Search Box

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

The underlying conceit....

...of all these protests about Trump's three month moratorium on immigration from seven Muslim countries is that United States citizenship should be an automatic right for anyone in the world who wants it.

There is no other country in the world -- outside western Europe -- which has an immigration policy designed to benefit foreigners at its own expense.

I can't prance into South Korea and demand citizenship. I can't fly to Russia and announce, guess what, I'm your countryman. I can't climb the fence into Israel and say, hey, I'm an Israeli now.

Mexico, which constantly lectures us about how we should loosen our border controls, has more stringent requirements for citizenship than we do. You must have five years of legal residence there before you can even apply for citizenship. You can only get away with two years legal residence if, according to Wikipedia:

to the judgment of the Secretariat [of Foreign Affairs], she or he has performed or created outstanding works in a cultural, social, scientific, technical, artistic, sports or business area that benefit the nation.

If you do become naturalized Mexican citizen, you are not allowed to become a member of the Mexican military during peacetime, a policeman, or a captain or pilot on any Mexican-flagged vessel or aircraft. Nor are you allowed to become President of Mexico, a member of the Congress of Mexico, a member of the Supreme Court of Mexico, a Governor of a Mexican state, or the Mayor or member of the legislature of Mexico City. 

In the US, the only office naturalized citizens are prevented from holding is President. If Trump tried to institute the types of restrictions Mexico does, the chorus of outraged howls comparing him to Hitler would be deafening.

And imagine going to Mexico and demanding free hospital care in their emergency wards, free schooling for your kids, and the right to bring as many relatives as you want from the US. All paid for by Mexican taxpayers. 

You'd be laughed out of the country. Or, more likely, put in a Mexican jail. 

Perhaps we should march into Saudi Arabia and insist we be allowed to build Presbyterian churches in Mecca. (The same way Muslims can build mosques wherever they like in the US.)

Perhaps we should go to Iran and insist that women be allowed to sunbathe topless on beaches of the Arabian Sea. (The same way Muslim women wear hijabs in the West.)

Perhaps we should go to Pakistan and inform the local residents that unless they institute equal rights for women, they are a backward, savage people. (The same way some Muslims here say they eventually want sharia law in the US.)

And what if we did so while making it clear that we hate everything these countries stand for, and that we do not necessarily disapprove of our fellow immigrants who want to set off bombs in crowded places in these countries.

It would be enlightening to see what sorts of reactions we'd get.

It seems doubtful that each of these countries has a sizable portion of their population which will hold demonstrations insisting on our freedom to do these things.

In those countries, people prefer to commit suicide at others' expense, not just their own.


Anonymous said...

Outside the US and the EU - being a sovereign nation and enforcing duly enacted immigration law is considered honorable and acceptable.

Allowing oneself to be overrun (and further swamped by higher birth rates) by immigrants of different ethnicity, tribal loyalty, heritage and culture, would be considered national suicide.

'Diversity is our strength' works wonderfully for two groups: corporate globalists and the government. Coporate globalists get all the cheap labor they want, and record profits. Government supports the bottom of society with lots of programs; great 'business' for the ever expanding ranks of government employees.

Multi-generation US citizens working in the private sector get a declining standard of living and abusive work environments, limited employment options, crushing national debt, and the loss of the nation they knew - and, on the plus side - cheaper products.

Its a raw deal.

Trump reprents the awakening in the US; and much of the EU seems to be ready for similar change.

The corporate globalists and big-government Left respond with hysterical outbursts, and highly charged insults - that are completely false.

For if Trump is a racist and xenophobe, as the Left proclaims, where are the Left's accusations against every other nation with more strict immigration policy than the US?

- Ed

John Craig said...

Ed --
Well said.

I didn't even get into the corporate globalist aspect of it, but they are definitely guilty of hurting the middle class as well. And yes, "hysterical outbursts" and "highly charged insults" captures their response perfectly. You'd think that reporters, since most of them are middle class, might have some sympathy; but in fact their jobs are not threatened, so they don't care. Most of them are what the Soviet Union used to refer to as "useful idiots," people who supported the cause of communism from the US. Only now it's all about racial diversity and non-discrimination, not the generic "workers." And it's actually the workers who are the ones getting hurt.

Anonymous said...

Our citizens have been brainwashed for years and years by the global elite, infiltrating the government, the education system, etc. (all levels of society). They want a one world government (which the Bible foretells). In the end, the global elites are doing their best to control the masses. At one time, I thought the idea of an Illuminati was far-fetched, but over time, I've come to the conclusion that these people (and their agenda) truly exist.

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
I don't know anything about the illuminati, but agree completely about the brainwashing that the global elites have done their best to use.

ArthurinCali said...

Meanwhile, Berkeley is being burned down because the precious little flowers on campus couldn't stand to have a dissenting speaker talk there....
This country is gonna get worse before it gets better.

Anonymous said...

