Category Archives: immigration

Labels

Posted on by
Reply

Much is being made of President Joe Biden’s (D) refusal to address the situation at our Mexico border, with its burgeoning illegal alien flow into our nation, as a crisis. Much is being made of DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ parallel overt rejection of the term “crisis” as a reference to that situation.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has said that the administration isn’t in the business of “labeling” and that the Biden administration doesn’t take immigration advice from the Trump administration. That last is just a bit of empty-headed snark that Biden spouted as he speaks with Psaki’s mouth, for all that it provides a window into the nature of Biden’s inability to deal with what he has wrought at our border over the months since his election, as Mexico’s drug cartels and coyotes and folks from around the world act on his campaign promises of open borders once he’s in office.

On the larger matter, though, Biden—through Psaki—is right, to a point. Labels by themselves can be pretty meaningless, and they can be misleading.

However, properly done, they can be useful shorthand for referring to complex matters that are being handled or that need to be handled. Properly done, labels can serve to briefly identify the nature of the complex matter and thereby guide development of concrete, actionable solutions.

On the other hand, a problem cannot be attacked and resolved if it cannot be identified and understood.

A situation that is “No Big Deal” wants an entirely different response from a situation that is a crisis.

An influx of illegal aliens that is merely a “challenge” needs only local law enforcement involvement, with maybe a touch of Federal assistance, and some humane detention until the illegal aliens can be properly deported.

An influx of illegal aliens, though (and that influx is just the illegal aliens who actually are caught), that overwhelms not only local law enforcement but Federal agencies responsible for enforcing our borders—all of them—and enforcing our immigration laws; an influx that overwhelms our detention facilities, to the point that children become “housed” in the cages Biden inherited from ex-President Barack Obama (D) and currently is using; an influx that overwhelms our border facilities to the point that Wuhan Virus testing facilities are overwhelmed so that most of the illegal aliens who are actually caught and detained go untested and unquarantined—that influx is a crisis.

That’s the failing—a critical failing—of the Biden administration. It cannot label the situation as the crisis that it is.

And so it cannot understand the problem at our southern border.

Or it refuses to try to understand, which would be worse.

Misapprehensions

Posted on by
Reply

More in a long list of Leftist and Progressive-Democrat misapprehensions. Recall that President Joe Biden has abandoned the Trump administration’s Public Charge Rule. That rule required immigrants be financially stable to become US citizens or obtain permanent residency.

Naturally, the Leftist critics are coming out of the woodwork with their objections.

…the policy hurts those trying to obtain citizenship or [permanent] residency. The Legal Aide society [sic] called the policy a “wealth tax” that discriminated against people on the basis of race and immigration status.

One misapprehension is this business about hurting those trying to obtain citizenship or [permanent] residency. No nation has any obligation to grant residency—permanent or otherwise—or citizenship to anyone wishing to immigrate (more on this in a bit). No nation has any obligation even to entertain such applications. Hence no injury is possible here.

Another misapprehension: the idea that any sort of wealth tax is being applied from a public charge sort of rule. There is no tax intrinsic or even implied in requiring prospective residents or citizens to be independent of the receiving nation’s welfare system, in requiring them to be able to fend for themselves or to rely on their own family. The only tax involved would be the added burden on the receiving nation’s extant taxpayers.

Yet another misapprehension: the idea that requiring a degree of independence or self sufficiency as a prerequisite to residency or citizenship is somehow racist. This beef suggests that prospective immigrants are, because of their race, inherently unable to see to their own welfare. That attitude itself is invidious and racist.

A fourth misapprehension: the idea that any sort of public charge criterion discriminates on the basis of immigration status. No. National borders effect that discrimination. It’s one of the purposes of national borders, it’s a part of maintaining and enforcing a nation’s sovereignty. No one, nor any collection of people, has any inherent right to enter another nation without that nation’s prior permission. Neither has that nation any obligation to grant that permission.

A Clue Bat

Posted on by
Reply

…just struck. Colorado’s Progressive-Democrats want to censure their US Senator John Hickenlooper (D, CO) for the crime of voting to keep illegal aliens from receiving Wuhan Virus situation stimulus checks.

(Apparently, censure is becoming a thing as, just in the last month or so, Republicans moved to censure Congresswoman Liz Cheney (R, WY), Senator Ben Sasse (R, NE), and a brief low key effort was made to substitute censure for impeachment regarding ex-President Donald Trump.)

That’s not the item of interest here, though. The real clue to Progressive-Democrat intentions with their no-border, no-vetting, come-one-come-all immigration policy is this statement regarding censuring Hickenlooper by State Senator Julie Gonzales (D):

Usually politicians don’t slam the door shut on Latino voters so abruptly[.]

And a confirming clue:

Background below. The party platform opposes laws that make immigrants ineligible for assistance. https://t.co/kysMhSRxNi— Justin Wingerter (@JustinWingerter) February 8, 2021

Illegal aliens are immigrants—and these same illegal aliens are voters.

Be very heads up.

Opposition

Posted on by
Reply

Republicans in the Senate put Progressive-Democrats on the record on a number of amendments to Party’s budget reconciliation move—itself a deliberate act to sideline any dissent—which Republicans offered during a Thursday afternoon through Friday morning vote-a-rama. Party’s budget reconciliation then was voted up strictly along party lines.

Here’s some of what the Senate’s Progressive-Democrats oppose. Notice that every one of these would have enhanced Americans’ national security, economy, and individual liberty had they had the support of even a single Progressive-Democrat.

  • 50-50 on a failed amendment to support the border wall
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment supporting the free exercise of religion
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment to oppose packing the Supreme Court
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing stimulus checks for people in prison
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing the Biden administration’s move to restrict oil and gas leasing on federal lands
  • 50-50 on a failed amendment opposing a federal carbon tax

What a Concept

Posted on by
Reply

A legal, permanent resident immigrant with a prior criminal record, has been ordered deported, and the Supreme Court has upheld the deportation order.  Because it’s the law.

Writing for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh had this [emphasis added]:

Removal of a lawful permanent resident from the United States is a wrenching process, especially in light of the consequences for family members. Removal is particularly difficult when it involves someone such as Barton who has spent most of his life in the United States. Congress made a choice, however, to authorize removal of noncitizens—even lawful permanent residents—who have committed certain serious crimes. And Congress also made a choice to categorically preclude cancellation of removal for noncitizens who have substantial criminal records. Congress may of course amend the law at any time. In the meantime, the Court is constrained to apply the law as enacted by Congress.

The law does matter. At least to some of us.

Unsurprisingly, the four liberal Justices, voted against the Court’s ruling. Which is entirely consistent with their view that laws don’t matter when they’re in the way of the Justices’ personal views of social needs.

The case is Barton v Barr, and it can be read here.