Tag Archives: Immigration policy

Australia: A Model for Curbing Immigration, by Giulio Meotti

How Australia controls immigration, from Giulio Meotti at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • “Europeans think it’s easy in Australia to control our borders, but they’re just making up excuses for doing nothing themselves.” — Major General (Ret.) Jim Molan, co-author of Australia’s asylum policy.
  • “We have got hundreds, maybe thousands of people drowning in the attempts to get from Africa to Europe… [The] only way you can stop the deaths is in fact to stop the boats”. — Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott.
  • “My long experience in Australian politics has been that whenever a government is seen to have immigration flows under control, public support for immigration increases, when the reverse occurs hostility to immigration rises.” — Former Australian Prime Minister John Howard.
  • It must be crushing to live in a country where governance might be questionable at best, and economic opportunities limited, if that. People know they are risking their lives in search of a better break. But if the West is not to be overwhelmed, these problems seriously need to be addressed.

Four years ago, the Australian government sparked criticism after it ran an advertisement aimed at discouraging asylum seekers from traveling illegally to the country. “No Way“, the poster read. “You will not make Australia home. If you get on a boat without a visa, you will not end up in Australia. Any vessel seeking illegally to enter Australia will be intercepted and safely removed beyond Australian waters”.

It was an extremely tough message, but it worked. “Australia’s migration rate is the lowest it’s been in 10 years”, said Peter Dutton, Australia’s Home Affairs Minister. Speaking last week on the Today Show, Dutton added that the drop was about “restoring integrity to our border”. The Australians are apparently happy about that. A new poll just revealed that 72% of voters support Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s immigration policy. Australia, a Western democracy, has for years, tried to deal with a migration crisis from the sea.

“Europeans think it’s easy in Australia to control our borders, but they’re just making up excuses for doing nothing themselves,” said retired major general Jim Molan, co-author of Australia’s asylum policy.

In 2013, Tony Abbott was elected Prime Minister under the slogan “Stop the boats“. “Stop the boats” is now also the slogan of the new Italy’s new Interior Minister, Matteo Salvini, who, since the formation of a new government last month, has been totally focused on curbing immigration from “the world’s most lethal” route: across the Mediterranean.

To continue reading: Australia: A Model for Curbing Immigration

 

Don’t Cry for Me, Rachel Maddow, by Howard Kunstler

The hypocrisy surrounding detained immigrant children is so thick you can cut it with blunt knife. From Howard Kunstler at kunstler.com:

The latest artificial hysteria cranked up by the Offendedness Cartel — re: detention of juvenile illegal immigrants — is the most nakedly sentimental appeal yet by the party out-of-power, a.k.a. “the Resistance.” I have a solution: instead of holding these children in some sort of jail-like facility until their identity can be sorted out, just give each one of them an honorary masters degree in Diversity Studies from Harvard and let them, for God’s sake, go free in the world’s greatest job market. Before you know it, we’ll have the next generation of Diversity and Inclusion deans, and America will be safe from racism, sexism, and Hispanophobia.

I won’t waste more than this sentence in arguing that official policy for the treatment of juvenile illegal immigrants is exactly what it was under Mr. Obama, and Mr. Bush before him. I didn’t hear Paul Krugman of The New York Times hollering about the various federal agencies acting “like Nazis” back in 2014, or 2006. You’d think that ICE officers were taking these kids out behind the dumpster and shooting them in the head. No, actually, the kids are watching Marvel Comics movies, playing video games, or soccer, and getting three square meals a day while the immigration officials try to figure out who their parents are, or how to repatriate them to their countries-of-origin if they came here without any parents — say, with the assistance of the Sinaloa Drug Cartel. By the way, these make up the majority of kids detained in the latest wave of mass border crossings.

Actual political leadership among “the Resistance” is AWOL this week. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer failed to offer up any alternative legislative plan for sorting out these children differently. One can infer in the political chatter emanating from the Offendedness Cartel that immigration law is ipso-facto cruel and inhuman and that the “solution” is an open border. In theory, this might play to the Democratic Party’s effort to win future elections by enlisting an ever-growing voter base of Mexican and Central American newcomers. But it assumes that somehow these newcomers get to become citizens, with the right to vote in US elections — normally an arduous process requiring an application and patience — but that, too, is apparently up for debate, especially in California, where lawmakers are eager to enfranchise anyone with a pulse who is actually there, citizen or not.

