Immigration Watch International (2): To Justify His New Border Rule, Mayorkas Fesses Up to the Harm Caused by His Mass Releases

Thursday, June 20, 2024

To Justify His New Border Rule, Mayorkas Fesses Up to the Harm Caused by His Mass Releases

Summary

In order to make the case for his June “Securing the Border” rule — “urgently needed to avert significant public harm” — DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had no choice but to admit to the harm caused by the mass release of aliens apprehended at the border. He had to disavow positions he has consistently taken, positions grounded in his “detention is morally inexcusable” mindset.

Consequently, the narrative of the rule reads like a case-study in cognitive dissonance — “the unpleasant mental state that may result if someone really does have certain beliefs but thinks or acts in a way that contradicts them”.

Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives impeached Secretary Mayorkas in part precisely because his “unlawful mass release of apprehended aliens … ha[s] enticed an increasing number of aliens to make the dangerous journey to our Southwest border”. Mayorkas has long known the deleterious effects of mass release. But this rule is the first time I know of that he has actually admitted the harm.

Mass release creates a de facto open border, which is at the core of the alien smugglers’ open-border narrative that Secretary Mayorkas has long attacked as a lie. In actuality, the smugglers have been more truthful about the state of the border than has Mayorkas and he needed to admit to the truthfulness of their narrative, to admit that their “lies” were in fact true. But this made Mayorkas uncomfortable, so elsewhere in the rule he seemed to implicitly question the narrative or even return to calling the smugglers liars.

There is another explanation for the peculiar manner in which the rule was written. It is possible that Secretary Mayorkas never even read the rule that he signed. If so, the staff tasked with writing the rule was simply trying to perform an incredibly difficult balancing act: justifying the rule by admitting where necessary to inconvenient truths, while also not too openly contradicting past statements by their boss.

https://cis.org/Fishman/Justify-His-New-Border-Rule-Mayorkas-Fesses-Harm-Caused-His-Mass-Releases

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

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)

Thursday, June 20, 2024

To Justify His New Border Rule, Mayorkas Fesses Up to the Harm Caused by His Mass Releases

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors