Immigration Watch International (2): 'I don’t want to leave': Migrants whom DeSantis sent to Martha's Vineyard love their new life on the luxury island

Friday, June 30, 2023

'I don’t want to leave': Migrants whom DeSantis sent to Martha's Vineyard love their new life on the luxury island

Democrats accused Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) of kidnapping migrants when he sent two planes of migrants to Martha's Vineyard last year.

But the New York Times recently spoke to some of those migrants who say they're happy about coming to the luxury island, don't want to leave, and now call it "home."

What is the background?

Last September, Florida sent 49 migrants to Martha's Vineyard, triggering liberal weeping and gnashing of teeth. Democrats claimed the migrants were "tricked" or "deceived" and accused DeSantis of kidnapping them.

Lawsuits were filed, the Massachusetts U.S. attorney (who resigned in May over allegations of ethics violation and misconduct) promised to investigate to the fullest extent of the law, and the flights ultimately resulted in criminal charges being filed in Bexar County, Texas (though law enforcement refuses to say who was officially charged).

The allegations, of course, were more bark than bite. DeSantis later released proof that the migrants traveled willingly.

Most of the migrants sent to Martha's Vineyard later left. But some stayed — and they're happy with their new life.

The New York Times chatted with several of those migrants, who acquired jobs and their own housing and transportation on the island.

Deici Cauro, from Venezuela, told the Times she doesn't want to leave. "I did not even know where Martha's Vineyard was. And now I feel welcomed by everybody here. I'm working, making friends and this is home for me now," Cauro said. "This is home now. I don’t want to leave."

Cauro's brother, Daniel, and cousin, Eliud Aguilar, remain on the island with her. She found a job in landscaping, while her cousin and brother work in painting and roofing.

"We came here to work in any job, no matter how hard," she told the newspaper. "We are just happy to be living here."

While reporter Edgar Sandoval was meeting with the migrants, Daniel's 2-year-old son called from Venezuela. During that call, the son asked his father when he would return home.

"I'm already home," Daniel replied, promising his family they would soon be reunited.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/migrants-whom-desantis-sent-to-marthas-vineyard-love-their-new-life-on-the-luxury-island

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

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://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)

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)

Friday, June 30, 2023

'I don’t want to leave': Migrants whom DeSantis sent to Martha's Vineyard love their new life on the luxury island

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors