Immigration Watch International (2)

Friday, May 25, 2012

Recent posts at CIS below

See here for the blog. The CIS main page is here.

Congressional Testimony

1. Janice Kephart Testifies on Business Travelers and Tourists

Commentary

2. Mark Krikorian Debates Dual Citizenship in the New York Times
3. Mark Krikorian: Public wants to enforce U.S. sovereignty

Media Appearance

4. Jessica Vaughan Discusses Secure Communities in Massachusetts

Publication

5. S.B. 1070 Goes Before the Supreme Court: A Summary of the Oral Argument

Blogs

6. USCIS Ombudsman Wants to Help Incompetent Employers Hire Alien Workers

7. U.S. Sells Visas for Less Than the Net Worth of the Average U.S. Household

8. Does Immigration Status Really Matter for a Student Body President?

9. Libertarian for Open Borders

10. Media Memes and the GOP's Immigration Stance in the 2012 Election: Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't

11. Another Bit of (Hidden) Good Immigration News from the Government

12. Media Memes and the GOP's Immigration Stance in the 2012 Election: Narratives and Conventional Wisdom

13. The Clichéd Sentimentality of Jon Meacham on PBS

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Friday, May 25, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors