Category: Immigration

Deep Freeze

Illegal immigrants, Immigration, Trumpism

No, this isn’t a post about winter weather.  It’s about this:

President Donald Trump’s deputies have shut down the legal migration pathways for people from 19 countries, pending the completion of security checks and interviews.

And about damn time too.  When the “huddled masses” want to come over here to avail themselves of our freedoms, solely to commit crimes… we owe it to ourselves to try to stop them before they get going.

(After these ingrates commit their little nefarious wealth redistribution games, however:


…I think you get the picture.)

Just to be clear, the nineteen affected countries are:

Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

Basically, a bunch of Muzzy and Commie countries, the lot of them, and while some of their citizens may be fleeing those shitholes for all the right reasons — and I have a great deal of sympathy for their plight, for obvious reasons — all refugees and prospective citizens should absolutely require serious (i.e. non-Biden-style) vetting to make sure that the ungodly don’t try to sneak in to, say, set up a drug network, rape women, embezzle the welfare system or murder National Guardsmen.

When I think of all the hassle and scrutiny we went through with New Wife’s citizenship a couple of years back — she having done nothing other than teach children for nearly forty years — it sticks in my craw that during that same Biden presidency, a whole bunch of criminal scumbags were given the keys to the house because… well, just because.

And yes I know, some genuine refugees are going to be inconvenienced by this deep freeze.  But that’s the nature of laws:  the innocent get shafted by the need to contain the criminals (see for an example: every single useless gun control law).

Well, Now

Immigration, Legal Stuff

Seems as though there’s a teeny hole in the Constitution after all:

Twenty-five Republican attorneys general have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, challenging birthright citizenship.

“The idea that citizenship is guaranteed to everyone born in the United States doesn’t square with the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment or the way many government officials and legal analysts understood the law when it was adopted after the Civil War.

“If you look at the law at the time, citizenship attached to kids whose parents were lawfully in the country. Each child born in this country is precious no matter their parents’ immigration status, but not every child is entitled to American citizenship. This case could allow the Supreme Court to resolve a constitutional question with far-reaching implications for the States and our nation.”

I have to say that this little feature always nagged at me (despite being a one-time immigrant myself).  The idea that anyone born in the U.S. had automatic citizenship seemed on its face to be unreasonable — I mean, I think that we are the only country in the world that allows for this in our legal system.  (There might be a couple of others, but I suspect that these might be countries where nobody wants to live anyway.)

Whatever, I’d like to see this whole “anchor baby” situation disappear.  The child should be a citizen of the home country of either the mother or the father (if known).  If nobody knows who the father is (a regrettably-common feature of modern-day life) and the mother were to die during or soon after childbirth, then I might be prepared to accept automatic citizenship for the baby, if only for humanitarian reasons.

Anyway, I’m glad to see that the issue may soon be resolved one way or the other.  I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out who might oppose this initiative by the various attorneys-general.

Welcome Mat?

Immigration

Here’s an interesting conundrum.  As Jews in Britishland are becoming increasingly (and justifiably) afraid of, well, being Jewish in Britishland, you have this mindset:

Truth is, I don’t know a single Jewish family in London who doesn’t speak openly and often about leaving. These are dyed in the wool Brits, who love this country. But they are watching the England they know disintegrate around them.

If ever there’s a group of people crying out for refugee status, therefore, it’s this lot.

Ordinarily, of course, there is always the option for them to move to Israel — and if ever there was a raison d’être  for the state of Israel to continue to exist, this is surely it — but what about those who don’t want to move to some piece of desert in the Middle East?  (In my opinion, not an unreasonable position.)

Well, for those who would prefer another option, how about right here in the U.S. of A. (you know, the huddled masses of people yearning to breathe free business)?

I mean, in the main these are wealthy and successful citizens, unlikely to require any welfare assistance and perfectly capable of buying their own health insurance, unlike some immigrant ethnic groups I could name.

Now granted, there are several downsides for us to throw out the welcome mat for this lot.  For a start, they are mostly of the Lefty persuasion (like so many Jews are in this country, inexplicably), and we have to ask ourselves whether we want more of that kind of person coming here.  (We don’t — well, I’m pretty sure that most conservative Americans, i.e. most of us, feel that way — and it has nothing to do with them being Jewish.)

We could overcome this issue, however, and make the change less jarring by resettling this bunch in a state where the government is more like the one they’d be leaving behind, e.g. Chicago’s northwest side (the “N. California Avenue axis“) where many Jews (Reform and Orthodox) already live, but with a stipulation of ten-year residence there before they can relocate to Florida.

If not Chicago, then I would suggest Detroit’s Boston-Edison area, with the same 10-year residency requirement.  Okay, Boston-Ed is right next door to Dearbornistan, but unlike in Chicago, these new settlers would be able to buy guns to protect themselves.  (If they don’t want to own those nasty gun things, they deserve everything that happens to them.)  Detroit probably needs a chapter of Lox And Loaded, anyway.  And given that, like Chicago, Detroit is a reliably-Democrat stronghold already, the appearance of a score or so thousand more Democrat voters there wouldn’t make much difference in the grand scheme of things.

