Category Archives: Immigration

What democrats don’t seem to know about immigrants

Very well said.

WSJ. 8/22/2020 by Tunku Varadarajan

I watched all four nights of the Democratic National Convention. Huddled in front of my TV set, I was, by the end, yearning to breathe free. As an immigrant to the U.S., I found the Democrats’ obsession with immigrants grating. I’d like to tell Americans why.

Scarcely a speech or segment went by in which a fetish wasn’t made of immigrants. They were portrayed, almost uniformly, as victims—hapless people thwarted by “systemic racism” and American injustice, moored forever in a netherworld of murk and fear by President Trump’s refusal to be humane.

The Democrats are guilty of conflating the people who live in this country without authorization with those—a significant majority of immigrants—who are here legally. According to the Pew Research Center, 77% of America’s foreign-born immigrants are lawful permanent residents (like me) or naturalized citizens of the U.S.

With their relentless focus on the undocumented margins, the Democrats do an enormous disservice to the 35.2 million lawful immigrants who go about their dignified business away from the spotlight, getting on with such concerns as work, school and family, grateful for the opportunity to be in America—grateful, in fact, for the opportunity to be Americans.

Many immigrants have come to America from countries where the state interferes in people’s lives while pretending to help. What many of them really want—Democrats, please note—is for the state to step aside and let them carve out their own destinies. Which is why they came to America in the first place. Whether the left likes it or not, this is the primordial truth to which almost every immigrant subscribes.

No one suggests that the plight of the undocumented people in this country should be ignored. Yet the Democratic obsession with indigent illegal residents plays into the hands of racists and nativists, who, ironically, share the progressive caricature of immigrants as a brooding throng of people in perpetual limbo. (Nativists regard the foreign-born as inherently unassimilable, while progressives, for their own reasons, scoff at the very notion of “assimilation.”)

The Democrats’ compulsion to create ever more categories of victimized minorities by adding “immigrants” to the list of the maltreated serves neither immigrants nor the country. You can see the short-term advantage to the Democrats of an ever-expanding pool of voters from abroad. But I—and millions like me—did not regard the U.S. as a country where you can never acquire a mainstream identity, and where political forces tell you that the surest way to become accepted is to nurse your grievances forever. Every immigrant reaches a point where he feels—or wants to feel—that he’s overcome obstacles and has earned his pride (without having it handed to him in the guise of victimhood).

Perpetuating the category of “immigrant” involves the making permanent of an identity that is by definition temporary. It’s a condition in a bureaucratic process that every immigrant seeks to transform into a state of full belonging. The Democrats would like many of us to embrace a transitory state as an aspiration in itself. “E pluribus unum”—one out of many—is less attractive to them than a creed of “Many out of one.”

Mr. Varadarajan is executive editor at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.


‘What Are You?’ They Ask My Son

If this isn’t the best you have read this week, pity you!
WSJ 10/27/2017
By Michael Meyer

My son is 5. He was born in Hong Kong and spent the past two years in Singapore. We returned to the U.S. so he could grow up here, and the culture shock has been minimal: Like his fellow kindergartners, Benji loves Legos and belting out “Let It Go.” Unlike them, he plays piano, which he learned in a Singapore preschool. Also unlike them, Benji is constantly asked: “What are you?”

It’s a weighty question for an adult, but to a child it sounds silly. “I’m a boy,” Benji replies. Sometimes he decides he’s a girl. But this isn’t that story, this is about being a biracial kid in America.

In Singapore, Benji was simply a foreigner, just like mom (born in Manchuria) and dad (born in Los Angeles). Although China is as much of a melting pot as America—with 56 ethnic groups and 150 languages—it does not hyphenate identity. You are Chinese first, and then Han, not Han-Chinese, or Tibetan-Chinese, or Manchu- Chinese.

In China aunties extol Benji’s handsomeness and call him hunxue’r, “mixed blood.” Having learned sarcasm in America, Benji once answered: “Actually, I’m a dog.” The person then asked me about his breed.

