Tag Archives: immigration

Child Abuse, Continuing

Posted on by
Reply

In the ongoing dispute over separating children from their illegal immigrant parents (OBE with President Donald Trump’s EO ending the practice) Progressive-Democrat Senator Bob Casey (D, PA) said this:

Infest? We’re not talking about insects, these are children!  You are talking about kids who are scared, alone and being held in cages. You have the power to stop it, do it.

Casey isn’t talking about children, though, he’s talking about weapons he and his Progressive-Democrat fellows want to use for their personal political gain. These are not children in Progressive-Democrat eyes, they’re just mechanical tools for them to use.

Casey and his colleagues have the power to stop it, do it. They need to stop blocking legislation to reform immigration, bills that would fix this and would take care of the DACA children—goals they’re only pretending to want.

Progressive-Democrats’ weaponizing of children is despicable. They have the power to stop it.  Do so.

Child Abuse

Posted on by
Reply

We have children being separated from their parents as those parents are detained for their illegal crossing of our border, their illegal entry—some might say break-in—into our nation.  Some point out that many of those children, the ones who arrive unaccompanied, were callously separated from their parents by their own parents in their country of origin.  Others point out that many of those allegedly accompanied children are not members of a family unit but are simply pawns of drug and human traffickers being used to facilitate those traffickers’ illegal entry.  There are, though, many children/parent family units that have parents detained for their illegal entry and the children separated from them rather than being locking up, too.

The Progressive-Democrats in Congress could help resolve this, were they interested.  However, they steadfastly refuse to negotiate with Republicans–#NeverRepublicanNoWay.  Indeed, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (R, NY) said on Tuesday that there was no Republican bill he was willing to let his members approach Republicans over.  They much prefer to use children as hostages to keep open the question of immigration reform for their personal political gains in the fall.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD, and possessed of an especially apt title in this context), Senator Chris Van Hollen (D, MD, and Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), and Schumer all bleat about child abuse.

They’re dissembling.  Their hostage-taking and children-as-political-fodder are the child abuses.  Their behavior is disgusting.

A Thought on Nationhood

Posted on by
1

Germany has one, and it centers on immigrants assimilating into German culture rather than holding themselves apart while taking advantage of the German benefits that drew the immigrants in the first place.  It’s articulated by Joachim Gauck, President of Germany from 2012-2017.  He told Bild

“I find it unacceptable that people who have been living in Germany for decades cannot hold a conversation in German, do not attend parent-teacher conferences or keep their children from going to classes or sports.”

He said people should not shy away from standing up for German values out of fear of being seen as a racist or xenophobe and that there should be “something like binding rules for living together and not several societies alongside one another.”

Absolutely.  A nation’s culture, its ability to rule itself, its very existence are at risk when immigrants as large groups don’t assimilate, and the receiving nation allows that to occur.  The nation ceases to be; it devolves into a collection of disparate groupings who happen to occupy a geographic area.

A Sanctuary City Success

Posted on by
Reply

New York City is a sanctuary city.  There are more than eight million stories in the city. Here is one of them.

Within the three months, from January to mid-April this year, ICE prepared more than 440 detainers against aliens booked by NYPD or NYDOC. Nearly 40 individuals who were released from custody, reoffended and were again arrested for crimes by local law enforcement officers.

That’s a 9% repeat offense rate, and those repeats happen quickly.  Here are some of those releases.

A 43-year old man from China was released in March after being arrested for Criminal Possession Controlled Substance…, then re-arrested for Criminal Possession Controlled Substance…in April.

And

A 28-year old man from Azerbaijan was released in February after being returned on a warrant for a Criminal Trespass…, then re-arrested in April for Grand Larceny…. [This one also is a violent offender, with an assault conviction in his history]

And

A 20-year old from Guatemala arrested for a felony count Assault 2nd Degree: Injure Victim 65 or older and released in January, arrested in February for Felony Grand Larceny, and arrested again in March for Resisting Arrest

And

A 28-year old Salvadoran man arrested for Assault in March was released, then again arrested for Robbery in April

Yes, indeed, that’s a success.  For illegal aliens who also are serious criminals.

National Sovereignty

Posted on by
Reply

The European Court of Justice has decided it is the arbiter of a nation’s borders and of entry permissions, and not the nation itself.

The court heard the cases of two men, one Afghan and one with Croatian and Bosnian citizenship, and ruled the severity of their crimes or alleged crimes and how long ago they took place need to be taken into consideration before an entry ban is permitted.

The ECJ ruled that, while an EU member can bar entry to such persons, it must satisfy the court that its rationale is good enough; it is no longer a matter of national sovereignty, and that member cannot simply say, “No entry.”  This is an assault on the sovereignty of nations; it takes away from the nation its right to determine for itself who will be allowed to enter.

It attacks the principle of sovereignty that no person has an inherent right to enter any nation other than his own without that nation’s prior permission, and it attacks the tightly associated principle of sovereignty that no nation has an inherent obligation to let any foreign person in.

The ECJ’s ruling attacks the principle of sovereignty that borders are the province of the sovereign nation and its sovereign neighbor and arrogates the meaning of borders to the court.

Aside from the sovereignty question, there’s also this.  It may be a good or a bad idea for a nation to bar entry to this or that individual or to bar this or that group of individuals.  It’s often a moral question, too.  But it’s not a question that’s within the purview of an international court.  Nor is the morality of the matter a question that’s within the purview of any court.  Acting on a moral question—the very definition of what is moral—is a political act and a political definition.  It cannot be a judicial one, it cannot be the decision of a few who are unaccountable to the nation’s people.  Not in any free society.

This last, especially, has implications for immigration cases currently before the Supreme Court or soon to be.  Will the Justices make the political determination of who is allowed into the United States—as far too many district and appellate judges have presumed to do—or will they leave the political decision properly in the hands of our nation’s political actors?