Or if they refuse the offer, we could just say, “Enjoy that Middle Eastern desert thing, guys.”

Suggestion

Immigration

This article caught my attention:

Britain’s ‘ghost’ island: Tragic reason why last residents of remote archipelago left 95 years ago today

He’s talking about St. Kilda in the Outer Hebrides, and I believe the answer may be found on this map:

…which makes me think of only one thing:  future internment camp for illegal aliens.

Yeah, tell me you didn’t think of that too.

Alternative

Foreign Affairs, Immigration, Trumpism

There’s a good reason why this is happening:

Mass protests have exploded outside migrant hotels across the country this weekend as furious families gathered in major cities including Birmingham and London.

Hotels across Dudley, Epping, London, Manchester and Norwich have also braced for protests as communities seek to replicate the ruling for The Bell Hotel which, pending an appeal, must be closed within weeks. 

It comes after more than 30 protests under the Abolish Asylum system were held in towns and cities across the UK on Saturday. 

These included Bristol, Exeter, Tamworth, Cannock, Nuneaton, Liverpool, Wakefield, Newcastle, Horley, Canary Wharf, Aberdeen and Perth in Scotland, and Mold in Wales.

A separate batch of protests were also organised by Stand Up to Racism in Bristol, Cannock, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Wakefield, Horley and Long Eaton in Derbyshire.

Quite frankly, the Brits are rebelling against their government’s accommodationist [sic]  policy towards illegal immigrants — I’m sorry, I meant “asylum seekers” — because Britain doesn’t have anything like this*:

And here’s the big difference.  We have facilities like the above because:

The Brits, on the other hand, never voted for “asylum hotels”, but had them thrust upon them by their (elected) government.  So it’s all very well blaming the Britgov for doing this, but let’s be honest about the whole thing:  it’s not like the awful Labour Party ever disguised their intentions — and the Brits voted them into power anyway because the “Conservative” Party had cocked up the whole migrant issue themselves, and I suppose the Brit voters wanted to “teach them a lesson”.

Well, that worked well for them, didn’t it?

Now, the Tories are but a shadow of their former [ahem Thatcherite]  glory, and the party most likely to replace them as the proper Opposition is…

That’s assuming, of course, that Farage can survive the typical (and tiresome) British tradition of political treachery and backstabbing.

But if all the above popular demonstrations are anything to be believed, it means that native Brits have finally fond their voice, and a principle to rally around.

And it’s about damn time.  Let’s just hope that it’s not too late.

*I know, I know:  some idiot judge has rued that AlliAlc must be closed or something, so we’ll just have to find another place that doesn’t upset the local Democrats Indian tribe.  (Maybe we should just offer to convert AlliAlc into a fucking casino in ten years’ time, just to shut them up.)

Not-So-Greener Pastures

Immigration

I read the following article with interest:

More than half of young people have considered leaving Britain under Labour, a think tank has found.
Adults between 18-30 years old said they had “serious concerns” about housing, personal finances and their future in the UK, leaving them “overtaxed, underhoused and undervalued”.
According to The Adam Smith Institute poll, 28 per cent of young Britons are either actively planning (8 per cent) or have seriously considered (20 per cent) emigrating. A further 30 per cent have briefly considered it.

But:

The researchers found that Australia, the USA, Canada and Italy were the most popular destinations for young people considering emigrating.

Well, okay then.  Certainly, anyone looking for better prospects that they have in once-Great Britain might certainly consider the USA — although the current MAGA attitude of Americans might well stick in their craw, if they believe everything they’ve been told by the BBC et al.

But Strylia and Canuckistan?

I don’ thank so, Scooter.

There are good reasons to suspect that Down Under and the Great White Place provide, if anything, even worse prospects for the more youthful than their home country.  (Just wait till they try to find affordable accommodation in Sydney / Melbourne or Toronto / Vancouver.  Might as well go to Chelsea / Knightsbridge.)

As for the socio-political world… oy.  Both Strylia and Canuckistan almost define the term “woke” in terms of their attitude, and their respective national governments are on a par with Britishland’s when it comes to dismal economic prospects.

And finally:  I’m not sure that Murka really wants a bunch of young Brits transplanted Over Here, given that said demographic group is in thrall to working from home (WFH), wokeness and similar nonsense.  Now, if we were talking about their parents (e.g Mr. Free Market and his ilk) — now that’s a more acceptable prospect;  but those worthies have already made plans to move to Switzerland, Monaco and other exotic, low-tax or tax-free locales.

Try Italy, kids.  Just deal with the fact that you’ll have to learn to speak Italian because surprise, surprise:  not everyone wants to speak English, or is prepared to put up with people who refuse to speak anything but.  Also, I have a suspicion that your Italian peer group probably feels about their prospects in Italy in exactly the same way that you do yours in the UK.

Good luck with that.