On playgrounds, well-intentioned American yoga moms riff on Benetton ads and extol his appearance as if it were a décor choice. These conversations surprise me: I went to college in the early 1990s, and was taught never to talk about race or ethnicity. Today Americans seem to think it’s impolite not to. With benevolent curiosity, they ask: “What’s your son? Is he a half?”

We have to decide, for school and doctor intake forms request a child’s identity. We don’t consider Benji half of anything. He’s more than the sum of his parts, fluent in Mandarin and English, along with some Hebrew, learned at a Jewish summer camp, although neither my wife nor I am Jewish.

When pressed, we say he’s a “double”—as the Japanese put it, daburu. Being a double sounds lucky: You get not one, but two cultures.

“Double” also invokes intrigue. Being “mixed” carries the historical connotations of impurity, of illegality. Not until 1967 did the Supreme Court rule interracial marriage constitutionally protected.

Although a 1993 Time cover declared a multiracial composite “The New Face of America,” the American census didn’t allow people to choose more than one race until 2000; in 2010, nine million respondents marked multiple boxes. That seems like a statistical outlier in a population of 326 million, but a 2015 Pew Research Center report called multiracial Americans “young, proud, tolerant and growing at a rate three times as fast as the population as a whole.”

The majority of those surveyed had been targets of racial slurs and jokes. So I tense up when people ask me what Benji is. But kids are smart. On his own, Benji has decided how to answer people, anywhere in the world, who ask him what he is. He says with finality: “I am an American.”

Mr. Meyer is author of “The Road to Sleeping Dragon: Learning China from the Ground Up” (Bloomsbury).


The Dutch, Welfare and Immigration

Interesting comment regarding America liberals trying to turn an “immigrant country into a welfare” state.  Not sure its really true, but, nonetheless. A good article to focus on what the press seems to MISS.
WSJ 3/14/2017
By Leon de Winter

To hear the international media tell it, my country has changed from one of the most tolerant, affluent and easygoing nations on the planet into a zoo of xenophobes and racists—all because a politician with unusual hair has been saying politically incorrect things.

The Netherlands will vote Wednesday in elections for the Tweede Kamer, Parliament’s lower house. Twenty-eight parties are competing for 150 seats. Any of the established parties could find a niche within America’s Democratic Party; they all are basically social democrats. That includes the conservatives and the so-called extreme right-wing Freedom Party, led by Geert Wilders, the man with the unusual hair. Mr. Wilders is harshly critical of Islam and the country’s immigration policies, but his social agenda is as left-wing as the Socialist Party’s.

The Netherlands has changed, but it has been a decades long process. In the 1960s and ’70s, the Dutch invited guest laborers from Morocco and Turkey to work temporarily in the wildly expanding economy. The boom ended, but the workers stayed, creating an underclass of low-skilled Muslim immigrants. Photos of the original laborers show young men in suits and dress shirts—completely Westernized, it seems. Now retired, they often dress as if they had moved back to rural Morocco or Turkey. Their children and grandchildren drop out of school and commit crimes at much higher rates than the original Dutch population. Many become more religious than their grandparents; some even move to the Islamic State caliphate in Syria. Non-Western immigrants and their descendants also depend on welfare to a much greater extent than the native Dutch. They are half of all welfare recipients but only 11% of the total population. Among recent Somali refugees granted asylum, 80% are on welfare.

Holland is truly a welfare state, and the Dutch are proud of it. Over 50% of their total earnings are collected by the state, the goal being to redistribute wealth and equalize chances for everyone. It works amazingly well, producing highways, railroads, dikes and bridges, world-class schools and health care, and a cradle-to-grave social-security system. Most political discussions in today’s campaign are about the pressing question of how to preserve and expand the welfare state without going broke.

The Dutch are disciplined, hardworking, well-educated, and at the same time open-minded, tolerant and anti-authoritarian—all of this because of our Calvinist heritage. We are also the most secular people in the world. [ These two sentences CANNOT be juxtaposed! Ya think???] Lots of Dutch say they believe only in “something.” We even have a name for this postreligious religion: “Somethingism.”

