Tag Archives: immigration

Standing Tall

Posted on by
Reply

Great Britain has said that it will abide by British law regarding cross-border movement of persons. European Union law will no longer have applicability, with effect from 31 October, Great Britain’s departure date from the EU.  Unless the EU agrees, and begins concretely, to negotiate in good faith a serious departure régime.

Oh, the hoo-raw.  How dare those Brits follow through instead of kowtowing to their betters in Brussels?

Rebecca Staudenmaier, writing at the link, also mischaracterizes the move.

The move is a departure from UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May, who had said the government would end free movement “as soon as possible” if the UK left the EU without a withdrawal deal, suggesting the rules could be phased out.

This is no departure from May. On the contrary, this is a solidification of her position: it clearly defines what “as soon as possible” means.  Phase out? That phasing has just begun, if Brussels will get serious about negotiating the departure.  Indeed, that transition period has been going on, tacitly, since Great Britain made clear its intention to go out from the EU.  Phasing merely has been formalized with this announcement.

Indeed, here’s what the British Home Office actually has said on this subject [bold face emphasis added]:

EU citizens and their families are welcome to stay and there are no changes to the deadline to apply to the EU Settlement Scheme.
This scheme covers all EU citizens and their families living in the UK by 31 October, and EU citizens have until at least 31 December 2020 to apply.
Here is a short explainer:
What is happening? Is freedom of movement ending on October 31?
We are leaving the EU on 31 October come what may. This will mean that freedom of movement as it currently stands will end on 31 October when the UK leaves the EU.

And

EU citizens will still be able to come to the UK on holiday and for short trips, but what will change is the arrangements for people coming to the UK for longer periods of time and for work and study.

Hmm….

Even though the transition period has begun, it will extend for 15 months after Great Britain leaves, and it’s quite a generous transition, to boot.  Much more so than Brussels’ departure demands and May’s meek acquiescence to.

Of course, there are problems with this.

In a phone call with the EU Settlement Scheme office helpline, activist and former Change UK candidate Nora Mulready said she was told that EU citizens would have difficulty reentering the UK if they hadn’t applied by the Brexit departure date.
Those who hadn’t applied “would no longer be entitled to [freedom of movement] rights to live and work and be in Britain,” she said the office told her.

That’s a very serious problem.  Mulready apparently thinks EU citizens are so grindingly stupid or otherwise incompetent that they can’t figure out that they need to make their applications—in the 71 days that they have.  That just isn’t enough time for an adult continental.  Wow.

Unnamed Liberal Democrats (here’s NLMSM policy again) claim this policy is reckless.

Not at all. What’s been reckless is the EU’s bad faith pretense of negotiation for a smooth exit, instead using the talks and outcome to punish the Brits for their effrontery and to serve as a warning to other nations contemplating the presumption of leaving.

Here’s hoping a Johnson government is good to its word.

A Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

In a house editorial concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding President Donald Trump’s authority to reallocate some DoD funds toward building a border wall, The Wall Street Journal expressed the hope that the ruling—which lifted a nation-wide injunction issued by a Federal district [sic] judge—would send an appropriate signal to district judges regarding nation-wide injunctions.  The editors also had this remark regarding such injunctions.

The proliferation of national injunctions has inserted judges into policy debates in ways they should avoid….

This is a misapprehension of the situation and a mischaracterization of what the judges are doing.

The proliferation has inserted no one; it is a result of judges choosing to insert themselves into policy debates.

Judges must avoid this, but they consciously have chosen to go outside their Constitutional authority and make policy—make law.  These judges have ignored the simple Constitutional fact that policy discussions and debates are solely within the purview of the political branches of our government and that legislation is solely within the purview of Congress. Article I, Section 1, of our Constitution makes this abundantly clear even to an eighth-grade Civics student.

With their carefully considered decision to act extra-Constitutionally, these judges have equally carefully decided to violate their oath of office, which enjoins them to defend and to uphold our Constitution, not to depart from it.

Asylum Seekers

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has moved to make it harder for folks arriving on our border to claim to be seeking asylum, and the American Civil Liberties Union and American Immigration Council don’t like it.  Here’s AIC’s Managing Director Royce Murray:

…the Trump administration is “throwing everything they have at asylum seekers in an effort to turn everyone humanly possible away….”

Which, of course, misrepresents the facts.  The vast majority of folks arriving at our border claiming to be asylum seekers are nothing of the sort. Their presence on our border or illegally crossing it demonstrates that they’ve already rejected asylum offers, even job possibilities—offers and possibilities Mexico has offered them.

The folks running the ACLU and the AIC know this full well.

Distortions and Misguided Solutions

Posted on by
Reply

Wrong answers:

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) and UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) have called on the EU to implement a series of measures aimed at assisting people trapped in Libya or at risk of dying on the Mediterranean Sea. The suggestions include restarting a program of organized sea rescues.
In the past European State vessels conducting search and rescue operations saved thousands of lives, including through disembarkations in safe ports,” the IOM and UNHCR noted in a statement on Thursday. “They should resume this vital work….”

Why is there no effort, though, no euro—not a single cent—committed to helping these people at the source?  Certainly, it would be very difficult to help Libya, Sudan, Niger, et al. improve and correct their situation, political and economic, so that their citizens wouldn’t feel constrained to leave.  But “hard” means “possible,” and France has shown some of that possible in Chad, and Niger has made progress on its own with very damn little—too little—help from outside.

But it’s cheaper in the short-term and easier to focus on rescues at sea and “disembarkations in safe ports” than it is to do the hard work of a long-term solution.

But were such long-term efforts brought about, the flow of refugees would fall off markedly, and sea rescues and relocations would become much more feasible.

Of course, at that point, the virtue signalers would need to find something else with which to signal their…virtue.

And now the distortion: the IOM and UNHCR pronounced in a joint statement

NGO boats…must not be penalized for saving lives at sea.

DW contributed to the distortion:

Independent rescue operations such as Sea-Eye…which rescued 44 people near Libya earlier this week [as of 12 Jul], have attempted to fill the void left after earnest EU efforts ceased, but non-government organizations face increasing persecution from governments such as Italy’s, which has tried to frame their efforts as criminal.

Italy has done no such thing. Italy has said nothing about rescue operations; it only has enforced its laws concerning entering Italian territorial waters, even Italian ports, without permission—these are criminal acts, no framing required.

The situation concerning the refugees is not helped by such shenanigans.

Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

…Progressive-Democrat style.  Here’s Congresswoman Frederica Wilson (D, FL):

people who are “making fun of members of Congress” online “should be prosecuted”

Because, she went on, making fun of Congress intimidates Congressmen.  In fact, she went on in that vein for more than 40 seconds, just in the recording.

Wow.