Tag Archives: immigration

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.

Finger Pointing

Posted on by
Reply

There is, presently, a kerfuffle over local cities—many of them sanctuary cities—turning loose illegal aliens with records of violent crimes, rather than holding them for Immigration and Customs in response to the latter’s detainer requests. Most famously, two of those released went on to commit horrific crimes upon their release.

Here’s the thing:

The issue, says [San Luis Obispo Sheriff Ian] Parkinson and dozens of other sheriffs and police chiefs across California and Arizona, is that, while Immigration and Customs Enforcement routinely asks departments to hold prisoners like [Francisco Javier Chavez, out on bail after being charged in an attack which left a toddler with two broken arms, a broken femur, a compressed spine, a urinary tract infection, and a 107 degree fever] until they can take custody of them for deportation, the local law enforcement officials believe doing so will expose them to lawsuits. They cite court cases including the March, 2014, US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling in Galrza v Szalczyk that held states and localities are not required to imprison people based on ICE “detainer” requests, and that states and localities may be held liable if they participate in wrongful immigration detentions.

“I am not aware of any County in California that is honoring detainers, simply because we can’t,” Parkinson said. “We have to follow the law or the threat of violating the law ourselves,” Parkinson said, citing a Court decision issued approximately one year ago. “The law actually does not give us the right to place an ICE hold, unless there is a warrant for them.”

ICE? They insist

there is no requirement that it obtain a judicial warrant to compel law enforcement agencies to hold suspects and that a detainer is sufficient.

Yeah, you do, guys. At least within the 3rd Circuit’s jurisdiction. And even if you don’t, your bleating of “Not my job” is only getting honest Americans—children included—killed. Quit hiding behind excuses, get off your office-bound patootie, and get the warrant.

On the other hand, there’s nothing blocking the sheriffs and police from dropping a dime on ICE when they’re about to release such a one, so an ICE agent can be present to pick up the illegal alien as he walks out the door. Not doing this is on the locals.

Should judges be releasing these guys on bail? Probably not, but a) that’s a different story, and b) the judges are bound by what the laws in their jurisdictions say about bail requirements.

Defeating Islamic Terrorism

Posted on by
Reply

Britain’s Prime Minister, David Cameron, has a thought on the matter.

[A]ny strategy to defeat extremism must confront, head on, the extreme ideology that underpins it. We must take its component parts to pieces – the cultish worldview, the conspiracy theories, and yes, the so-called glamorous parts of it as well.

In doing so, let’s not forget our strongest weapon: our own liberal values. We should expose their extremism for what it is – a belief system that glorifies violence and subjugates its people – not least Muslim people.

We should contrast their bigotry, aggression and theocracy with our values. We have, in our country, a very clear creed and we need to promote it much more confidently.
…
[T]here is also the question of identity.

For all our successes as multi-racial, multi-faith democracy, we have to confront a tragic truth that there are people born and raised in this country who don’t really identify with Britain – and who feel little or no attachment to other people here. Indeed, there is a danger in some of our communities that you can go your whole life and have little to do with people from other faiths and backgrounds.

All of that applies here, too, can this administration—or more likely, its successor in 18 too-long months—find the moral courage actually to apply it.