NEW HAMPSHIRE- When Pete Buttigieg isn’t spouting ideals of decriminalizing drug possession charges on the campaign trail, he’s effectively plagiarizing immigration stances and rebranding them as his own.
During a townhall in Merrimack, New Hampshire, Buttigieg suggested that small-town America should welcome increased waves of legal immigrants to drive up… population growth.
Apparently, the idea is that there’s potential economic benefits to inundating rural communities with more people – which is possible. Yet, like a coin toss, there’s also the possibility of economic downfalls when a traditionally smaller city has a sudden population boom.
During the townhall, Buttigieg stated:
“I’m proposing what we call “Community Renewal Visas” that when a community that is very much in need of growing its population, recognizes that, and makes a choice to welcome more than its share of new Americans that we create a fast-track, if they apply for an allotment of visas, that goes to those who are willing to be in those areas that maybe are hurting for population but have great potential.”
SOME of What “MODERATE” Buttigieg actually ADMITS to
♦️All drugs including Meth & Cocaine decriminalized
♦️Late term Infanticide
♦️Scrap electoral college
♦️Implement New Green deal
♦️Name & Shame “white” Hate
♦️Nationwide gun control
♦️Fast track immigration
— 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐡 🇺🇸🎸🌴 (@LeahR77) February 10, 2020
His idea sounds nearly identical to one that was published back in April 2019, which called this type of initiative “Heartland Visas”.
The “Heartland Visas” study tactfully found ways to explain things like when more people move into rural areas, more houses get built and get more expensive – which higher priced houses are good for the economy.
Yeah, higher-priced homes are lucrative for developers and Wall Street personas, not people trying to buy homes.
If President, @PeteButtigieg will decide if a community is "very much in need of growing its population" and he will make sure to send many more immigrants there on "fast-track" visas. https://t.co/ckpfnTQrSR
— NumbersUSA (@NumbersUSA) February 12, 2020
Then again, the leadership behind the Economic Innovation Group, who published the study, happens to host quite a bit of the investor types.
You’ve got Sean Parker, the co-founder of Facebook and Napster – who has a net worth somewhere around $7 billion.
You’ve got Chris Slevin, former legislative director for Senator Cory Booker. Their leadership section even proudly says that they’re composed of “policy experts, start-up founders, investors, and academics”.
You should always be critical of economics papers that are backed by these types of personas – and question where the loyalties lie. Mass immigration is usually lobbied by big business, and what’s not to love as the owner of behemoth companies?
You get the benefit of flooded labor markets, driving labor costs down. You also get an instant consumer boost, depending on what your company peddles. And of course, there’s big government right around the corner to get a few extra bucks in taxes.
Everyone wins – well, except the middle class and those lower on the economic totem pole.
Not surprisingly, most Americans don’t want to see an increase in immigration year over year.
Currently, the United States population is around 327 million, but if immigration policies weren’t changed throughout the years we’d likely have a population of about 251 million people. Since 1965, the United States has accepted over 75 million people to date via immigration.
Throughout the years, we’ve gone from accepting 250,000 immigrants annually, to then 500,000 a year, and by 1990 Congress decided a million or more annually is a good number.
If we keep that trend going just as is, we’ll have a population nationally to the tune of 404 million people by 2060.
Is there anything genuinely wrong about legal immigration – no, far from. But there has to be a point where someone looks at the numbers and says “We’ve got to take care of our own first”.
Buttigieg has flirted with the idea of increasing H-1B visas going out as well, which takes skilled jobs off the market for legal citizens. Bringing in too many medium-to-high skilled immigrants drives down those labor costs, much like how overflowing with low-skilled immigrants hurts low-skilled labor costs.
Good work by @CBedfordDC refuting the myth that Pete Buttigieg is some kind of moderate. "From health care and abortion to guns and immigration, and from the Supreme Court to the Electoral College, the man is decidedly a radical." https://t.co/4phL3pNNJj
— Giancarlo Sopo (@GiancarloSopo) February 4, 2020
Overall, the idea of just creating an influx of immigrant populations in rural communities to improve economic conditions just doesn’t make sense at all. And it seems that only a select few stand to benefit greatly from it.
