Rep. Dan Crenshaw Has A New Name For Americans Who Oppose A Border Wall

Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX) has come up with a splendid new name for those Democrats and Never-Trumpers who oppose the need for a border wall. It’s as brilliant as it is simple. He calls them “border deniers.”

Definition of Border Denialism:

1) The belief that physical barriers can simply be “climbed over”…just like that.

2) The belief that there’s “no real problem” on the border because 400,000 illegals apprehended on border per year is “insignificant.”

— Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) January 5, 2019

3) The belief that because you can't put a wall everywhere (i.e. the Rio Grande), that you should, therefore, put a wall nowhere.

— Rep. Dan Crenshaw (@RepDanCrenshaw) January 5, 2019

Twitchy’s Sam J explains that “for years, Lefties have been calling anyone who doesn’t believe that man alone is powerful enough to control the environment, ‘climate deniers.’ Some of these tolerant, lovely, peaceful people have even said those who don’t agree with their ideas on climate change should go to jail. You just know they’re a hoot at birthday parties.”

In the same way, those who argue that a border wall will not reduce the number of illegals streaming into our country, and now I suppose we must add Fox News’ Chris Wallace to that group, will be known as “border deniers.”

Germany Bribes Illegal Migrants To Leave Country

The National Post reports that Germany has initiated an ad campaign called “ReturningfromGermany” promising illegal immigrants “free rent for a year in their home countries” to leave the country. “Your country. Your future. Now!” read billboards in seven languages, plastered in nearly 2,500 locations across 80 German cities.”

(Screenshot of National Post photo.)

The National Post reports:

The billboard campaign is mainly targeting the 235,000 persons who are still required to leave the country, the interior ministry says. So why haven’t they left? The large majority of asylum seekers simply cannot be sent back – their claims have been rejected, but they cannot be returned because their country of origin is too dangerous, they lack documentation papers or suffer from illness. It’s a deadlock acknowledged by the German government itself: These 170,000 people are given special status –  duldung(or tolerated) – to stay on temporarily. The others – those who are eligible for deportation according to the German yardstick – frequently don’t show up for their deportation. More than 20,000 airport repatriations were scrubbed this year; half of all scheduled. Every second person went missing in the run-up to departure.

Thus, the billboard campaign was conceived.

Surprisingly, not all Germans are happy about this initiative. Many of the signs have been spray painted with messages such as “We welcome all migrants.”

None of this will make a noticeable difference in Germany’s migrant population considering that over 1.5 million have entered the country since 2014.

The full article can be viewed here.

Why Did Henry Ford Increase The Pay Of His Workers From $2.25 Per Day To $5 In 1914?

At the time Henry Ford made the well-publicized decision to pay his workers $5 per day, a big jump from their previous rate of $2.25, many thought he did so that his workers would be able to afford to purchase a vehicle of their own. Forbes Magazine’s Tom Worstall explains Ford’s real reason for the salary increase.

Worstall writes that the company had severe problems with employee turnover. The company required 14,000 workers to run their assembly line at full capacity. In 1913, the year prior to the raise, the company hired 52,000 and at year end only 14,000 remained. The costs of training 52,000 employees was high. At times, production would be halted because employees wouldn’t report for work, some would show up drunk and others might simply walk away from the line. Increasing the pay of well-trained, competent employees was actually less expensive than paying for expensive training only to see the majority of them quit. Also, production halts were far less frequent when employees were paid more money.

In addition, not all employees earned the full $5. There were conditions attached to it, conditions that no employee in today’s workforce would tolerate. Worstall writes:

The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees’ homes to ensure that they were doing things the “American way.” They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become “Americanized.” Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

What a difference 100 years makes!

Quote of the Day:

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
by Thomas Jefferson

As Always, This Is An Open Thread!