The Quote Below – More Misinformation from the Media

As technology and globalization continue shrinking the world, people and ideas move quickly and freely. Political borders become increasingly irrelevant. But that’s fine because the qualities that define Americans don’t depend on geography. Rather, it’s their history of liberty, pluck, ingenuity, optimism and pursuit of happiness. . . .

If Congress seriously wants reform, it might begin by returning decisions on immigration to the individuals involved, in obedience to the Constitution’s Ninth and 10^th Amendments. But Congress will need to go further. Requiring taxpayers to subsidize immigrants’ healthcare, education, food, shelter, or anything else breeds resentment. . . .

That’s right: The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to control immigration. Nor does it say anything about illegal immigrants. – “Why Restrict Immigration at All,” Christian Science Monitor, 6/7/07, republished on austrianeconomicblogs.org, Don Boudreaux, 5/8/18 [Link]

Fact Check on Quote: If political borders are really becoming “irrelevant” then countries are becoming irrelevant—including America. Is that what most Americans want? Yes, we have a history of liberty, and most of us want the liberty to decide what kind of country America will become. With open borders, foreigners will flood our land, and they will determine what our future will be.

A recent Gallup poll found that almost 160 million people would like to move to the U.S. Not doubt they would like to bring their spouses and children, thus adding tens of millions more. The enormity of such numbers would push us beyond the cultural, social, and economic breaking point. To cite one example, many of these people are from poor countries, and no doubt their poverty would qualify them for our welfare programs. Wouldn’t that bankrupt those programs?

The author says we shouldn’t worry because Congress could simply pass a law preventing the new comers from accessing welfare. Such a statement reveals the most astounding ignorance about the real world of American politics. The Democratic Party would move hastily to recruit and organize the immigrants to a powerful new voting constituency for welfare programs. In that situation, there is no way those programs would end.

The author’s claim that the Constitution has nothing to say about immigration is false. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 authorizes the establishment of “an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Our immigration laws establish rules for naturalization by setting limits on who can reside in America and become a citizen and who can’t. The Founding Fathers did not believe in open borders. No responsible person does.

The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media

Why? Because all of us — every human on the planet — respond to the cry of a child. It is hard-wired in us. What sound is more primal, more wrenching, more vivid, more capable of cutting through the noise to connect us to something deeper? What sound is more effective in dispelling the dangerous myth of tribalism and reminding us of the essential truth of our common humanity? . . .

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has shown no signs of backing down on its larger ambition of curbing immigration — legal and illegal alike — and dismantling America’s traditions as a refuge for the world’s tired, poor and huddled masses. . . .

What is required, then, in 2019 and beyond, is not only a reversal of an immigration agenda sharply at odds with this country’s highest ideals, or an end to the hateful and divisive rhetoric deployed on its behalf. What we need is something more: a shift in our hearts, an expansion of our capacity for moral understanding. — America’s Crisis of Conscience, The New York Times, Laurene Jobs, 12/3/18  [Link]

Fact Check of Quote: This article is a classic example of emotional manipulation to short-circuit rational discussion of immigration policy. Yes, it is disturbing to hear children cry, but it is dishonest not to consider the full context of why this happened on our border. Illegal aliens are bringing children with them, often exposing the children to great danger, because our government has sent the signal south of the border that bringing children gives you a better chance of staying in the U.S.

Thus, a good way to relieve distress of children separated from parents at the border is to remove the incentive to bring them. One means is enacting reforms to discourage illegal aliens from making bogus asylum claims.

The writer makes no constructive suggestions of this kind, perhaps because she doesn’t think that securing our border is necessary or justified. America’s mission, she suggests, is offering admission to the tired huddled masses of the globe. A reasonable person might ask if we can afford take them in without a meltdown of our Melting Pot. Such a person might also reason that if we can take everyone in, we must have some effective means to keep them out.

But practicality makes little impression on people who prefer to get high on feel-good emotionalism. This is not to say that emotion and sentiment are wrong, but the lack of balance between idealism and realism certainly is. Also wrong is emotion for only one side. Immigration enthusiasts like this writer, to cite an example, seldom show sympathy toward the pain suffered by American parents of children murdered by illegal aliens.

More broadly, these enthusiasts seem to have little compassion for the tired huddled masses of American citizens who yearn to breathe free from the burdens of mass immigration: overcrowding, stress on the environment and resources, depressed wages, divisive diversity, and multicultural confusion.

If immigration enthusiasts really want to exercise “conscience,” they should abandon their delusions of moral grandeur and practice some humility. It’s a virtue that these self-proclaimed virtuous people seldom if ever possess.