“Child Migrants” Surge into NYC, Overwhelming the System
I’m glad it’s happening in NYC. In fact, I think it would be a good idea for any state experiencing this problem to put their “child migrants” on a bus to one of two destinations: New York City, and Washington DC.
The White Liberal Urban Self-Proclaimed Elites in those cities are making this problem — they should be confronted with it, and forced to deal with it themselves.
However, something gives me pause: isn’t that sort of thing exactly what Cloward-Piven wanted? The idea was that the flooding of the system would lead to a collapse into more socialism, not less. And it would start in New York and similar liberal cities.
Here’s Piven’s original article outlining the strategy [emphasis mine]:
The strategy is based on the fact that a vast discrepancy exists between the benefits to which people are entitled under public welfare programs and the sums which they actually receive…
The discrepancy is not an accident stemming from bureaucratic inefficiency; rather, it is an integral feature of the welfare system which, if challenged, would precipitate a profound financial and political crisis. The force for that challenge, and the strategy we propose, is a massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls…
A series of welfare drives in large cities would, we believe, impel action on a new federal program to distribute income, eliminating the present public welfare system and alleviating the abject poverty which it perpetrates. Widespread campaigns to register the eligible poor for welfare aid, and to help existing recipients obtain their full benefits, would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments. These disruptions would generate severe political strains, and deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be con-strained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas. By the internal disruption of local bureaucratic practices, by the furor over public welfare poverty, and by the collapse of current financing arrangements, powerful forces can be generated for major economic reforms at the national level…
The ultimate objective of this strategy–to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income–will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redistribution of income. Instead, programs are demanded to enable people to become economically competitive. But such programs are of no use to millions of today’s poor…
It’s goes on, but you get the idea. I haven’t read the whole thing, but skimming the rest of it I can see that her examples seem to come from New York. The idea was to overload the welfare system there—and the system of other similarly liberal cities—during a Democratic federal administration, so that a federal program would take over because people would demand it.
In fact, the Cloward-Priven strategy may have actually led to the financial crisis in New York City in 1975:
The socialist test case for using society’s poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial “shock troops,” in accordance with the Cloward-Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, bankrupting the government. As a consequence, New York state also teetered on the edge of financial collapse when the federal government stepped in with a bailout rescue.
So there was a federal response, but not exactly the one Piven had hoped.