Immigration Watch International (2): How the gospel of open borders took over the Democratic Party

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

How the gospel of open borders took over the Democratic Party

Like so many Leftist policies, it's founded in hatred of America as it is

By the end of his first term two years from now, President Biden may have released 3 or 4 million (maybe even 5 million) illegal immigrants into the United States. Some of them will apply for asylum, some of those will actually show up for hearings, and some of those will win their cases — but the large majority won’t do any of these things. Under Biden, these millions will just be allowed to stay illegally.

Why? What is the administration thinking?

Many commentators imagine the administration’s weak-borders policies are about importing voters for the Democrats. It’s true that, even if Republican plans for progress among Hispanics bear fruit, most Hispanic voters are still likely to lean Democrat.

But they need to be citizens to vote. And there just aren’t very many non-citizens — let alone illegal immigrants — voting.

Nor are Biden’s illegal immigrants likely to get legalized any time soon. The administration’s comprehensive immigration reform bill last year would have given green cards to those who’d arrived as little as three weeks before Inauguration Day, but it was dead on arrival. That could change if the Democrats increase their majorities in both houses of Congress this November, but that seems unlikely. Instead, Biden’s new batch of illegal immigrants will join the previous people living, if not in the shadows (you’re not in the shadows if you’re giving TV interviews and testifying before Congress), then at least in a kind of limbo.

Illegal immigrants also are counted in the Census for purposes of deciding how many congressmen — and how much federal money — each state gets. But that’s a pretty indirect and long-term issue, and doesn’t necessarily cut in the Democrats’ favor, since many of them settle in red states.

No, I think there’s another explanation.

The reason Biden’s immigration people, and the Democrats in Congress, are unwilling to enforce immigration law is because they think it’s wrong. They simply don’t believe that the American people have the right to keep anyone out. They see immigration limits of any kind as just another version of Jim Crow, a way of discriminating against foreigners who are just seeking a better life. And anyway, America is an illegitimate settler-colonial regime founded by phallocratic slaveholders and Indian-killers, so who are we to tell other people they can’t move here if they want?

The Department of Homeland Security has spelled this out in one of the memos explaining its anti-enforcement policies, which it justifies as a means of “advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity” and “advancing equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.”

Immigration enforcement is immoral, don’t you see?

This perspective has long been gospel among the fever-swamps of Blue-Anon. But over the past couple of decades it has become a litmus test for Democratic officeholders and activists, an immutable value of the Left, which has to take precedence over any other interest or constituency.

The litmus test of open borders has led the ACLU to turn away from the cause of free speech, the Sierra Club from environmental protection, Big Labor from protecting the American worker, and the black political establishment from promoting the interests of their ostensible constituents.

It would almost be better if the administration and its supporters were purely cynical political actors, deliberately importing voters. The real explanation is deeper, more disturbing, and less amenable to a political solution.

https://nypost.com/2022/09/19/how-the-gospel-of-open-borders-took-over-the-democratic-party/

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

https://heofen.blogspot.com/ (MY OTHER BLOGS)

*******************************

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)

Tuesday, September 20, 2022

How the gospel of open borders took over the Democratic Party

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors