Tag Archives: immigration

One Option

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D)—of the Biden-Harris administration (or is it the Harris-Biden administration?)—sees few options for dealing with the border crisis his campaign promises triggered and his actions have actualized and badly potentiated.

The situation is creating a sharp political and policy challenge in Mr Biden’s first months in office.

Biden has just exacerbated his crisis, too, by turning his back on his responsibility and utterly abrogating his role as President by wishing the matter off onto his nominal Vice President, Kamala Harris (D). That personage has long demonstrated that she doesn’t give a rat’s patootie about our southern border. And no, I’m not talking about her contemptuous, laughing scorn of a reporter’s question about her border visitation plans.

Harris was a Senator before she became VP, and she was California’s AG before that. And in both chairs, she actively supported California as a sanctuary state, welcoming all illegal aliens with open arms.

Yet there is one option Biden-Harris/Harris-Biden (Harriden? Bidris?) could take to stem the tide and reverse it. The option wouldn’t take very long to have salutary effect, either. Of course, the option is difficult politically, and Biden and Harris, individually or collectively, don’t have the moral or political courage to effect it.

That option is to withdraw Biden’s Executive Orders, emitted in the first days of his tenure in the White House’s residence wing, canceling former President Donald Trump’s border and immigration control policies. Restore the prior administration’s status quo.

Arrogance

Posted on by
Reply

The head of the Progressive-Democratic Party, President Joe Biden, has no immediate plans to visit our southern border in person and see for himself the crisis exploding there.

…he intends to travel to the southern border “at some point,” telling reporters that he is in no rush to visit because “I know what’s going in those facilities.”

He already knows what’s going on; he doesn’t want to be confused with facts.

Or, Biden is channeling Gold Hat:

Facts? I ain’t got no facts. I don’t need no facts. I don’t have to see any stinkin’ facts!

Wow.

“Not Appropriate”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D, CA) says about the press entering President Joe Biden’s (D) illegal alien detention facilities and recording the doings there.

I don’t necessarily think that it’s appropriate for journalists to be inside centers that are not permanent places for children[.]

Because it’s inappropriate for the public to know the conditions in those facilities—especially as they concern unaccompanied and too-often trafficked children—and the true nature of the crisis at our southern border.

It’s especially inappropriate for us ordinary Americans to know the Wuhan Virus situation in the Biden-Obama cages containing those children. Sanchez insists—and she’s actually serious—that Virus protocols make it further “inappropriate” for journalists to be allowed to see the conditions in which these children are being held.

“Transparency” is just the Progressive-Democrats’ newspeak for “sit down and shut up.”

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.