Every country should try to protect itself. Trump wants to protect the interest of the American citizens. Will anyone in their right mind let someone stay in one’s home when one's interests are being compromised, more so when there is even 1% chance of the person being a potential troublemaker.
Sometime ago I moved into an apartment and the question I was asked was whether I was Muslim. I was told that the residents did not want Muslims living there.


John Craig said...

Arthur --
And how ironic that that would happen at Berkeley, which was the epicenter of the Free Speech movement back in the 60's.

How much worse can the Left get? Every time they do something like that, it just convinces more people to support Trump. The Left has turned into the bad guys of Fahrenheit 451, the know-nothing book-burning Puritanical fascists.

John Craig said...

Sherie --
Trump said he would put America first, and he's doing exactly that. And that's exactly what a President of any country should be doing, protecting his countrymen. Obama spent his 8 years polishing his pc credentials and accomplishing nothing.

I have mixed feelings about the kind of discrimination described in that article. On the one hand, I don't think citizens of a country ought to be denied housing based on their religion. Instinctively, it seems unfair to me. On the other, I believe that people ought to be allowed to live among those they feel more comfortable with, and not be forced to live with people they see as dangerous. Recently I've been moving more toward the latter viewpoint.

I had a black friend once, who once said, as an argument for affirmative action, "Black people are more comfortable with black doctors, and ought to have access to them." I thought it was a decent argument; but it's also a decent argument for segregation.

Basically, I don't think governments should enforce either segregation or desegregation.

Steven said...

Maybe it should be a lot harder to gain citizenship but that doesn't mean its wise to ban everyone from 7 Muslim countries, or a necessary step to better immigration laws.

No visitor from any of those countries has ever committed a terrorist act in the United States. If you are serious about fighting the global jihadist movement, why play right into their narrative and give them great recruiting material for no tangible gain? You can hardly improve a perfect record.

Meanwhile, there is still travel from all the countries that the 911 attackers were from.

Why not allow some visitors and some visas from those 7 countries while reforming the system properly?

This approach is just energising and empowering the left and the anti-Donald forces.

John Craig said...

Steven --
True, the biggest terrorist attacks in the US have been carried out by Saudis, an Afghani, and Pakistanis. But Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and Iran are all hostile to the US, and all contain large numbers of either al Qaeda or ISIS-affiliated groups. Why should we let in people who are hostile to us? It would be insane. US citizenship is a privilege, not a right, for foreigners. We should be looking at what potential immigrants can do for us, not what we can do for them. If those countries want to respond in kind, they can withhold citizenship from all the Americans who want to emigrate there.

Everybody who already has a green card or student visa from those countries, btw, is being allowed into the US.

I don't think this is empowering the Left at all. Trump got elected because he said he would put American first. All of these virulent protests by the Left are just driving people away from their cause.

Steven said...

You shouldn't let people in who are hostile to you and you don't need to give anyone citizenship who you let in on a temporary visa. I agree that citizenship should be difficult to get and only the right people should be 'recruited' at your discretion, for your needs.

But why not continue to let in some people from those countries on temporary visas who are not hostile to you? So far people from those countries have proven to be safe to let in.

I just think by not making it a near 100% ban, it could have taken the wind out of the media reaction.

John Craig said...

Steven --
It's only a three month ban (for now), until the government can get its vetting apparatus in order. Three months is not that big a deal, and how can you know whether people are "okay" until you get that stuff in order?

The media will put the absolute worst spin on Trump no matter what he does, so they're not really an issue. If you start trying to placate them and win their favor, you turn into John McCain.

Anonymous said...

When President Trump enforced the ban on Muslim countries, I originally thought that this might not be such a good idea. Couldn't President Trump enforce the current immigration laws that we have, without using executive orders? As with most changes, it's better to ease into the changes, not just abruptly, drastically bring them on. Now, his enemies are going crazy.

- Susan

John Craig said...

Susan --
It wasn't a ban on all Muslim countries. There are something like forty majority Muslim countries which aren't affected by the ban at all.

And as far as his enemies going crazy, they already were anyway: witness the behavior of the media over the past seven or so months, and also the demonstrations all over, including last night's mayhem in Berkeley.

Trump is doing what he promised to do during his campaign.

PB said...

"Trump said he would put America first, and he's doing exactly that."

The bizzare (and tragic) thing about this is that there are generations who don't know what this looks like in a President, and think its somehow a bad thing.

Steven said...

There is already quite a rigorous process to gain asylum in America. They have an interview with state department contractors, go through background checks, their name is run through law enforcement and intelligence databases for criminal and terrorist history, fingerprints are taken and run through FBI and homeland security databases. I wonder what more they will add to the process.

Bad people with clean records could always get through, people can be radicalized in America or in the second or third generations. In the end its a numbers game. Its about reducing numbers.

I don't think there is a need for a 100% travel ban after this 3 months. I don't think it is decent and it plays into the jihadists narrative and besides its toothless if its only applied to a handful of little countries anyway. No point taking a pr cost for the sake of posturing with not much practical benefit.

John Craig said...

