Immigration Watch International (2): Rep. Tiffany on Withholding Visas from Countries Which Refuse to Take Back Their Citizens

Wednesday, December 14, 2022

Rep. Tiffany on Withholding Visas from Countries Which Refuse to Take Back Their Citizens

Recalcitrant countries, those which fail to accept the return of their nationals who are under removal orders from the United States, are back in the news. In the wake of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Taiwan, Communist China announced it was “suspending China-U.S. cooperation on the repatriation of illegal immigrants”. In addition, Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisc.) has introduced the Alien Criminal Expulsion Act ( “ACE Act”), that mandates and strengthens the sanctions used by the United States to encourage foreign governments to comply with their international obligation to accept the return of their citizens.

China is one of the worst offenders, but there is a lengthy list of recalcitrant countries, including Laos, Sierra Leone, Cuba, Vietnam, and Iran. The refusal to issue travel documents and accept a deportable citizen’s return results in detention costs and, most importantly, reduced public safety – a 2001 Supreme Court decision prohibits the government from detaining a deportable foreigner for more than six months in most cases. After six months, the Department of Homeland Security is forced to release them onto America's streets, despite often having significant criminal histories.

On today’s episode of Parsing Immigration Policy, Rep. Tiffany and Jon Feere, the Center’s Director of Investigations and former ICE Chief of Staff, discuss the powerful tool the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provides by allowing the U.S. to withhold visas from recalcitrant countries, the need for tightening and strengthening the language in the INA, the executive’s lack of enforcement, and the ACE Act.

In his closing commentary, Mark Krikorian, the Center’s executive director and the host of Parsing Immigration Policy, discusses his predictions for apprehension numbers and border policies post-Title 42. A federal court has ruled that Title 42, the public-health rule that allows the Border Patrol to expel border-jumpers without a hearing, must be lifted by December 21.

https://outlook.live.com/mail/0/inbox/id/AQMkADAwATExAGI4Ny00YzNlLWM2YjYtMDACLTAwCgBGAAADBlztJEBXQEKBICXGPmvRRAcAxaofnc0caU6chqRJ%2BKcifAAAAgEMAAAAxaofnc0caU6chqRJ%2BKcifAAGCs8RuwAAAA%3D%3D

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

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)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More 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)

Wednesday, December 14, 2022

Rep. Tiffany on Withholding Visas from Countries Which Refuse to Take Back Their Citizens

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors