Category Archives: immigration

Two Mistakes

Posted on by
Reply

One by folks on the far right and one by The Wall Street Journal. South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (R) gave the Republicans’ response to President Barack Obama’s vaporous SOTU.

Her conservative critics unloaded. “Trump should deport Nikki Haley” went one tweet. The next morning on Fox & Friends, Donald Trump declared that Gov Haley is “very weak on immigration.”

Of course, these are slurs and comments utterly devoid of facts, as the WSJ noted.

The woman who says “illegal immigration is not welcome in South Carolina?” Who signed a law toughening the state’s illegal immigration reform act, which requires employers to verify the immigration status of new hires? Who has fought President Obama’s bid to resettle unvetted Syrian refugees? And whose state has joined 16 others in a lawsuit against Mr Obama for what they say is his unconstitutional executive order on illegal immigration?

But then the WSJ committed its own error.

A party that rejects Nikki Haley as a spokeswoman is one that doesn’t really want to build a governing majority.

Conflating these criticizers with Republicans also is a claim devoid of fact, beyond the most narrow, literal sense.

No Pandering Here

Posted on by
Reply

Mm, mm. Nosirree, Bob. Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton wouldn’t do that.

Democratic Party presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton joined her rivals Monday in opposing the Obama administration’s deportation raids targeting Central American immigrants who entered the US illegally and ignored deportation orders.

Never mind that just a bit over a year ago, in 2014 before she announced her candidacy, she said that

unaccompanied Central American minors who had crossed the southern border should be returned to their home countries.

What is it with Democrats that they’re all for things before they’re against them? Except when they’re against things before they’re for them?

A Difference in Philosophy

Posted on by
Reply

British Prime Minister David Cameron is…discussing…the British requirements for continued membership in the European Union with the rest of the leadership of the EU. One of the points of contention is the degree of welfare participation migrants from mainland EU should receive while in Great Britain. Cameron wants to

curb[] welfare benefits for other EU citizens working in the UK for four years.

EU leaders have voiced strong opposition to his plan, saying it would breach the fundamental principle of free movement of people within the bloc.

The EU leaders’ objection, of course, is nonsense. A benefits freeze would leave migrants free to come and go as they please; the British position is a benefits freeze, not a movement restriction. The only thing being frozen would be the migrants’ ability to freeload off the British taxpayer.

Cameron also points out that a benefits freeze would help reduce migration to the UK. Well, duh. Reducing the incentives to come where the freeloading is easy certainly reduce the amount of movement in that direction.

The difference between Cameron and the European leaders is the difference between a measure of self-determination and individual responsibility on the one hand, and Government Knows Better on the other.

Awfully Decent of Him

Posted on by
Reply

The Obama administration is offering to send state governors personalized reports with detailed information about refugees that have been resettled in their state so far this year.

Now, in the aftermath of 30 governors saying they’d do what they could to block resettlement of Syrian refugees in their states (because the governors don’t trust the adequacy of this administration’s vetting), President Barack Obama’s Chief of Staff Denis McDonough is saying that State will provide letters to each governor providing information “on refugees resettled in the last month and throughout the year so far.” Furthermore, State will maintain a passworded Web site on which it will make monthly updates to this information and that the updates would “break down refugees by nationality, gender and age range.”

That’s nice, but it begs a couple of questions. Why couldn’t this information have been made regularly available over the last seven years (or longer)? Why can’t those older data be provided now and kept current? Why can’t the currently promised data include resettlement location information?

Driver Licenses and Illegal Aliens

Posted on by
Reply

Five illegal aliens are suing Oregon over an Oregon citizen-passed (by two to one) law that denies driver licenses to illegal aliens.

This is about as cynical as it gets in the illegal immigration movement. One of the signs held by protestors supporting the suit (not visible at the link unless you play the video) insists that “driving is a privilege not a crime.” The sign is correct. What the sign holder misses, though, what the movement misses, what the suit carefully elides, is that driving also is not a right and that driving without a license is a crime. Driving is a privilege, and it’s awarded to those legally in the state in the form of a license to drive issued by the state. Being present illegally in no way confers a “right” to the privilege.

[T]he lawsuit alleges Measure 88 is unconstitutional because it “arbitrarily” denies driving privileges based on membership in a “disfavored minority group.” It alleges Oregon voters were motivated by “animus toward persons from Mexico and Central America.”

This is an example of the cynicism. There’s nothing arbitrary about the law: it targets illegal aliens. It denies access to a privilege (not to a right), not to a disfavored minority group, but to those present in Oregon illegally. Unless citizens with driver licenses suspended for this or that series of law violations also are a “disfavored minority group.” Neither does it show animus toward persons of particular nationality or “regionality.” It shows no animus at all; it only says illegal aliens aren’t entitled [sic] to the privileges of citizens and aliens present legally.

Long time readers of this blog know that I take a very loose and open view toward immigration. I just insist that immigrants enter legally and that if they choose to remain, they do so legally. Those currently present illegally need only take steps to become legal—admittedly hard to do under our current immigration system, and much easier to do were my proposals or those of some of the Republican Presidential candidates passed into law, but possible to do nonetheless.