Immigration Watch International (2): Democrats’ New Rule: Migrants First, Everyone else Last

Thursday, May 18, 2023

Democrats’ New Rule: Migrants First, Everyone else Last

Gary Moretti and his fiancee booked 30 rooms at The Crossroads Hotel in Newburgh, New York, for their bridesmaids and guests for a June 24 wedding. But New York City Mayor Eric Adams’ migrant-first policy demolished their plans.

Over the last two weeks, Adams has rolled out a scheme to bus hundreds of migrants to upscale motels in Newburgh, Orangetown and Yonkers, pleading that New York City is out of space. It didn’t matter that many of the motel rooms were already occupied or booked. Money talks. New York City pays above-market rates to house migrants, averaging $8,000 per room, per month, taxpayers be damned. The motels acted fast to clear their rooms.

“We had a legal contract to have those rooms,” Moretti said. Nearly two dozen struggling homeless veterans also got the boot, including some who had served in Vietnam or Afghanistan.

People staying at the Ramada Inn in Yonkers were told to clear out as well. Up to 100 migrant families are expected there within a week. Savannah Harp, who’s been living there with her 18-month-old son, resents that she’s had to pay for her room, while the migrants displacing her will get rooms for free.

Big city Democrats like Adams give migrants top priority. Protest and you’re called “racist” or “xenophobic.”

Even so, some local leaders are fighting back against Adams’ takeover of hotels and motels in their counties.

Rockland and Orange counties are in court, arguing that Adams doesn’t have the right to set up shelters outside New York City.

Other counties are putting Adams on notice to not even try it. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, a Republican, made it clear, “we are not a sanctuary county.”

The battle unfolding in New York will likely be repeated in many locales. Connecticut alerted towns to prepare for migrants.

The immigration industrial complex — a web of Democratic politicians, immigration lawyers and nonprofits that survive on public funding — pushes relentlessly for more money and more “rights” for migrants.

Adams plans to house migrants in upstate hotels and motels for up to four months, with shuttle service provided three times a day to wherever they want to go. What a deal.

Democrats promised migrants sanctuary from immigration law enforcement, luxury accommodations, three meals a day, and health and legal services. Now they express surprise at the deluge of people heading to New York City, and insist all counties share the burden.

The New York Civil Liberties Union is suing Rockland and Orange counties, claiming the counties’ resistance amounts to “xenophobic harassment and discrimination.” That’s a cheap shot and untrue.

It’s not about race. It’s about money. Caring for migrants will force counties to cut services to their own residents.

Adams’ city budget for the coming fiscal year is proof. It cuts every department, including police protection and education, to offset spending on migrants.

The generous handouts to migrants are also causing resentment.

A Hispanic American woman from Port Chester who has three kids and works cleaning houses said she’s furious to see migrants getting free housing. Why not her family, she asks.

Where is New York’s governor, Kathy Hochul? Mostly MIA. Her predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, says Hochul should “come down here and pick up these people and disperse them across the state.” That’s ridiculous.

The answer isn’t to foist the problem on other communities. It’s to stop making New York a magnet for migrants.

Democrats don’t get that. Last week, Adams announced that the landmark Roosevelt Hotel on 45th Street and Vanderbilt Avenue will become the city’s migrant welcoming center and large shelter. Movies such as “The French Connection” and “Wall Street” were filmed there. The lobby is exquisite. A security guard told the New York Post, “the migrants are going to think they came to like Hollywood or something.”

Upscale lodging — whether it’s in Manhattan or along the Hudson — encourages migrants to make New York their destination. Worse, it sends a message to the rest of us, including Gary Moretti and his bride, that we’re saps.

Tell Adams to house migrants in barracks and tents and provide only bare necessities. Be humane, but not stupid.

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/97390-democrats-new-rule-migrants-first-everyone-last-2023-05-17

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

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)

Thursday, May 18, 2023

Democrats’ New Rule: Migrants First, Everyone else Last

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors