The administration’s refusal to use immigration policy to keep Americans safe from the Ebola virus is symptomatic of the administration’s general immigration philosophy. The administration prefers not to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, ignoring the fiscal, labor, and security impact of illegal immigration on U.S. citizens and residents. To blur the distinction, the administration leans toward open-border policies and amnesty for aliens breaking U.S. laws.
The Obama administration’s latest symbolic, open-the-flood-gates-a-little-bit decision (regarding Haitian family immigration) is, of course, deplorable, but it could have been worse. Let me expand on that.
It is deplorable because it is contrary to our nation’s 90-plus-year-old decision that immigration should be numerically limited. There are about a billion people who would migrate to the United States tomorrow if they were allowed to do so, but we have limited resources, too few jobs, and an already-over-stressed infrastructure. We simply cannot absorb all of the earth’s poor.
There are two reasons why the state of South Dakota lost tens of millions of dollars from its treasury due to its strange handling of the EB-5 (immigrant investor) program:
* The surrender of a state-owned money-maker (the EB-5 regional center) to private interests under mysterious circumstances during the Rounds administration, which has been the subject of much controversy in the current U.S. Senate campaign, and
* A factor not previously discussed: the extreme fees charged to alien investors by the state’s de facto monopoly regional center. If the fees had not been so large, there would be much less missing money to worry about.
All too often lately we have seen specious decisions coming out of the federal district and circuit courts where immigration-related decisions are concerned. (For just two examples, see here and here.)
I’m happy to report for once, though, that an important decision was reached by the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston — one that, unusually and ironically, should please both those who are pro-enforcement and those who are pro-open borders. I say should please because, as you will see a little further along, apparently not everyone is enthused.
Faulty questions and untenable options are not the only means by which uninformative immigration poll results can be produced.
Sometimes polls don’t have to resort to survey subterfuge; instead, results can be reported in a way that gives an entirely wrong and misleading impression. In doing so, they can then count on others to report what they have announced, confident that most readers will not bother to read, or think through, the actual results.
A few days ago the Center for Immigration Studies published a blog of mine pointing out that the government’s removal statistics showed a curious, but disturbing, trend of aliens born in “special interest” countries (primarily Afghans, but others as well) who had obtained citizenship in Mexico or elsewhere and then crossed the U.S. border illegally. The question of whether or not these individuals procured their citizenship through corruption looms large.
Jessica M. Vaughan is director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies. The author would like to thank Grace McCrocklin for research assistance.
Immigration enforcement activity by ICE continued to decline significantly in 2014, according to ICE records.1
Bad immigration polls, like the one published by Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) and the Brookings Institution that I analyzed the other day, fail because they ask narrow, “either/or”, and loaded questions for a purpose: to get the result they support.
Some media outlets have reported the carjacking of a 91-year-old man by two youths who were apprehended after a wild 200-plus mile chase by police. The carjacking took place in a Walmart parking lot in Iowa and the delinquents apparently marked the old man as their victim because of his vulnerability.
These fine young fellows come to us courtesy of the “surge” of families and unaccompanied minors who besieged the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas in the tens of thousands for some months. Advocacy groups and most of the large media outlets have painted a picture of these thousands as “refugees” coming to escape poverty and violence. Any suggestion whatever that their motives might be less than pure, or that some might in fact be gang members has in the main been rejected out of hand. But according to the article cited above, the carjacking criminals had just fled from Maryville Academy, “a residential facility for at-risk and mentally ill youths. The U.S. Health and Human Services agency has sent a number of so-called ‘unaccompanied minors’ to the facility in the last several months.”
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) made news recently with his claim that ISIS militants have been caught crossing the southern border into the United States. It was a startling assertion, but not one to be lightly dismissed given the recent evidence in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, and elsewhere, that the border is not nearly as secure as administration officials would like us to believe.