Feb 04

Diversity Is a Burden, Not a Benefit

Some more misinformation and falsehoods from a mass immigration advocate:

“White men have had a great run . . . [R]epression of women’s rights is coming to an end. . . . [B]y 2050 white men will be checking the “other” box on census forms. . . . Of course, human mobility is not something to be fought, but rather something to be embraced. While belonging to a community is wired into our DNA . . . the story of civilization and progress has been one of blending and reblending those units. . . . What we need instead are those who will stand up and say, ‘No. You have it wrong. Diversity is not the threat. It is the answer.’ That is, in fact, what has made America and every diverse society great. To be sure, we should not—not for one minute—lament the passing of the white male era.” – The End of an Era . . . for White Males, foreignpolicy.com, David Rothkopf, 1/25/16

Fact Check: Immigration advocates portray themselves as kind and compassionate people. But sometimes the mask slips. Truly Rothkopf drips venom toward “white males.” Their hoped for demise significantly seems to animate his adulation of “diversity.”

The justifications he offers for it don’t carry much weight. How is diversity making us great when it is undermining our civic culture and unity? An extensive study by Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam found that places with the most diversity are precisely where we have the greatest alienation and lack of civic culture. If diversity is so wonderful, then why do native-born Americans tend to move away from it? California has seen a mass exodus of natives as it has become the state with both the greatest number and percentage of immigrants.

Today, according to a recent poll, a majority of Americans feel like strangers in their own country. Is this a sign of something that is making us “great?” Rothkopf is right that people want to have a sense of community. But contrary to his claim, they have every ethical and moral right to defend their heritage and social ties against imposition of “diversity.” In a free country they have the democratic right to decide what kind of society they want to have.

Rothkopf and others like him would have us believe that diversity is always “enriching,” a term they never really define. But just how are we supposed to be improved by massive numbers of Third World peoples who are bringing with them the failed cultures that made their homelands unpleasant places to live? Interestingly, Rothkopf hails the cause of women’s rights. Yet as migrants now pour into Europe many European women are learning, sometimes quite unpleasantly so, that these heralds of diversity have a rather low regard for the female gender. It’s their culture.

And quite often, in both the United States and Europe, they bring authoritarian mindsets not congenial to the give-and-take required in free societies. In any case, diversity—as it increases—brings division, and division makes it difficult for people to cooperate. As consensus breaks down, government will have to step in to hold society together. With government growing stronger in this fashion, freedom is likely to contract.

Does this prospect bother mass immigration advocates? It doesn’t seem so. Typically they come across as economic and political elitists who prefer top-down control. Representative government—a creation of much-maligned white males—is not highly-esteemed by these elites who distain the huddled masses of natives who don’t want their homelands turned into multicultural babels.

Immigration elitists accuse opponents of racism, while directing racial malice toward “white males.” They preach tolerance while mocking the heartfelt concerns of fellow citizens. Their agenda of “diversity” is a threat to social order and freedom. It is not the answer to any reasonable question.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/diversity-is-a-burden-not-a-benefit/

Feb 03

Culbertson Promises Action against Sanctuary Cities

Rep. John Culbertson (R-TX) has promised to take action against “sanctuary cities,” those municipalities which illegally refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement of immigration laws. Culbertson is chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the Justice Department. He said he will his authority as chairman to cut off grant money from those cities.

Read more at washingtontimes.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/culbertson-promises-action-against-sanctuary-cities/

Jan 30

Trump or Obama — Whose Immigration Plan is Constitutional?

On Tuesday, Amy Dardashtian, an attorney and blogger for Huffpost Politics, explains that the Supreme Court’s decision on the challenge to Obama’s attempted use of executive power to reform immigration law could answer monumental constitutional questions on the power and duty of the President.  The hysterical negative reaction of the MSM to Trump’s plan to enforce the law and deport illegal aliens (and its generally positive coverage of Obama’s amnesty plan) might lead the casual observer to think the Constitution was on the side of Obama, not Trump.  Not so fast, Dardashtian says: “Just look at the Constitution.”

Obama has promised to give benefits to illegal aliens that Congress has denied them, while Trump is promising to enforce the laws that Congress has written and have been signed into law by earlier presidents.  Article 2 of the Constitution gives the law-making power exclusively to Congress.

“Trump is promising to enforce the current immigration law. That’s what this Supreme Court case is all about. Presidents are forbidden from making the law, however, they are required to enforce it.”

