Biden to Illegals: Stop, or We’ll Give You More Money!
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding at the heart our current immigration debate. We keep hearing about needing an “orderly process” to get the migrants into our country, “building lawful pathways,” and helping the migrants bypass coyotes.
The two missing points are:
1) They have no right to come to our country; and
2) We don’t want them here.
Amid the hectoring from the mainstream media, it can be hard to remember, but we are a country, not a battered women’s shelter. We have a right to decide who moves here, becomes our fellow citizen and shapes the kind of country we are.
And we’re getting a little sick of reading headlines like these:
“What Americans’ declining height has to say about the economy” — PBS
“Why are Americans getting dumber?” — UnHerd
“The U.S. economy is in its fourth decade of rising inequality” — Equitable Growth
“Why are Americans’ lives getting shorter?” — The Economist
Which is why most Americans think the ideal number of immigrants is about zero.
But the media act as if every desperate, poverty-stricken foreigner has a God-given right to come here. No, they don’t. (Again, “country,” not “battered women’s shelter.”)
Liberals expect us to be moved by the horrible conditions they’re fleeing. Thus, The New York Times tells us: “Many migrants are coming from places like Venezuela, which was suffering one of the worst economic crises in the world before the pandemic.”
The Times acts as if “the economy” is some sort of supernatural force raining down on hapless innocents, perhaps brought on by witchcraft — or maybe Martian death rays! No, an economy is created by people. In dinosaur times, for example, there was no “economy” because there were no humans.
Why is it a good idea to bring in people with a track record of creating economic catastrophes?
It’s not as if they’re coming from places where it’s pitch-black in December and the average temperature is freezing — like Finland. Oh no, they’re coming from some of the most beautiful, tropical, resource-heavy nations on the globe.
Let’s take a few of the migrants’ home countries:
— Venezuela has 1,700 miles of coastline and larger proven oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, a medieval society that refuses the labor contributions of half the population (women). Yet Venezuela is completely destitute, and its people can’t find medicine or toilet paper.
— Guatemala has black sand beaches, surfing beaches and abundant natural resources, including uranium, sand and gravel, nickel, limestone, petroleum, coal, gold, silver, copper, iron ore and cobalt.
— Nicaragua has beachfront on both the Pacific and Atlantic oceans, freshwater lakes and wildly fertile soil enriched by volcanic ash.
— Cuba has beaches, rolling plains and the Sierra Maestra mountains. The average temperature in January is 70 degrees, and its resources include nickel, cobalt, petroleum, sugar, tobacco, fish, citrus fruits and coffee.
— Colombia has white sand beaches, is a major petroleum nation, and is bursting with emeralds, gold, platinum and silver.
How do you screw that up?
But for some reason, now that they have screwed it up, it becomes our job to take them all in.
Thus, the Times cites the brilliant plan of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas (surely, we can trust a guy named “Alejandro” to put the U.S.’s interests first): “The Biden administration’s new policy, combining the carrot of new legal pathways with the stick of more punitive measures for unlawful crossings, was working, Mr. Mayorkas said in television interviews.”
Why does the administration imagine it has to negotiate with illegal immigrants? We’re not obliged to negotiate with foreigners who have no right to make any demands on us — and, by the way, who have no negotiating power.
Here are some examples of possible negotiating partners: terrorists, who offer not to kill hostages; North Koreans, who offer not to drop a nuclear bomb; Arab countries, who offer to sell us oil and to leave Israel alone.
What on Earth are foreigners on our border offering?
The situation is more like a complete stranger walking up to you on the street and demanding you give him $5,000.
Biden: OK, I’ll give you $6,000 (carrot), but I warn you, this is the last time! (stick).
He’s a genius!
The Times also reports that “migrants now must prove that they were first denied asylum in a country they passed through en route to the United States.” Are you grasping this? That’s how you get in — not a reason for us to laugh in your face.
We’re crowd-sourcing asylum claims — but then doing the opposite of what the crowd-sourced information tells us. Fantastic — everyone else has looked at your claims of persecution and called B.S. on them. Please, come right in!
But the Times blithers on: “Economic, political and environmental forces driving people to the United States are unlikely to subside in the coming months …”
I’ve got news for you, New York Times: Those “forces” are never going to subside. Have they ever subsided? In 200 years, has any Latin American country been crushing it?
Nope! Any brief periods of peace and prosperity were immediately replaced by a military junta and/or one-party rule. As Paul Johnson describes the history of the region in the 20th century: “In the years 1920–66, for instance, there were eighty successful military coups in eighteen Latin-American countries, Ecuador and Bolivia leading with nine each, Paraguay and Argentina following with seven each.”
Completely by accident, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes described the only way this will ever end. (Your guess is as good as his about what the hell he was actually trying to say.)
Hayes: “I mean — if you’re thinking about the scales, right? On one side of the scale it’s like the current situation in Venezuela, which is quite dire, as it is in Cuba, right? Like what would we do to even the scales, to get to a point where what we were doing produced an equal amount of desperation?”
Yes, exactly. That’s how it ends, when we “even the scales” by wrecking our own country so that we’re as miserable as they are. Then, finally, there will be no reason for anyone to ever move from one country to another, because we’ll all be living in hellholes.
COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER
This was excellent. Why are these questions never asked of the powers that be:
WHY do we have this obligation to take in the world’s huddled masses?
Why are their countries, despite being resource-rich, catastrophes?
In exactly what feature of our country does the difference-making attribute lay?
The US government could kill two birds with one stone, i.e., throttle the desperate exodus of Venezolanos and all but eliminate their trek to the US border by simply lifting the illegal embargo placed on that country.
They could do the same with Cuba.
Let Venezuela trade its oil freely and let them deal with their problems by themselves. It is none of our business. Our only business is threefold: stopping the flow of illegal entries; (2) tightening the admission criteria of legal immigration to suit the needs of the US, not the needs of the “wretched” for which Emma Goldman professed hypocritical concern; (3) start deporting the illegals already in, whose deportation to the country of origin or of choice would cost less than what is and will be spent on them.
Nicaragua is no longer one of the SA countries sending tsunamis of illegals to the US. Their new president— Bukele— whom the US is busy reviling as a “far-right authoritarian,” has done a major clean up managing to transform his country from a hellhole with the highest criminality in the Western hemisphere, a model of law and order. Reduced the percentage of homicides by 95%! He built a huge prison and put away 65,000 drug traffickers, gang members and assorted criminals to the indignant howls of the US “progressives” on the “human rights” refrain. Follow the MSM to see him reviled for rejecting all of the “progressive” policies the US is trying to export, just as they reviled Carlson for interviewing him with admiration.
Missed the Tucker Carlson interview with President Nayib Bukele. So thanks. And thanks to Ann Coulter, also as sharp as a tack, filling a very important niche, which some don’t seen to get.