Say What?

You mean illegal immigration actually has consequences?

Next year’s census will determine the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state. To accomplish these vital constitutional purposes, the enumeration should count only citizens and persons who are legal, permanent residents. But it won’t.

Instead, the U.S. Census Bureau is set to count all persons physically present in the country—including large numbers who are here illegally. The result will unconstitutionally increase the number of representatives in some states and deprive some other states of their rightful political representation. Citizens of “loser” states should be outraged. Yet few are even aware of what’s going on.

Oh, the irony of ironies, this piece appearing in the Wall St. Journal - one of the fiercest advocates of illegal immigration around. Of course, they won't come out and say that any more than ObamaCare defenders would come out and say that ObamaCare actually will have panels that make life and death decisions. No, the WSJ and other advocates of illegal immigration couch it in rhetoric about the free movement of labor and free markets in general. But the bottom line is their bottom line, and their preferred method for improving it is cheap, docile labor, preferably with no taxes to be withheld from and no benefits to be provided to. Screw the other consequences ... at least until now.

Gee, you think maybe they should have thought about such consequences when they were promoting amnesty, which only encourages more illegal immigration? No, they were too busy demagoguing opponents of mass amnesty and proponents of strict border enforcement as racists, xenophobes, nativists, etc., to listen to the numerous cogent arguments as to why illegal immigration is bad for the country. They didn't care, as long as they got their cheap labor and well-maincured lawns.

I'm almost tempted to indulge in schaedenfreude, just as I am with Obama voters who are now discovering what a horrible mistake they made. But I resist such temptatation because I know that the negative consequences affect us all. Perhaps the WSJ should have considered the same when they were busy demagoguing the issue instead of actually debating it in good faith. Hopefully next time they'll be careful what they wish for.