The regime seemed focused on having a “merit-based” immigration system. The proposed plan would increase “skills-based” immigration in the U.S. from 12% to 57%.
Yet in touting employment and skills over relatives and diversity, this approach is harsher than the countries such as Canada touted as shining examples. Canada has more immigrants in the economic stream, but it also brings in more family members, and more folks on humanitarian grounds.
Check out Freedom Is Why Immigrants Come to America in AIER. “They did not find a perfect paradise or immediate acceptance in the United States. Native-born Americans whose ancestors had arrived in the United States much earlier often looked down upon [them].”
The “them” could be the Irish, the Germans, the Jews. “So why have so many come? The reason is that in America, far more than in most other lands in the past and in many cases even now, the political is separated from the economic, the government from the marketplace.”
Richard M. Ebeling writes: “If we could go back in a time machine fifty years or a hundred years, the same kinds of work had to be done in the various corners of the marketplace, only we’d see different faces from different parts of the world, speaking different languages, and practicing some other faiths.
“Where are those who did these jobs in those earlier times? They and certainly their children and grandchildren moved up the socio-economic ladder to other professions, occupations and businesses, just like earlier generations of immigrants had done before them.”
I often watch those genealogy shows such as Finding Your Roots with Henry Louis Gates. Almost invariably, he discovers the guests’ ancestors were people who came to the United States with nothing. They created something.
They became those shop owners. Or workers who learned English slowly, but their kids picked it up right away and helped their parents translate. Formerly enslaved people who, once freed, managed to own property and even served in government.
The new Statue of Liberty museum opened on May 16. “The 26,000-square-foot museum on Liberty Island… is the new home for the statue’s original torch and other artifacts that had previously been in a smaller museum space inside the statue’s pedestal, which is accessible only to the fraction of the more than 4 million annual visitors who manage to get limited-availability statue entry tickets.”
There’s a market for that “give me your tired” narrative.
And, a purely pragmatic consideration: the U.S. birth rate is dropping. The country isn’t “full”. Not only do we need more immigrants for economic reasons, we become a better people.
The 2020 Census provides an opportunity for everyone to be counted.
As I’ve indicated, I read quite a bit from right-wing websites; I find it a useful exercise. The Daily Signal – about which you can read HERE – recently addressed, “Answers to 4 Big Questions About Sending Illegal Immigrants to Sanctuary Cities.” Because I don’t want to drive more traffic there, I’ve chosen not to link to it.
I will say, despite what I consider some bias, that it was a serious response. And it addresses what I initially thought was the regime’s flippant and retaliatory Tweet storm that apparently is being considered as policy.
First DS asked: “Where Would Illegal Immigrants Be Transported? More than 170 cities and counties have some sort of sanctuary law prohibiting local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration authorities, and in some cases, jurisdictions may even obstruct enforcement.”
The Center for Immigration Studies lists eight states in this category as well: California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont.
I’m not linking to the “Low-immigration, Pro-immigrant” CIS site either, which the Southern Poverty Law Center considers a hate group. Still, I think their list appears to be largely correct.
Why Would the US Want to Release Illegal Immigrants Anywhere in Country? The DS response is a combination of the facts – too few immigration judges in a lengthy process – and a challenge to sanctuary cities – “Do you really want them, or are you just grandstanding?” As usual, the regime can use this for its strategy of fear: targeting seniors with anti-immigrant Facebook ads.
“Would It Be Legal?” Perhaps. DS makes a convoluted argument.
“What’s the Harm?” Now we’re getting to the crux of the matter. “Besides not solving any problems with illegal border crossings, the policy being considered by Trump could create new problems… Sanctuary jurisdictions, generally in heavily Democratic areas, usually encourage illegal immigrants to fill out census forms already…”
I have to take exception to the tone of this. EVERY jurisdiction wants to count EVERYONE, in anticipation of redistricting in 2021. The complete count committees being developed across the country note this.
“The 2020 Census provides an opportunity for everyone to be counted. Tribal, state, and local governments; community-based organizations; faith-based groups; schools; businesses; the media; and others play a key role in developing partners to educate and motivate residents to participate in the 2020 Census.”
That said, as DS argues correctly: “Increasing the populations of sanctuary jurisdictions is just going to give them more political power, not less.” If billionaire George Soros were REALLY were behind every Democratic party action, as is supposed, he’d be building housing in sanctuary cities for refugees right now.
“At every point in our history, the idea of American has stretched far enough to include past waves of immigrants, while still balking at the more recent ones.”