An excellent article on this important case for non-lawyers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-dardashtian/scotus-is-trumps-immigrat_b_9066476.html

Posted 1/30/16 by Margaret Hull

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/trump-or-obama-whose-immigration-plan-is-constitutional/

Jan 29

Patriotic Parties Meet in Milan

Leaders of patriotic parties in Europe met in Milan, Italy, to coordinate strategy against mass migration from the Middle East and Africa which threatens the historic cultures of their countries. The Associated Press tries to distort the patriotic character of these parties by calling them “far-right.”

Read more at ap.org.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/patriotic-parties-meet-in-milan/

Jan 28

Cutting Legal Immigration Is a Splendid Idea

Donald Trump’s immigration is a grab bag of just every idea floated over the past decade by conservative opponents of immigration. But there’s one especially toxic idea in the mix. . . . [H]e also opposes legal immigration. . . . What could be wrong with ‘moderation,’ or even a ‘pause?’. . . . On the contrary, immigrants boost the U.S. economy. . . . They’re twice as likely as native-born Americans to start businesses. The dot-com boom of the 1980s and ’90 would never have happened without immigrants. . . . They accounted for . . . a quarter of the entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley. – Donald Trump’s Single Worst Idea: . . . He Would Severely Restrict Legal Immigration, Tamar Jacoby, New York Daily News, 8/19/15

Fact Check: She claims in her article that Trump would “severely restrict” legal immigration and that he “opposes” it. Yet she quotes Trump endorsement of “immigration moderation” and his statement that we should have a “pause” in legal immigration until more unemployed Americans can get jobs. Evidently, she thinks that any restriction of immigration for any purpose is “severe.”

But if there were ever an immigration in need of moderation, it is surely what we have now. Specifically, it is the highest sustained level of legal immigration in our history. Since 1990, it has averaged around one million immigrants a year, a level much higher than illegal immigration. Currently our foreign-born population is 42 million, or one of seven U.S. residents. The resulting “diversity” is weakening the social and cultural ties that bind our communities and country together.

Jacoby claims that immigrants are people with special talents. Some are indeed talented, but in general not nearly so much as she suggests. Her claim that they are twice as likely as natives to be entrepreneurs simply isn’t true. According to the Census Bureau, natives and immigrants have about the same rate of self-employment. And the figures for Silicon Valley are often exaggerated by counting firms with just one immigrant partner, among others, as immigrant-founded.

In any case, is it really true that we desperately need more and more talented foreigners to save us? Is our current population of 320 million not sufficient to provide the talent we need? Between 1920 and 1970, an era of low immigration and a much smaller population than now, our nation achieved its greatest technological and economic feats.

Since 1970, when mass immigration began taking off, our economy declined in many significant ways, and the American Dream has become more difficult to achieve. If immigration is really the economic elixir that Jacoby claims, one would think that the greatest wave of it in our history would have left us better off than we are now.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that we do in fact need a steady stream of foreign geniuses to keep us afloat. Does their small number justify the massive level of other immigrants? Under current policy most legal immigrants are admitted on the basis of family ties to relatives already living in the U.S.—and not because they possess special abilities and skills.

Many in fact are unskilled and poor, so much so that one researcher has stated that we have an immigration policy which “imports poverty.” Legal immigrant households are more likely than those of native-born Americans to receive welfare and other public assistance. Poor immigrants compete with poor Americans for jobs and depress their wages.

Despite what Jacoby claims, Donald Trump has not proposed any deep and permanent cuts in legal immigration. But he would do our country a great favor if he did.

 

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/cutting-legal-immigration-is-a-splendid-idea/

Jan 27

Murdoch Promotes Open Borders

In spite of Fox News’ reputation as a conservative network, it founder Rupert Murdoch is a supporter of mass immigration and open borders. A writer for Breitbart News reports, “[Donald] Trump has shined a spotlight on one of Washington’s best kept secrets: namely, Fox’s role via its founder Rupert Murdoch in pushing an open borders agenda. . . . Well-concealed from virtually all reporting on Fox’s treatment of Trump is the fact that Murdoch is the co-chair of what is arguably one of the most powerful immigration lobbying firms in country, the Partnership for a New American Economy (PNAE).”

Red more at breitbart.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/murdoch-promotes-open-borders/

Jan 26

H-1Bs Far Exceed Official Limit

Universities and companies use loopholes to hire 100,000 more H-1B workers a year than the official cap of 85,000. Many employers prefer the foreign workers they obtain under the H-1B visa program because they can pay them less than Americans to do middle-class jobs.