This type of open and yet highly regulated society can function only if it is carried by a disciplined and well-educated citizenry with a reasonable degree of cultural homogeneity. But because of political correctness and cultural relativism, Dutch elites agreed to absorb low-educated, even illiterate, mostly Muslim migrants from collectivistic rural areas. Significant numbers of them refuse to embrace the radical, secular tolerance of their new home.

That is what the fuss is about. To put it in abstract terms: Can a welfare state become an immigration state? You know the answer: A welfare state with open borders will one day run out of money. But what moral justification is there for limiting migration in a globalized and unjust world? That’s a tough question for the politically correct mind. (Interestingly, the American Democrats’ main project is the reverse: turning an immigration state into a welfare state.) But the tensions in Dutch society aren’t only about money. We’ve had two political assassinations in the past 15 years. In May 2002, two weeks before a national election, Pim Fortuyn—the leading candidate for prime minister, a gay professor who had published a book called “Against the Islamization of Our Culture”—was killed by an animalrights activist who said he wanted to protect “vulnerable groups.” The killer, who served 12 years in prison, is now free and on welfare. The other victim was Theo van Gogh, a provocateur, filmmaker and Islam critic who was decapitated on an Amsterdam street by a radical Muslim.

These two intellectuals personified the open Dutch welfare state. They were loudmouthed and carefree children of the anti-authoritarian 1960s, unapologetic and humorous critical minds who happily provoked the sensitivities of the bourgeois establishment and as happily insulted religion in general—in particular Catholicism before they turned against Islam. They represented an extreme of the wide horizon of Dutch tolerance. Their peaceful and pacified countrymen are still recovering from the shock of their murders.

Did the Dutch really turn into xenophobes and racists? No, they are as open-minded as ever. But they have started to demand what most of their politicians (except people like Fortuyn and Mr. Wilders) until recently didn’t dare mention because it was politically incorrect: that immigrants practice tolerance, work and study hard, and teach their children to be proud and contributing members of this society. That is the least you can ask when the fruits of your labor are taxed at 50%.

This is the Netherlands in 2017. Still an impressive country, if you ask me, whatever the result of Wednesday’s election.

Mr. de Winter is a novelist and political commentator for De Telegraaf.


McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952

Oh, yes. I’m sure you have heard of it in the New York Times.

Wouldn’t it be interesting if, at some point during his Presidential campaign, Donald Trump asked, “Oh, by the way, has anyone in Washington DC ever heard of the McCarran-Walter Act Of 1952”?

Here are the historic facts that would seem to indicate that many, if not most, of the people we elect to work for us in Washington DC do NOT have the slightest idea of what laws already exist in OUR country.

After several terrorist incidents were carried out in the United States, Donald Trump was severely, criticized for suggesting that the U.S. should limit or temporarily suspend the immigration of certain ethnic groups, nationalities, and even people of certain religions (Muslims). The criticisms condemned such a suggestion as, among other things, being Un-American, dumb, stupid, reckless, dangerous and racist. Congressmen and Senators swore that they would never allow such legislation, and our illustrious President called such a prohibition on immigration unconstitutional.

As Gomer Pyle would say, “Well, Surprise, Surprise!” It seems that the selective immigration ban is already law and has been applied on several occasions.

Known as the McCarran-Walter Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows for the “Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by the President, whenever the President finds that the entry of aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States. The President may, by proclamation, and for such a period as he shall deem necessary, may suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants or impose any restrictions on the entry of aliens he may deem to be appropriate.”

And who do you suppose last utilized this process? Why it was Democrat President Jimmy Carter, no less than 37 years ago, in 1979, to keep Iranians out of the United States.

But he actually did more. He made ALL Iranian students, already in the United States, check in with the government. And then he deported a bunch of them. Seven thousand were found in violation of their visas, and a total of 15,000 Iranians were forced to leave the USA in 1979.

So, what say you about all of the criticism that Donald Trump received from the Democrat Senators, Representatives and the Obama Administration?

Additionally, it is important to note that the McCarran-Walter Act also requires that an “applicant for immigration must be of good moral character and in agreement with the principles of our Constitution.”

Therefore, one could surmise that since the Quran forbids Muslins to swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, technically, ALL Muslins should be refused immigration to OUR country.

Check it out: