The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
“Most of the immigrants we hear about in the news, traversing dangerous routes on foot to our southern border with only their backpacks to their name, are applying for ‘asylum’ — a very specific immigration pathway that has become a catchall for anyone fleeing terrible circumstances as there are no legal entry options for anyone fleeing poverty or many kinds of danger. In order to qualify for asylum, a person must prove ‘persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’ There is no legal pathway for people fleeing poverty or danger outside of this specific asylum definition. . . .
“Before President Trump suspended the asylum program in his first week in office, those who were seeking asylum had already waited months or even years on the Mexican side of the border for the chance to enter the U.S. to officially begin their asylum application process . . . until they are finally given a verdict — and it’s usually a rejection. In 2022 and 2023, only 14 percent of asylum claims were approved.
“It is at this point that most undocumented immigrants become ‘undocumented’ because they choose to stay in the U.S. after their case has been rejected, where they’re safe, not because they snuck over the border past CBP officials. And while undocumented, immigrants pay taxes ($96.7 billion in 2022 alone), and despite what many of our political leaders may say, are law-abiding members of their communities; committing far less crime than naturally born citizens. These immigrants have tried and desperately want to be here legally, but we don’t have an option for them to do so. When our European ancestors were fleeing to the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s, no passports, visas, or paperwork of any kind was required . Immigrants simply arrived and were processed within a few hours. No application, specific reason or skill needed.— as President Trump has promised to do. It means creating more appropriate legal pathways. . . .. — We Need Immigrants, They Need More Legal Paths to Citizenship – Not Deportation, Claire Everhart, USA Today, 1/30/25 [Link]
Fact Check of Above Quote: Claire Everhart makes an interesting admission in this piece. Illegal alien advocates typically claim that we should admit virtually all illegal migrants because they claim asylum. She admits, however, that these claims are overwhelmingly bogus, with only 14 percent of claimants ultimately qualifying for asylum. But widespread deception by migrants doesn’t seem to bother the author. She thinks they should all stay anyway, with the door left open to all who wish to follow. She maintains that their poverty and other problems are justification for them to do so.
The primary problem with that is the numbers. According to World Bank Group, about 3.5 billion people in the world live in poverty, and 700 million of them live in “extreme poverty.” It should be obvious, even to the most zealous immigration enthusiast, that we can’t take in any significant number of these people without destroying ourselves. So where do we draw the line? As a matter of fact, we’ve already drawn it with the limits our country has set on immigration, through democratically enacted laws. Those who want us to ignore these laws appear to have little respect for the rule of law—or from the democratic right of citizens to decide what kind of country they want.
The author doesn’t seem concerned about these issues, as she informs us that illegal aliens are less likely to commit crimes than citizens and that they pay taxes. Again, this reflects the notion that violating immigration laws is not really a crime. But in truth it is, and it’s not a victimless crime. She next asserts that illegal aliens are beneficial because they pay taxes. She neglects to reveal that the taxes they pay are less than the tax-paid benefits they receive.
Everhart goes on to suggest that we shouldn’t have immigration restrictions today because we didn’t have them in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Perhaps she should notice that a lot has changed since those times, when we had empty spaces to fill. Now, we’re filled, and—as a developed country—we don’t need so many extra hands for development. Immigration today is far more diverse than in the past, which now makes assimilation much more difficult.
Mass immigration advocates are quick to display their generous ideals. Seldom, however, do they care about the practical consequences of those ideals.