Read more at breitbart.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/h-1bs-far-exceed-official-limit/

Jan 25

European Countries Move to Slow Migrant Surge

A number of European countries are beginning to restrict entry to the great surge of migrants from the Middle East and Africa. As reported in The Washington Post, “Increasingly, nations are taking matters into their own hands, putting up policies aimed at cutting the migrant flow and weeding out all but those most at risk from war. This is taking place amid rising security fears in Europe after the terrorist attacks in Paris by assailants that included militants who disguised themselves as migrants, as well as hundreds of sexual assaults in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve in which asylum seekers are among the suspects.”

Read more at washingtonpost.com.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/european-countries-move-to-slow-migrant-surge/

Jan 22

The Supreme Court Asks Four Questions About Obama’s Amnesty

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear a case assessing the legality of the immigration directives issued by President Obama in November 2014 that proposed to allow as many as 5.5 million illegal aliens to remain here and be given work permits and other benefits.  Only a lawsuit by Texas and two dozen other states stopped the Obama administration from going forward with the plan.  Professor Andrew Rudalevige, writing in the Washington Post on Thursday, explains the four issues the Court will address in determining the legality of Obama’s plan.

Read the article here:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/21/the-supreme-court-asked-four-questions-about-obamas-immigration-initiative-the-last-one-is-key/

Posted 1/22/16 by Margaret Hull

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/the-supreme-court-asks-four-questions-about-obamas-amnesty/

Jan 21

Mass Immigration Conserves Nothing

Ramesh Ponnuru, a respected editor for National Review, argues in a recent essay that immigration restriction “is rapidly becoming a defining issue for American conservatism. . . . It pains me to think he may be right. I have been a committed conservative since I was in my teens. My politics have been shaped around fundamental conservative values – individual liberty, limited government, free markets, opposition to tyranny, respect for religion, and the indispensability of civil institutions.

[One of my conservative ideals] has always been encouragement of immigration as an engine of American progress and prosperity. . . . [I describe] immigrants as the great “growth hormone” of American history. – Jeff Jacoby, On Immigration, I’ve Become a Dissident on the Right, Townhall.com, 1/13/16.

Fact Check: It’s hardly surprising that genuine conservatives are opposing the radical consequences of our current immigration policy, one of basic non-enforcement of immigration laws and the highest sustained level of legal immigration in our history. Essentially it is flooding us with people from Third World countries where such matters as individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and the indispensability of civil institutions are not particularly esteemed.

With the massive numbers of immigrants (42 million and growing), assimilation isn’t working. A case in point is Hispanic immigrants and their first and second generations. They are much more likely than the general U.S. population to uphold big government and oppose limited government. They are also much more likely than the most Americans to oppose capitalism.

Thus it is no wonder that that immigrants are much more likely to vote for the Democratic Party and shun the conservatism of Republicans. So what is conservative about giving the left-wing Democrats a permanent lock on American politics?

Some still maintain that our economy cannot function well without large-scale immigration. They have “studies” to “prove” this claim, but the realities of past and present clearly show otherwise. If immigration really is a “growth hormone” why did we achieve our greatest economic development and technological achievement between 1920 and 1970, a period when immigration was significantly restricted?

In 1970, America was solidly middle-class, and decently-paying jobs were abundant. But at that point mass immigration was beginning to take off. Today our middle-class has substantially contracted. Wages have stagnated for decades, and huge numbers of working-age Americans are either unemployed, underemployed, or out of the workforce.

If immigration is indeed the magic economic elixir that its proponents claim it is, surely the economy would be in better shape than it is now. In fact, immigration is a significant cause of our economic problems. Immigrants take jobs from Americans and depress wage levels. This is particularly the case for Americans with limited skills and education. And contrary to the often-made claim, immigrants on average are not more likely than Americans to own their own businesses.

Mass immigration isn’t conserving traditional America, so why do some self-described conservatives so ardently support it? The answer is that they equate conservatism with a kind of free enterprise which trumps all other concerns, including basic ethics and patriotism. It hails profits made from immigrants’ cheap labor has the highest good. Ironically, this enterprise is not free to U.S. taxpayers who have to subsidize the immigrant workforce with more welfare and public benefits per household than natives use.

Free enterprise is an excellent system when it operates under ethical constraints. Without those constraints it can become a cheap justification for conserving the cash and clout of unscrupulous commercial interests.

Permanent link to this article: http://www.aicfoundation.com/mass-immigration-conserves-nothing/

Page 1 of 16012345...102030...Last »