As alluded to earlier, Presidential hopeful Mayor Pete Buttigieg intends to take prison out of the equation for people convicted of possession of drugs like heroin, meth, and cocaine.
In an interview that was held on Fox News Sunday, he believes that treatment is the only route that should be taken with those hemmed up on possession charges.
Buttigieg jumped into his rationale with a portion of his version of criminal justice reform with Chris Wallace recently, and the topic of prosecuting possession of drugs came up.
The South Bend, Indiana mayor indicated that if he were to become president, possession charges would no longer land someone in prison. While claiming that the “war on drugs” has failed, Buttigieg said the only remedy at this point is delivering treatment to those who are in possession of all sorts of narcotics.
Wallace asked the mayor the following:
“You not only want to decriminalize marijuana, you want to decriminalize all drug possession. You say that the better answer … is rather treatment, not incarceration.
But isn’t the fact that it’s illegal to have, possess meth and heroin, doesn’t that in some way — the fact that it’s illegal — act as a deterrent to actually trying it in the first place?”
Buttigeig responded with:
“Well, I think the main thing that we should focus on is distribution and the harm that’s done there. Yes, of course it’s important that it remain illegal.”
The back and forth continued briefly, as the host was confused at Buttigieg claiming that drug possession should remain illegal.
Wallace addressed the confusion by telling Buttigieg that his own website claims that he would “decriminalize” drug possession completely. When the bluff was called on the mayor, he responded with citing how everything else just hasn’t worked up to this point.
When he acknowledged that his campaign website did mention decriminalizing possession charges, he stated:
“The point is, not the legal niceties, the point is we have learned through 40 years of a failed war on drugs that criminalizing addiction doesn’t work. Not only that, the incarceration does more harm than the offense it’s intended to deal with.”
There’s so many issues and questions that could be levied at Buttigieg’s idea on addressing drug crime. What about criminal cases where someone is initially charged with higher crimes, and then signs a plea bargain that only lists “possession”?
Furthermore, what data suggests that delivered treatment programs are more successful than incarceration of drug possession offenders?
According to his own plan online, he aims to enact the following if elected:
“On the federal level, eliminate incarceration for drug possession, reduce sentences for other drug offenses and apply these reductions retroactively, and expunge past convictions.
Research shows that incarceration for drug offenses has no effect on drug misuse, drug arrests, or overdose deaths. In fact, some studies show that incarceration actually increases the rate of overdose deaths. We cannot incarcerate ourselves out of this public health problem.”
So, there’s truth to the mayor’s notion that there’s some studies that show jail or prison hasn’t been stellar in dealing with drug crime and offenses.
Yet, according to the American Addiction Centers, no one has been able to quantify if any rehab programs genuinely works in the long run either.
In fact, the AAC says that any touted success rates of rehab programs can’t be trusted at all:
“Since many treatment centers do not follow up with their patients, the “100 percent” success rate some cite only applies to those who complete the length of their stay.
Even those who boast a more modest “30 percent success rate” only draw that figure from the immediate sobriety rates after treatment, not from six months or three years down the road.”
Considering that many rehab facilities claim that they’re a success by only having someone complete their program – what exactly is the average program length for any given addiction?
According to Advanced Recovery Systems, you could be a success story anywhere from 4 days to a little over 4 months of treatment.
ARS showed that detox programs are on average only 4 days, whereas residential style treatment is around 16 days. Some of the longer programs like expanded residential treatment averages out at 90 days and outpatient treatment is typically 130 days.
Despite rehab programs originating in 1864, when they were called “sober houses”, we still can’t say if that works either or would be even better than jail or prison-time for drug offenders.
Not to mention, where there’s drug possession – there’s usually other crime too. The DOJ has been quite hip to that fact since the well-crafted study published in 1994 showed that where there’s drugs, there’s all sorts of other crimes being committed.
Case in point, while finding the magic cure for addiction would be great – keeping people off the street who use drugs like heroin, meth, and cocaine keeps drug fueled crimes from affecting the population. Clearly, Buttigieg hasn’t thought this one out very well.
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!