Occasionally, reading conservative websites is a fruitful endeavor. For instance, Sarah Quinlan wrote in Red State, “Laura Ingraham’s Comments Were Wrong In Every Way.” Fox News host Ingraham “lamented ‘massive demographic changes’ that have caused the end of the “America we know and love.”
While Quinlan loves the United States, she is not blind to the “shameful events — from the savagery of our early history, to slavery, to extrajudicial lynchings and implementing legal discrimination, to women being treated as second-class citizens.” She goes on at length about this.
“During Ingraham’s lifetime” – Laura was born in 1963 – “Americans of color have been repeatedly denied justice and forced to fight to receive the rights they were due. During Ingraham’s lifetime, women have had to demand to be treated as human beings in their own right…
“Is that the America that Ingraham wishes still existed? I find it utterly baffling that people express nostalgia for a pleasant, untroubled past in American history, because that has never truly existed…
“Ronald Reagan once promoted the belief that anyone can come to this country and become an American — which is possible here because America is an idea, not an ethnicity, and no American is more American than another based on birth, wealth, religion, political party, or race.”
It’s noteworthy that Ingraham criticizes “legal immigration and disparagingly refers to it as something that ‘of course progressives love.’ Since when did Republicans turn against legal immigration? Since when are Republicans against the idea of people legally coming to America in pursuit of a better life and the American Dream?
“Immigrants helped this country become what it is. And America endures because of the core American values that guide us, not because of what her people look like.”
“According to Pew [Research], 58% of Americans consistently say increasing diversity makes America a better place to live…Alex Nowrasteh, Senior Immigration Policy Analyst at Cato Institute says that “recent immigrants’ assimilation to American culture and values is doing ‘as well as or [on] a better pace of assimilation than previous immigrant waves….’
“Laura Ingraham’s comments…were despicable, and it is not virtue-signaling for me to point that out but rather simply standing up for what I believe is right; such comments should not be treated as normal or acceptable. When former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke is cheering on Ingraham’s comments, that’s a side that I do not want to be on.”
“The timelessness of xenophobia. But there’s a strange thing about that rhetoric: It’s been part of American discourse forever. And most of us here today — including most of the white supremacists — are descended from those darker immigrants who supposedly would never assimilate…
The elasticity of Americanism. At every point in our history, the idea of American has stretched far enough to include past waves of immigrants, while still balking at the more recent ones. At every point, there has been a clear line between Them and Us, and every time the issues seemed totally different than what we had seen before.
Of course, it is White House adviser Stephen Miller who is the hand behind the regime’s current offensive policy “to make it impossible for many legal immigrants to become citizens or lawful permanent residents (green-card holders).”
Their offenses? Using public benefits to which they are entitled: Enrolling in Obamacare or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, or using food stamps or other social welfare programs.
“We found one bloated, cruel, and useless agency that is begging to be abolished.”
My old friend Catbird asked:
When I heard rump’s “maybe they shouldn’t be in this country” comment about football players staying in locker rooms the other day, I wondered if they’d “pass” the Comic Book Code of America. I remember you explaining this to me decades ago. I suppose it depends on whether anybody acts on it.
What do you think?
Might it be worth a blog item?
I hope all is well with you and your “bearers of two X chromosomes.”
In the case of comic books, the industry was worrying, rightly, that the government might want to regulate it, to “protect the children.”It agreed submit the comics to a board for a stamp of approval. No excessive violence, no drug use shown, et al.
There’s a more significant question you ask here: when DO we say in America, “My way or the highway?” Certainly, I’ve heard, “America, love it or leave it” a few times, usually when I was protesting some war, mostly Vietnam, but also Iraq. Yet, as I was wont to say, “I stay, and protest, BECAUSE I love America.”
When HAS the United States actually thrown people out of the country? In the past, not very often, in the vast scheme. It wasn’t until 2002 when the United States actually had an agency whose primary function appears to do just that.
As Full Frontal with Samantha Bee put it on May 23: “For Republicans looking to cut government fat, we found one bloated, cruel, and useless agency that is begging to be abolished. And no, ‘President’ is not considered an agency.”
It is, of course, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. I appreciate it when the ICE agents remove some MS-13 gang member. But, much more often, they are seen as a source of terror in the immigrant community, even for those who are here legally.
As someone approaching Social Security, I find this problematic, not just from a moral and ethical position, but from an economic one. Driving out productive young people from the country is a recipe for federal fiscal disaster.
So, there’s a lot of bluster about people needing to leave the country. But it won’t be football players going. Unless they were born elsewhere.