The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
“What is a realistic approach to deal with the 11 million undocumented workers in the U.S.?
“From a human rights perspective, one of the leading priorities is to legalize the long-term undocumented immigrants, especially the DACA recipients. And surely more than that, but not necessarily all 11 million because it may include some recent arrivals, who probably shouldn’t be included in the legalization program. On the other hand, a broad legalization may simply be more efficient.
“What should be done about border security, enforcement, and the immigration court backlog?
“In terms of enforcement, there is no easy solution. A border fence is merely a symbol and no solution. Clearly, the adjudication system needs more resources, and adjustments to improve both efficiency and fairness. . . .
“Another priority, contrary to some claims, is to reduce reliance on detention. The U.S. is engaged in arbitrary detention of migrants who really don’t need to be detained; they could be subject to surveillance. , , , In terms of enforcement, the important point to stress is that this is not an issue that the U.S. can solve unilaterally. There must be a regional solution. It’s obvious to anyone who looks at the logistics of the problem that the solutions depend on cooperation with Mexico. Congress can’t just impose a solution and assume that Mexico will go along with it.
“The country should also respect its international obligations not to send people back to countries where they will be persecuted, tortured, or killed.. – Migration Scholar Looks at History, Prospects for Breaking Gridlock in an Election Year, Liz Mineo, The Harvard Gazette, 2/1/24 [link]
Fact Check of the Above Quote: Gerald Neuman, who answers the interviewer’s questions in this article, is director of the Human Rights Program at Harvard Law School. Quite often illegal alien advocates use rhetoric about “human rights” to advance their cause. In their view, it seems, foreigners—because they are human—have the unalloyed right to ignore our immigration laws and take up residence in our country. But where are the rights of American citizens who democratically enacted those laws? Aren’t they human too? Well, maybe they are a bit less so in the eyes of rights advocates—particularly those in the classes that Hillary Clinton deems as “deplorables.”
Neuman assures readers that from a “human rights perspective” that most or perhaps all of the 11 million illegal aliens in the U.S. should not only get a free pass to ignore our laws, but also legal status and presumably a pathway to citizenship. Enforcement, he indicates, is a legitimate goal, but how do we support enforcement if we suspend it on such a massive scale? Simple common sense reveals that if you reward lawbreaking, you simply encourage more lawbreaking.
This “human rights” director claims that we cannot force Mexico to provide the help we need to secure the border. Really? That’s exactly what former President Trump did when he instituted his “remain in Mexico” policy which required “asylum seekers” (most of them bogus) to stay in Mexico for processing rather than enter the U.S. Trump told the Mexicans that they would suffer economic consequences if they didn’t cooperate. Neuman calls for less reliance on detention for “asylum seekers.” Hasn’t he noticed that this is precisely what the Biden Administration has done? This has happened even though the law requires detention for asylum cases.
Finally, Neuman tries to manipulate emotion by maintaining that if we send illegal aliens home they will face persecution, torture, and death. In reality, very few face such dangers. The vast majority are economic migrants who seek a “better life.” Will their unrestricted arrival mean a “better life” for Americans? The “human rights” activists insist that we have no right to ask that question.