Category Archives: immigration

What’s Their Plan

Posted on by
Reply

…to fix the underlying problem?

Germany’s vice chancellor [Sigmar Gabriel] said his country could take in 500,000 refugees annually for the next several years….

The Hungarians, at the gate to Europe (remember the Ottoman onslaught that overran Hungary and didn’t stop until Vienna?), understand.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban warned in an interview with Austrian television late Monday that millions of refugees would descend upon the continent if what he called Germany’s “open door” policy continued.

“As long as Europe cannot protect its external borders it makes no sense to discuss the fate of those flowing in,” Orban said.

In what way does anyone in Europe think taking in all comers—however sad their story—will in any way stem the flood? In what way does anyone in Europe think taking in all comers will in any way alleviate the suffering of those who’ve not yet left their home country(s) or, especially, those who cannot leave?

In what way does anyone in Europe think they can absorb the flood without going to the source and correcting the problems there?

Assisting Refugees

Posted on by
2

The surge of refugees fleeing Syria and other war-torn regions is putting immense pressure not only on Europe but also the United States, as the Obama administration faces calls to take a more active role in the humanitarian crisis.

We’re supposed to accept 65,000-ish refugees from Syria and “other war-torn regions.” Congressman Michael McCaul (R, TX), House Homeland Security Committee Chairman, is on the right track:

Despite all evidence towards our homeland’s vulnerability to foreign fighters, the administration still plans to resettle Syrian refugees into the United States. America has a proud tradition of welcoming refugees from around the world, but in this special situation the Obama administration’s Syrian refugee plan is very dangerous.

Indeed. Aside from our inability to afford the expense of the flood and our empirically demonstrated inability to properly house large influxes of refugees, too many of these are unvetted and not refugees at all.

Anne Richard, State’s Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, disagrees.

[T]hese cases are the most carefully vetted of any travelers to the United States, and nobody comes in without having a Department of Homeland Security interviewer agree that they are, in fact, bona fide refugees.

Personally vetted by a DHS interviewer. Yeah—unvetted. And that leaves aside the disingenuousness of applying that claim to a flood of 65,000. With fewer thousands of alien families on our southern border that have been cooped up on that border for months, to the point a Federal judge had to order their release (vetted or not, a problem for a separate writing), because DHS couldn’t figure out how to do that on its own.

No. If Europe, and the United States, really gave a rat’s behind about the plight of these refugees, we’d get out of our comfortable ivory towers and work the problem at its origin: the countries from which these refugees are flooding. Otherwise, the flood will continue unabated.

And refugees and those unable to leave will continue to suffer.

Wrong Answer

Posted on by
1

Fox News‘ Megyn Kelly asked Senator and Presidential candidate Ted Cruz (R, TX) whether he would deport children born in the US of parents who are illegal aliens.

Cruz refused to answer the question, instead saying in non-answer that the question is

a distraction and a question that every mainstream, liberal journalist wants to ask.

Cruz said he’s focusing on areas where there is bipartisan agreement, and that’s why he’s laying out his plan for securing the border.

It’s an entirely rational question that every mainstream, conservative wants to ask, too.

What Cruz could have said, what he should have said, if he were being honest about his immigration plans is this:

Under current Supreme Court interpretations of the 14th Amendment, those children are US citizens, and regardless of their parents’ status, they’re here legally and properly. Of course they cannot be deported, and I will not try. What I will do is work toward removing [birthright] citizenship so that in the future such children do not become citizens automatically, and that magnet is removed. OR: …I will not work toward removing [birthright] citizenship, but I will do [this other thing instead] in order to secure our borders and enable our nation to regain control over who may become a US citizen.

That’s a simple, brief soundbite suitable for a short TV interview segment, it’s a more honest answer, and it’s a more accurate answer concerning current such children.

Of course Cruz knows this; draw your conclusions from the answer he actually gave compared with the answer he could have given.

Border Walls

Posted on by
Reply

There are lots of reasons for objecting to a wall running the length of our southern border (and I’ll elide the reasons for supporting one for the purposes of this post), but the reasons posited by the National Journal aren’t on that list.

[T]he more difficult it becomes to cross the border, the more likely undocumented migrants are to turn to smugglers for help getting across….

It’s not a perfect solution so we shouldn’t bother trying it at all? Aside from that bit of foolishness, the question of coyotes is a wholly unrelated question that needs to be addressed regardless of the measures we take to tighten security at our borders.

[N]o barrier will ever be high enough or secure enough to completely halt attempts to cross the border illegally.

It’s not a perfect solution so we shouldn’t bother trying it at all?

Research shows an uptick in migrant deaths at the border in the years following efforts by the US to tighten security and construct fences to keep undocumented immigrants out.

It’s not a perfect solution so we shouldn’t bother trying it at all? The source of immigration is a wholly unrelated question that needs to be addressed regardless of the measures we take to tighten security at our borders. We should be working with the source countries to get them to/force them to improve their domestic situation so as to reduce the incentives their citizens have to leave in the first place.

In the long run, that’s cheaper than efforts to control—in isolation—illegal immigration at our border, and it’s more prosperous by making those citizens freer in their home countries and making them better markets for our goods and services.

Trump and Immigration

Posted on by
Reply

Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to deport all illegal aliens and sharply restrict legal immigration. I’ll leave the foolishness of the first for another post; I’m more interested in the restriction on legal immigration Trump is proposing here.

He also calls for “a pause” in all immigration, for an unspecified period.

That was buried in the WSJ op-ed at the link. I’ve not seen anything even remotely definitive on Trump’s plans for Social Security, so I have to ask: how does he plan to fund that program?

When Social Security was created, it was an income supplement program, retirees had an average lifespan in retirement of around five or six years, and there were seven workers paying into the system for every retiree taking out. Today, Social Security is an income replacement program (if not at a 100% rate), retirees have an average lifespan in retirement of around fifteen years, and there are only three workers paying into the system for every retiree taking out, and that number is falling toward two.

How does Trump plan on increasing the supply of workers paying into the system, absent increased immigration? Alternatively, how does Trump plan on funding Social Security payout per retiree at current the current level? Alternatively, how far does Trump plan on reducing the Social Security benefit payout?

There are a lot of ways to deal with Social Security; I’d like to hear Trump’s way in combination with his immigration policy.