The border patrol and our systems to protect our borders are being overwhelmed by unaccompanied alien children (UAC’s). Whereas the border patrol estimated 60,000 UAC’s would flood the border in response to Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals the 2013 numbers have been revised into the 90,000 range. How can anyone be surprised when the administration virtually erects neon signs at the border proclaiming “Illegal Children Welcome”? That message has been repeated in countries south of the border in print and on TV.
We have seen the response by our government, requesting more tax dollars, opening up emergency shelters and shipping children to states not yet inundated with UAC’s. How could they have failed to plan for such a massive response to policies they themselves instituted? Or have they and things are going exactly as planned? We might find the answer in Obama’s blueprint for change, his Mein Kampf translated to “my struggle” to end poverty.
That blueprint in its clearest form is an article by Columbia professors Frances Piven and Richard Cloward. (A strategy to end poverty) What they proposed is to overwhelm the welfare system to the point of a federal living wage whether you were employed or not. They knew a living wage would not be popular but outlined a series of steps or crisis’s that could be used to usher in a general consensus to do something. That something would be money for nothing or a living wage.
The first obstacle they saw was that not everyone that qualifies for benefits applies and welfare is at odds with the American dream of upward mobility. Thru massive education efforts informing the poor of their legal rights to others money would start the road to ruin. (SNAP)(Obamphone) That alone will not accomplish the end goal. Community organizers and militant demonstrations must also take place to replace the stigma of welfare. (Top 99) As the crisis grows the media should be enlisted to document the inefficiencies and injustices of the welfare state. Throughout the crisis the media should promote new federal income distribution programs. It doesn’t matter who helps the job of increased expenditures as long as the job gets done.
They argue this plan to overwhelm the system will work for several reasons. First is the poor will see immediate increases in benefits. The second is the benefits are cumulative, the local drain on resources continues ever upwards. Thirdly the poor are not asked to do anything but claim what they are “owed”.
So how does this create the conditions for the federal government to enact a living wage? Because rather than follow the constitutional model of new laws, use a publicly visible “crisis” to enact new laws. A crisis defined by the participants, or by other activated groups. Make the issues clear and with preferred solutions in hand. The crisis would intensify the struggle over resources between cities and states. A federal income solution would relieve the cities and states from the immediate crisis.
The liberals and progressives have been following the play book since its publication in 1966. But something went wrong with the plan. The resilience of the American system resisted collapse. It would seem there weren’t enough poor Negros or Whites to reach the tipping point. Even with the burdens placed on the economy the numbers still fell short. The solution, found in free enterprise is to import the raw materials you can’t acquire locally. Hence the “broken immigration system”, path to citizenship, the Dream Act, immigration reform and even calls for a living wage.
So what would be the point in collapsing a system they created? Do the rich democrats in Washington really care for the plight of the poor? When Hillary was down to her last 8 million and struggled to buy two homes did she have an epiphany? The answer can be found in the closing statements of “A Strategy to End Poverty”“… those seeking new ways to engage the Negro politically should remember that public resources have always been the fuel for low-income urban political organization. If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses, it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors. At least, they have always done so in the past.”