Category: Immigration

The Obama administration agreed to resettled refugees that have been rejected by Australia and are being housed on the island nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The reason?

“Australia has long had a policy which prevents individuals seeking asylum from entering the country before proper vetting.”

Note that many of these refugees are from Iran, Iraq, Somalia and Sudan – four of the seven countries for which President Trump has temporarily suspended accepting refugees using the very same reasoning as Australia (no way to vet). How come no one is screaming at Australia for effectively creating the same immigration restrictions as President Trump?

If nothing else, at least now we have proof that the noise being made by the left about President Trump’s refugee ban is politically motivated. Otherwise, they’d be protesting Australia, too.

Frankly, I’m surprised at the existence of sanctuary cities. Keep in mind that if you or I acted in this manner we’d be guilty of a crime (8 U.S. Code § 1324) and would be facing federal prison time. Why then are the city leaders of Chicago not going to prison?

When  illegal aliens are sheltered, hid from the law, encouraged to work in defiance of federal law, and allowed to consume public resources (like public schools paid for by legal inhabitants) it both consumes precious tax revenue and encourages additional violations of immigration law. Note, too, that by encouraging and protecting illegal immigrants these same city officials are also encouraging businesses to hire the same, resulting in yet another violation of federal law. Such actions cannot be condoned by any public officer; it’s simply not right to flout federal immigration law and expect the federal government not to react accordingly.

We are a nation of immigrants, not illegal immigrants. No civilized country in the world has the effectively open borders produced by not enforcing federal immigration law.  There is a reason for this: It would be economic suicide. In a nation with significant social resources provided by tax dollars, the influx of a large number of potential users of these limited resources would overwhelm the system. The purpose of immigration systems – such as those in the U.S., or even Canada or the EU –  is to make sure that the immigrants entering the country overall do not produce a net negative drain on the system so as to preserve its integrity.  Take a look at the immigration requirements for Canada, the EU, Australia – you’ll see that most illegal immigrants simply would not be accepted due to their low levels of education and skills; they would produce a drain on the system. If Canada, Australia, Britain, and other countries can all reject these illegal immigrants, why can’t we?

Perhaps a guest worker program would be helpful, as would a revised immigration system. But open borders? Maybe in the year 1900, when social programs were not part of the mix, and everyone pulled their own weight. Now? Not so good of an idea….

This is an example of why we need to control our borders:

US tried to deport refugee shot, killed by California police

I welcome immigrants coming to the U.S. via established, legal means. However, legal immigrants come to the U.S. with the understanding that if they fail to follow our laws then they will be deported. If their country of origin will not accept such deportees, then we should not allow immigrants from those countries. If necessary, we should leverage other international mechanisms (possibly trade and travel restrictions) to encourage countries to accept their deportees.

We are supposed to be a melting pot, not a dumpster.

… for eliminating the automatic citizen status conferred as a result of birth on U.S. soil.

NJ hospital courts Russians for ‘birth tourism’

Note, too, that these are only the ones who can afford to make advance plans. Those that can’t come anyway (from anywhere), safe in the knowledge that the hospital must admit them, too.