by Robert M. Traxler

Democrats want amnesty for illegal aliens; Republicans want to make it easier for skilled people to immigrate. Ever wonder what is behind the two parties’ motivation?

Is it to help the downtrodden and the needy and to spread the American dream to millions of immigrants? No. It all comes down to votes; educated immigrants with high-tech skills have a tendency to vote for Republicans, while unskilled less educated immigrants vote mostly for the Democrats.

Both political parties will tell us they are the loving compassionate ones who ”care.” If illegals crossing the border in the hundreds of thousands were a potential voting block for the Republicans, you would never hear the illegal immigrant term used by the majority in the Senate and House; Republicans would use the undocumented term. If highly skilled immigrants voted mostly for Democrats, the President would be squarely behind easing the immigration restrictions on that group.

The hypocrisy is mostly on the Democrats’ side, but that is because they have the most to gain from the current situation. The Democrats are counting on the Hispanic vote being a solid block in the same way the African American vote currently is.

The concept of opening our borders to millions of low-skilled, undereducated immigrants has a large price tag attached to it that neither side could logically support. Logic goes out the window when votes are concerned; both parties are now actively courting the Hispanic vote. Bob Beckel, a Democratic campaign consultant, tells us his worst nightmare is a Hispanic Republican presidential nominee.

Educating bilingual or” English language learner” children is 15 to 25% more expensive than educating children who speak English as a primary language, as in most states the requirement is for smaller classes. Low incomes coupled with the illegal status normally result in the necessity to have a higher density population, more folks in a single home, with school tax based on the value of the home and not the number of occupants. High density, low income populations result in a greater strain on the community infrastructure, more folks, more traffic, sewage, water use, trash, and strain on the police, fire, and medical assets.

In high density communities the tax base cannot keep up with the costs the community encounters.

We can dance around the issue of who pays taxes, but the fact is that low income folks pay less overall tax in our progressive tax system and many work “off the books.” Millions of illegal immigrants cost government more than they contribute; not a politically correct thing to say, but a valid observation.

As we look at the debate, we must wonder how the terms are formed; you are a racist if you use the term illegal immigrant, with the politically correct term being undocumented alien. If you rob a bank, did you commit an undocumented withdrawal? If you sell illegal drugs, did you commit an undocumented pharmaceutical sale? Stealing a car or robbery is an undocumented transfer of property?

Common sense goes out the window when we worship at the altar of political correctness and voter base.

The future of the immigration debate will be dictated by votes, not fairness, kindness, law or right. If the Republicans get that Hispanic president with a majority of the Hispanic vote, you will see the roles of the parties reversed, Republicans calling for amnesty and Democrats blocking it.

The only immigrant/minority group it is politically correct to discriminate against are the Asians; Harvard and other Ivy League Universities limit the number of Asians admitted. Got to love political correctness that punishes those American minorities who try too hard, work too hard, or are too successful; the progressive left cannot allow that outrage. The Asian community is approximately 4.75% of the American population but they are not treated as a minority in all instances; how does that work? How is that “social justice?”

Social justice advocacy groups refuse to count Asian Americans as minorities when dealing with Silicon Valley companies, but we have fewer Asians than African Americans in the United States. Could it be based on how Asians vote? Could it be based on the level of government dependency? Could it be based on the level of success? Is it truly about compassion or fairness, or is it all about political power and the expansion of the voter base?