To continue reading: Don’t Cry for Me, Rachel Maddow

Has the West the Will to Survive? by Patrick Buchanan

There is a difference between civilization and savagery, whatever civilization’s flaws and savagery’s virtues. There is nothing virtuous about a civilization that will not defend itself, and that includes defending itself from overrun by people who either despise or have no appreciation of the that civilization. From Patrick Buchanan at buchanan.org:

“If you’re … pathetically weak, the country is going to be overrun with millions of people, and if you’re strong, then you don’t have any heart, that’s a tough dilemma. … I’d rather be strong.”

So said President Donald Trump, on issuing his order halting the separation of children from parents caught breaking into the country. Trump’s enemies are celebrating a victory. Yet the issue remains.

Under U.S. law, teenagers and tots cannot be detained for more than 20 days and must be held in the least-restrictive facilities. But if the children cannot be separated from the parents as they await trial, both will have to be released to keep families together.

We are back to “catch and release.”

When that welcome news hits Central America, the migrant stream moving north will become a river that never ceases to flow.

The questions America and the West face might thus be framed:

Is there a liberal, progressive, Christian way to seal a 2,000-mile border, halt millions of migrants from crossing it illegally, and send intruders back whence they came? Or does the preservation of Western nations and peoples require measures from which liberal societies today reflexively recoil?

Does the survival of the West as a civilization require a ruthlessness the West no longer possess?

Consider what our fathers did to build this country.

The English settlers brought in 600,000 slaves, ethnically cleansed the Indians, joined their cousins in a war to expel the French, then revolted and threw out those cousins to claim all the land to the Mississippi for ourselves.

Jefferson grabbed the vast Louisiana Territory for $15 million from Napoleon, who had no right to sell it. Andrew Jackson drove the Spanish out of Florida, sent the Cherokee packing on the Trail of Tears, and told a dissenting Chief Justice John Marshall where he could go.

Sam Houston tore Texas away from Mexico. “Jimmy” Polk took the Southwest and California in a war Ulysses Grant called “the most unjust ever fought.” When the South declared independence, Lincoln sent a million-man army to march them back in a war that cost 600,000 lives.

William McKinley sent armies and warships to seize Puerto Rico, Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines. The indigenous peoples were not consulted. “God told me to take the Philippines,” said McKinley.

To continue reading: Has the West the Will to Survive?

Paul Ryan Pushing Towards Amnesty? The Latest in the Immigration Fight, by Joe Guzzardi

Most people don’t, and haven’t, had time to follow all the ins and outs of immigration policy in Washington. It’s convoluted and complex, and its responsible for our current immigration mess. Joe Guzzardi does a good job of summarizing the current ins and outs. From Guzzardi at theburningplatform.com:

Amnesty spawns illegal immigration, a talking point enforcement advocates repeatedly make. Because the math conclusively proves that amnesty leads to more illegal immigration, the pro-amnesty contingent rarely counters. Here are the statistics: In 1986, when President Ronald Reagan signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 2.7 million people were amnestied, including those covered as part of Special Agricultural Worker (SAW) provisions.

Today, the estimated illegal immigrant population is 11 to 12 million, curiously, the same popularly cited statistic for roughly the last 20 years. To be sure, not every illegal immigrant that resided in the U.S. in 1986 applied. Still, it’s safe to assume that the illegal immigrant population has increased by at least five million during the last three decades.

The major reason that illegal immigration grew is that Congress never delivered on its promise to implement interior enforcement and to crack down on employers who hired workers present illegally. And despite widespread congressional insistence back in 1986 that IRCA would be the last amnesty, six others have passed since then, including the 2000 Late Amnesty for 400,000 illegal immigrants who claimed that, for various reasons, they couldn’t participate in IRCA.

Having learned nothing from IRCA’s fallout – that amnesty encourages illegal immigration and that chain migration from previous amnesties continues today – the U.S. House of Representatives is poised to vote on two legalization bills this week, one dramatically better than the other, but neither perfect.

House Judiciary Committee Chair Robert Goodlatte introduced his bill which would codify deferred action for childhood arrivals, end the visa lottery, cancel some chain migration categories, and provide full funding for a border wall. Also, parents of U.S. citizens could only relocate on nonimmigrant visas that would not lead to citizenship, and with evidence of pre-paid health insurance. A downside to Goodlatte’s proposal is that it transfers the 55,000 lottery visas to employment-based categories, already bulging at the seams.

To continue reading: Paul Ryan Pushing Towards Amnesty? The Latest in the Immigration Fight