Politics & Policy

Not All Refugees Are Welcome

Sign at an anti-Trump protest at San Francisco International Airport, January 29, 2017. (Reuters photo: Kate Munsch)
We cannot be responsible hosts when our immigration and entrance system is in shambles.

For years, left-wingers would contest my use of the term “open borders lobby” because, they sternly rebuked me, nooooobody in America seriously believes in open borders.

Whelp.

This weekend, thousands of anti-Trump liberals took to the streets, airports, and college campuses chanting “all are welcome” and shrieking “let them in” to protest White House executive orders enforcing our borders. In case their position wasn’t clear enough, the mobs bellowed:

“No borders, no nations, f*** deportations!”

“No walls, no borders, f*** executive orders!”

Militant mayors in Seattle, Denver, and New York City re-declared themselves open-borders sanctuaries — or as I call them, outlaw cities. All of California will now consider declaring itself a “sanctuary state.” Radical progressive companies vowed to hire 10,000 refugees (Starbucks), provide free housing to refugees (Airbnb), and subsidize left-wing legal efforts to fight President Trump’s refugee moratorium and enhanced visa-holder vetting (Lyft).

Reasonable people can argue about the details and implementation of Trump’s policies. But the John Lennon–addled “Imagine there’s no country” crowd is post-reason. Their treacle is treacherous.

No, nitwits, not all refugees are welcome here.

Muslim extremist refugees seeking to wage jihad on our soil and kill all infidels are not welcome here.

Anti-American refugees seeking to transform our society and culture into a Balkanized hell are not welcome here.

Misogynist refugees who treat their (multiple) wives as second-class citizens and subjugate their daughters (who are vulnerable to “honor killings” for the slightest transgressions) are not welcome here.

Jobless refugees seeking to soak up our tax dollars while griping about our lack of generosity are not welcome here.

In 2014, New England mayors from both parties pleaded with the Obama administration to enact a refugee resettlement freeze as the flood of unassimilated newcomers strained their schools and municipal resources. “I have enough urban issues to deal with. Enough is enough,” Springfield, Massachusetts mayor Domenic Sarno, a Democrat, declared at the time. “You can’t keep concentrating poverty on top of poverty.”

President Trump understands what the Pollyanna protesters of his immigration-enforcement reforms simply cannot or will not comprehend: America needs a break.

We cannot be responsible hosts when our immigration and entrance system is in shambles. Homeland security officials and inspectors general have warned for decades that our consular offices are filled with corrupt and incompetent clerks; our computer systems are outdated; criminal background checks have been abandoned wholesale; the deportation and removal apparatus has been sabotaged by pro-illegal immigration ideologues; and our southern border is overrun by drug cartel violence, human trafficking, and misery.

We already grant 1 million legal permanent residencies to people from around the world every year. That’s expected to increase to 10.5 million green cards by 2025. Add in between 11 million and 30 million aliens here illegally, along with an estimated annual influx of 70,000 asylees; 500,000 foreign students; nearly 700,000 total foreign guest workers (skilled and unskilled, plus their spouses, many of whom are allowed to work here as well); plus more than 350,000 foreign high-school and university students, researchers, physicians, and summer work travelers on J-1 exchange visitor visas; 66,000 visas for nonagricultural temporary foreign workers; and 117,000 slots for seasonal agricultural workers.

Section 7 of President Trump’s executive order calls for full construction of the long-delayed biometric entry-exit tracking system — which Congress and both parties have promised to do since the 1990s, but have failed to complete since the 9/11 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States recommended it 13 years ago. The tourism industry, foreign governments, the ACLU, universities, and the immigration lawyers’ lobby have all conspired to prevent this meaningful tracking system from coming online. An estimated 40 percent of all aliens here illegally are visa overstayers.

It is not “fascist,” “racist,” or “xenophobic” to close our front door to tens of thousands more while we get our own house in order. It is self-preservationist.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

ABC Chief Political Analyst: GOP Rep. Stefanik a ‘Perfect Example’ of the Failures of Electing Someone ‘Because They Are a Woman’

Matthew Dowd, chief political analyst for ABC News, suggested that Representative Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) was elected due to her gender after taking issue with Stefanik's line of questioning during the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday. “Elise Stefanik is a perfect example of why just electing ... Read More
White House

Trump vs. the ‘Policy Community’

When it comes to Russia, I am with what Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman calls the American “policy community.” Vindman, of course, is one of the House Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses. His haughtiness in proclaiming the policy community and his membership in it grates, throughout his 340-page ... Read More
Law & the Courts

DACA’s Day in Court

When President Obama unilaterally changed immigration policy after repeatedly and correctly insisting that he lacked the constitutional power to do it, he said that congressional inaction had forced his hand. In the case of his first major unilateral move — “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,” which ... Read More
White House

Impeachment and the Broken Truce

The contradiction at the center of American politics in Anno Domini 2019 is this: The ruling class does not rule. The impeachment dog-and-pony show in Washington this week is not about how Donald Trump has comported himself as president (grotesquely) any more than early convulsions were about refreshed ... Read More
Books

A Preposterous Review

A   Georgetown University professor named Charles King has reviewed my new book The Case for Nationalism for Foreign Affairs, and his review is a train wreck. It is worth dwelling on, not only because the review contains most of the lines of attack against my book, but because it is extraordinarily shoddy and ... Read More