Category Archives: IMMIGRATION

UPDATED (7/9): Left-Libertarians Are A Lot Like Neoconservatives, Certainly On Immigration

Britain, EU, Europe, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism

Wasn’t Spiked editor Brendan O’Neill once an open-borders advocate (oh yes), himself someone to weaponize the topic of immigration against anyone on the hard-Right?

Now he’s suddenly warning, as the hard-Right has been doing forever, that elites are weaponizing immigration against host populations.

Wasn’t Brendan one of those “open minds, open borders” sloganeers, ever so enamored with his own open mind?

Indeed, “Let them in,” O’Neill once admonished. Don’t “infantilise African migrants. … welcome them.”

Late to the party, as left-libertarians always are, O’Neill has discovered that immigration, too, is a state program, one used to subdue the host population. What do you know? Being on the left (in a manner)  means you never have to say you’re sorry.

UPDATE (7/9):

Michael Medved and David Rubin (the one neoconish; the other left-libertarian) were going back-and-forth on The Medved Show about immigration. At bottom, both are liberal apologists with a veneer of establishment conservatism. “Bring ’em out of the shadows, path to citizenship,” blah, blah.

Comments Off on UPDATED (7/9): Left-Libertarians Are A Lot Like Neoconservatives, Certainly On Immigration

Written by on

UPDATED (8/13/018): NEW COLUMN: Separated From My Child—And Nobody Cares

Family, Ilana Mercer, IMMIGRATION, Law, South-Africa

“Separated From My Child—And Nobody Cares” is the current column. It’s now on Townhall.com (slightly abridged), but on WND.com and The Unz Review, au naturel.

An excerpt:

The late Charles Krauthammer was right about the rules of good writing. The use of the first-person pronoun in opinion writing is a cardinal sin.

To get a sense of how bad someone’s writing is count the number of times he or she deploys the Imperial “I” on the page. Krauthammer considered a single “I” in a piece to be a failure.

Use “I” when the passive-form alternative is too clumsy. Or, when the writer herself has earned the right to, because of her relevance to the story. (The story itself, naturally, should have relevance.) The second is my excuse here.

As a legal immigrant to the U.S., now an American citizen, I have a right to insert myself into the noisy narrative.

As a legal immigrant who was separated from her daughter, herself a legal immigrant, the onus is on me to share a scurrilous story that is part of a pattern:

America’s immigration policy—driven as it is by policy makers and enforces—exalts and privileges those of low moral character. It rewards law-breakers, giving them the courtesy and consideration not given to high-value, legal immigrants.

The same U.S. immigration law enforcers who cater so kindly to each illegal immigrant—the kind that is a drain on the country and has no right to be in the country—stripped my daughter of her American permanent residency privileges.

A young person travels alone and gets bamboozled at the border-crossing in Blaine, Washington State. So, they strip her of her green card.

That’s our immigration story.

My girl was studying in Canada. She got intimidated at the border and gave the wrong answer to her petty American inquisitor. So, she was quick-marched into a small booth and peppered with more questions meant to terrify.

With an intimidating display of machismo, the burly men of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) bullied a young girl into relinquishing her right of permanent residency (also the road to citizenship).

La Bandida was at bay. America was finally safe.

More fundamentally, hers was not an ill-gotten green card.

The principal sponsor, a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, had entered the US on an O-1 visa. Unlike the H-1B visa, the 0-1 visa doesn’t replace Americans; it adds to them. For it is granted to those with “extraordinary ability in the fields of science, education, business or athletics.” The O-1 necessitates “a level of expertise indicating that the person is one of the small percentage who has risen to the very top of the field of endeavor.”

Not by deceit did my child gain her green card. But by deceit is how the swarms on the border will get theirs. The squeaky wheels squatting on the southern border, funneled daily into the interior to create facts on the ground, are not refugees or legitimate asylum seekers. Rather, they are merely from what President Trump has termed “s–thhole countries.” By that criteria, Americans could be forced to welcome the world.

A refugee, conversely, is an individual who is …

… READ THE REST. “Separated From My Child—And Nobody Cares” is the current column. It’s on Townhall.com slightly abridged, and on WND.com and The Unz Review, as is.

UPDATE (8/13/018):

UPDATED (8/15/018): Poland Has Enacted A REAL Muslim Ban. It Does Not Accept Muslim Migrants. Period.

Christianity, Crime, Europe, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Terrorism, The West

Unlike the nonsensical, watered-down Muslim ban America has been grudgingly permitted to enact (“Big Con,” naturally, defend it); Poland, a country that shares a culture, has a real ban. Simple: Poland does not accept migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.

Daniel Pipes traveled to Poland to trace the roots of this ban; and “understand why Poland differs so sharply from Western Europe and what this implies.”

Essentially, the rather homogeneous polish people have united around the idea of re-Christianizing their country. This impetus emanates from “the country’s civilizationist … party, called Law and Justice (PiS, pronounced peace).

In the telling of the PiS,

a steady diet of news from Western Europe of jihadi violence, taharrush, “grooming” gangs, honor killings, female genital mutilation, criminal activity, welfare fraud, and cultural aggression prompted a demand from below for the party to adopt an anti-immigration and -Islamization platform. The Merkel Tsunami of 2015-16, with its million-plus Muslims walking through Europe, frightened Poles. Accordingly, some 75 percent of them reject Muslim immigration. So, even if PiS’ main rival reaches power, they note, the Muslim ban will stay.

“Of these two interpretations,” [Dr. Pipes] “finds the second far more convincing. PiS is no more responsible for the fears of immigration and Islamization than Europe’s other civilizationist parties, such as Austria’s Freedom Party or Italy’s League. They all respond to a growing unease, mainly from the bottom of the socio-economic spectrum. They represent Europeans who fear for their civilization.”

READ “Poland’s Muslim Ban” by Daniel Pipes.

UPDATE (8/15/018): Now Austria:

Maybe Poland and Austria don’t want to become The Netherlands:

Those “Swedes” are rioting again:

Comments Off on UPDATED (8/15/018): Poland Has Enacted A REAL Muslim Ban. It Does Not Accept Muslim Migrants. Period.

Written by on

TV Judge Napolitano’s Nonsensical Indictment Of Trump Border Policy

IMMIGRATION, Law, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, UN

Judge Napolitano is a left-libertarian. Always said so. On this site, I have often  exposed and argued against  his lefty exploits. Here he essentially asserts that if X trespasses into your home, you can’t, in natural law, remove him. Crap. I hazard that, were you to research this bit of Napolitano legalism, you’d find he’s hiding/finessing certain aspects of due-process jurisprudence.

UPDATE (7/2): I might not have phrased my words above well. Responses on Facebook certainly indicate so. My bad. I am a huge proponent of natural law. However, I think Napolitano here is not articulating natural justice at all, but is full of it. His is more legalism than natural law. I am sure there is a state-passed law somewhere that judges like him can use to criminalize what President Trump is doing. I doubt it’s natural law. Where in natural law does it imply that trespassers have to be kept in their natural clans and formations? That nonsense would be the purview of the positive law, most certainly “international law.”

Of course, “Libertarian and leftist protest over any impediment to the free flow of people across borders is predicated not on the negative, leave-me-alone rights of the individual, but on the positive, manufactured right of human kind to venture wherever, whenever.”—ILANA (May 1, 2009)