A Poem Is Not Policy

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

These are beautiful words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.  If this writer were a fan of poetry, it would receive accolades, one supposes.  It expresses a nice thought and who can argue with the sentiments?  Fortunately, a poem is not the basis of any policy, let alone immigration policy.  The poem, as some people (Democrats/the Left/ the weak-kneed Right) believe, basically boils down to this maxim:  Americans get no say on who gets to come to the United States because the poor huddled masses possess civil rights.   Even if the Supreme Court were to discover penumbras and emanations from the poem, it still does not form the basis of an immigration policy.

In 2001, ex-President Bill Clinton commended “the ultimate wisdom of a borderless world.”  Today, nobody except the moronic argues for a borderless world, but it is also true that the Left and some moderates on the Right assume its desirability.  More specifically, they assume that anyone who disagrees or does not share their assumption is deplorable, and probably a racist.

Being able to choose which immigrants to accept and how many of each is central to national sovereignty.  Virtually every country practices selective immigration to some degree.  In Israel, Jews far and wide receive preference.  Japan places a preference on Brazilians who are ethnically Japanese.  During the 1990’s, Germany gave preference to tenth generation Volga Germans- the ancestors of Germans who left the homeland to farm the fields of Central Russia under Catherine the Great.  Spain has a preference for Latin Americans.  Switzerland allows neighborhoods to vote on which immigrants can naturalize.   And the list can go on.

Promiscuous immigration works to the benefit of two groups of people: businessmen and Democrats.  As for the Democrats, today they cry about alleged Russian collusion with the Trump campaign to rig the system and point fingers with their cries of corruption.  But, what is more corrupting than importing ringers to vote for them?  Rigging an election is obviously unethical, so Democrats take preemptive action and assert that any resistance to this promiscuous immigration policy is the epitome of immorality.  The best defense is a good offense.  And the Democratic mind games are working.  Some studies have shown that the pro-immigration side does not necessarily try to win debates, but terrify their opponents into silence.  Another study showed that when a person’s identity is concealed, 60% of Americans support cutting immigration.  When their identities were known by the researchers, that support dropped to 39%.  Unsurprisingly, self-censorship was most obvious in the college-educated.

Which brings me to that infamous “sh*thole” comment.  By all accounts, given the two countries compared in that quote, Trump spoke the truth.  On the UN’s Human Development Index, Haiti ranks 163rd while Norway ranks first.  Trump was denounced for making the statement as if Haiti was some strategic ally.  Considering that Haiti’s capital is one of the world’s largest cities without a working functioning sewage system literally lands them on the list of sh*thole countries.  Of course, what did the Left and the sanctimonious on the Right do?  Trump was immediately accused of racism since the observation, although crudely stated but true, deviated from the accepted wisdom and disagreement with that “wisdom” constitutes discrimination.  Make no mistake: Democrats are for more open borders not out of some ethical or moral reason, but pure demographics and future voters.

Yet, there is a moral dilemma.  It seems unfortunate that many would be forced to return home and face armed conflict, natural disaster or other such strife.  BUT, immigration is an either/or proposition: either you do what is best for Americans, or we do what is best for foreigners.  The United States simply lacks the resources to be a permanent asylum for the downtrodden from every country who feel the need to leave their homeland.

Europe is learning the hard way about promiscuous immigration policies.  They are learning that the influx of Muslim refugees are totally at odds with modern Europe.  Be it the rising crime rates, the sexual assaults or the increase in terrorism, it is a tough lesson to learn.  The United States is not at that point yet, so the bigger question is whether we want to take a similar risk?  Granted, there is a huge difference between the Muslim immigrant in Europe and the illegal immigrant in the United States, but the underlying “morality” that allowed over 2 million Muslims into Europe largely unchecked is the same underlying morality that the Left currently spouts domestically.  European pity blinded them to the unforeseen negative circumstances, just as pity blinds the Left today.

Regarding business, they often tell us the illegal immigrant does the jobs that Americans don’t want to do.  This passage from the New York Times regarding the recent DACA debate says it all:

In Houston, the elimination of protected status would aggravate a labor shortage already delaying repairs after Hurricane Harvey, said Stan Marek, the chief executive of Marek Brothers…At least 29 Salvadorans on his payroll are program recipients.

There is a labor “shortage” only because Marek will not hire native born workers because he knows that these “program recipients” are willing to work for a lower wage thus increasing Mr. Marek’s profit.

According to organized labor and the Chamber of Commerce, if we clamped down on illegal immigration and actually enforced our laws, no lawn would get cut, no roof in America would be repaired and our crops would rot in the field.  It isn’t that Americans will not do these jobs; its that Americans will not do the jobs at the wages the illegal immigrant accepts.

Ironically, the ones making the most noise about allowing promiscuous immigration policies are the same voices raising a ruckus over worker wages.  One can almost guarantee that if the illegal labor pool was magically drained and dried up tomorrow, no one would be proposing $15 minimum wage laws.

Whether we let in more Norwegians or more Haitians is playing the odds.  There are undoubtedly very good, hard-working and law-abiding Haitians and Latin Americans.  And I am sure there are some crappy Norwegians.  But, I would take my chances on the Norwegian, not because they are white but because they come from a country with a working sewage system in Oslo.

Regardless, isn’t it time we help the tired, the poor and the huddle masses of, say, El Paso rather than those of El Salvador?  Are the American citizens of New Mexico less important than the non-citizens of Mexico?  Immigration policy is an either/or proposition.  If we cannot take care of our own, it makes no sense to invite the world to the party based on a poem on a statue in a harbor.