraces rather than elides how far America has drifted from its European roots. If [immigrants] do not, their opponents can simply point out to the America of the last fifty years as a demographic aberration, and they would not be wrong.

The two authors also build their “Statue of Liberty Plan” on the long-standing false narrative that insists the Statue of Liberty is merely a greeter at the doorway to a claimed “Nation of Immigrants.”

The fake and misleading narrative is also pushed by the New York Times‘ Lynn:

The image of the Statue of Liberty, the Emma Lazarus poem at the statue’s base, the notion of America as an eternal “nation of immigrants,” — these make up an intoxicating part of this country’s mythology. Set against all the sins of America’s past — from slavery to the removal and genocide of American Indians — the arrival of open-hearted immigrants, grateful for a chance at a new life on our shores serves as a constant renewal of hope in the American project. If there is salvation for this country, it very well may lie in the underlying gratitude of a refugee whose life has been saved by the granting of a visa.

In reality, the State of Liberty was built by a French artist to display the success of the U.S. Constitution in the 1880s.  In subsequent years, a PR campaign by pro-migration advocates portrayed it as a beacon to foreign migrants.

But that success has been lost by many Americans since U.S. economic elites boosted international migration in 1965 and 1990.

Extraction Migration

Government officials want to grow the economy, and immigration is an easier tool than gradually raising exports, productivity, or the birth rate.

So the federal governments extract millions of migrants from poor countries and use them as extra workers, consumers, and renters.

This Extraction Migration policy grows the national economy but also skews it towards employers and investors. For example, migration tends to ensure employers do not run short of labor. The lack of  “tight labor markets” ensures that the migration shifts vast wealth from employees to investors, billionaires, and Wall Street. In turn, that makes it difficult for ordinary Americans to advance in their careers, get married, raise families, or buy homes.

Extraction migration also slows innovation and shrinks Americans’ productivity. This happens because it encourages employers to boost stock prices by relying on disposable workers instead of uncapturable American professionals and technology.

This migration policy also reduces exports by minimizing economic pressure on U.S. companies to build up complementary trade with people in poor countries.

Migration undermines employees’ workplace rights, and it widens the regional economic gaps between the Democrats’ cheap-labor coastal states and the Republicans’ heartland and southern states.

An economy fueled by extraction migration also drains Americans’ political clout over elites. It alienates young people and radicalizes Americans’ democratic civic culture because it gives an excuse for wealthy elites and progressives to ignore despairing Americans at the bottom of society, such as drug addicts.

Similarly, establishment Republicans, corporate media, and major GOP donors hide the skew caused by migration. They suppress any recognition of the pocketbook impact and instead tout border chaos, welfare spending, migrant crime, and drug smuggling.

Many polls show the public wants to welcome some immigration. But the polls also show deep and broad public opposition to labor migration and the inflow of temporary contract workers into the good jobs U.S. graduates need to raise families.