Steven --
If the process is so rigorous, they should have been able to tell that the 9/11 bombers were potential terrorists. These guys were mostly on student visas, and several had taken flying lessons. Part of the problem is simply political correctness. The guy who took the ticket for Mohammed Atta that morning (9/11) said that he felt a chill as he looked into Atta's eyes, and said to himself, if I've ever seen a terrorist, this is it. But then he gave himself a politically correct slap and said, oh, you're just being prejudiced because he's Middle Eastern.

If, as you say, it's a numbers game, then having no entries from countries with large numbers of radical Muslims is the best way to go. And I agree, btw, that it basically boils down to playing the odds.

Also, you don't have to let people into your country in order to be "decent." And if these people disapprove of America so much, why are so many of them clamoring to get in? Do we demand that we be allowed to become citizens of Saudi Arabia, or Dubai, whenever we want to? The very idea that we would want new citizens who hate America is insane. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton liked the idea because they saw these people as future Democratic voters. But there's a big price to pay.

Steven said...

That's a good story about Atta.

You don't need to have zero entries to limit numbers and think about the big picture. I don't think a lot of these people do dissaporve of America.

Its up to your country if you don't want to allow Muslims to settle in your country but I think a total travel ban, including tourists, would be too extreme and cause more problems than it solves. Why alienate large numbers of people in the Muslim world who didn't have anything against you? Does a total indiscriminate ban make Muslim youth in your own country more or less likely to be radicalized, increasing or decreasing danger?

And I do think its decent to not bar the innocent and good people from visiting your country when you can visit theirs. I know I'd hate to be barred from America when I haven't done anything wrong personally. It wouldn't seem fair.

I'd like to see a strict but mature and measured approach within international norms. I want someone wise and cool headed at the helm.

John Craig said...

Steven --
First, Trump didn't ban all Muslims. There are something like 40 majority Muslim countries that weren't affected by this ban. Second, the radical Muslims hate us anyway, and considered America the Great Satan even when Obama, the most pro-Muslim President ever, was in the White House. This won't change things. And third, why is that the US and Europe have to be the world's dumping grounds? Saudi Arabia has refused to let a single refugee in. Neither has China, or Japan, or Argentina. Why does it always fall on the US and Europe to provide a home for the people who've made such a mess of their own homelands?

Anonymous said...

It looks like Saudi Arabia has taken in refuges. This has a nice explanation as to why it doesn't look like it:

This has a nice breakdown of how many have gone to each country:

Steven said...

I didn't say it was a Muslim ban. I wasn't talking about upsetting radical Muslims who already hate America. And I never said you have to or should grant anyone citizenship.

You are arguing against points I never made.

I was criticizing a 100% travel ban. That's it. It doesn't even include the most likely threats anyway.

Steven said...

@anonymous, like 90% of Syrian refugees are in surrounding Muslim countries.

One of the problems with Merkel's policy was that she just invited everyone...half the people who went there weren't even Syrians.

I don't know why it can't be understood and accepted that accommodating refugees is a temporary humanitarian duty and refugees are to return home when peace returns to their country. It can but doesn't have to mean a path to citizenship. It doesn't even have to mean temporary integration into could house them in good quality are saving their lives. Its better than nothing.

John Craig said...

Steven --
"Its up to your country if you don't want to allow Muslims to settle in your country but I think a total travel ban, including tourists, would be too extreme and cause more problems than it solves."

That sounds as if you're talking about all Muslims. (I do realize that earlier you specified the seven countries.) And I've written in the past about how various polls have shown that a surprisingly high percentage of Muslims support violent jihad against the US, even if they themselves don't engage in it:

And btw I have nothing against temporary refugee camps if the clear understanding is that they're going back to their home countries once the war is over. But it never seems to work out that way, once they're in the US, it seems to be hard to get rid of them. Why not temporary refugee camps close to their home countries, which would make a lot more sense. I'm sure you could get the richer countries in the world to contribute to those.

Steven said...

oh yeah I see. I didn't mean to suggest that the present policy is an overall Muslim ban in any case.

As I said, a majority of Syrian refugees are in surrounding Muslim countries and lots are in temporary camps. There are 1.4 million Syrians in Jordan and the population of Jordan is only 6.4 million.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon are great places for them; they won't have far to go to return home when the war is over. And I would have nothing against the richer countries in the world helping to pay of these camps. But how many of the "Syrian refugees" currently in Europe will find their way back to their homeland when the war is over? And how many will decide that they like the cushy welfare system in places like Germany and Austria and Sweden better, and decide to just settle there?

Steven said...

I don't think you need to put them in inverted commas. They are really refugees. (Unless you are talking about those who claim to be Syrian but are not).

You can't benefit from the welfare state if you are an illegal. Its totally up to the state whether to grant them citizenship or not.

Its not as if most of them would be on welfare anyway even if they stayed as citizens.

Your camp idea is fine by me (having 100% of them in middle eastern camps rather than the current 80 or 90%), as long as someone accommodates them in safety. I'm sure they have some neighbors who could do more.