It’s an argument that Americans are used to hearing from libertarian commentators: that the United States must accept mass immigration at the peril of our economy. GDP above all else has long been the mantra of the political elite.
“The Trump administration’s push against ‘birthing tourism’ could have grave, unintended consequences for U.S. cities that rely on Mexican shoppers, border experts say,” according to Border Report’s Julian Resendiz.
For example, Resendiz quoted an economics professor from the University of Texas at El Paso, who claimed that “Mexican shoppers account for 8% to 14% of El Paso’s retail economy on any given year.”
The professor argued that residents of Northern Mexico spend over one billion dollars in the United States every year. He did not say how much, specifically, the 33,000 annual “birth tourists” spend in the United States. Indeed, no correlation between the border economy and “birth tourism” was directly drawn.
Political consultant and commentator Ryan Girdusky wasn’t buying what Border Report was selling. He said the new “birth tourism” rule was unrelated to the border economy.
“This is another scare tactic by claiming [ending ‘birth tourism’] would hurt the border economy,” Girdusky told The Rundown News.
“Many of the women who are conducting birth tourism come from countries like Russia and China and go to cities like New York, Miami, and Los Angeles,” he said. “Its a hogwash claim used to attack the President’s brilliant and brave rule change.”
Further, American media at large will only discuss the ramifications of immigration on the economy when immigration is being restricted — never when it’s being increased.
If the media actually cared about the economic effects of mass immigration, they might consider the more than $30 billion sent back to Mexico in remittances annually, or the tax burden of illegal aliens, which is north of $100 billion annually, or the $5.3 billion American taxpayer dollars spent annually on foreigners birthing children in the United States.
Later in his piece, Resendiz made the following assertion:
“But other immigration policy experts and advocates said the rule is racist — intended to keep out poor women from Africa, Asia and Latin America,” he said.
If you thought Resendiz might follow up that assertion with expert commentary from advocates who actually called the policy “racist,” you would be wrong.
Instead, he quoted Ur Jaddou, the former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), who argued against the policy because “[c]onsular officers who are not trained medical experts will be required to ask intrusive, complicated medical questions in public and make obstetric judgements.”
Then he deceptively quoted Jaddou on a totally separate issue – Monday’s “public charge” ruling by the Supreme Court – which she called an “attack against our community of women of color.”
The Rundown News reached out to Resendiz for comment, but he did not immediately respond.
Last month, when Fisher Industries, funded by We Build The Wall, took on the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) and leftist environmental activists from the National Butterfly Center in federal court, Border Report staff was on hand cozying up to the anti-borders players who were desperately trying to stop the company from building 3.5 miles of border wall in Mission, TX.
Ultimately, Fisher Industries won the case, and their project is nearing completion.
Like The Rundown News on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/therundownnews/