Connect with us

Immigration

True vetting is impossible. Should we close the borders altogether?

Published

on

Legal Immigration

Vetting: “make a careful and critical examination of (something).”

Things are very different now than they were just a few decades ago. America, the melting pot of the world, was once able to allow immigration into the country that was unparalleled and practically carefree. People wanted to come here for opportunity, freedom, and to escape whatever conditions they were in before. It was through this positive immigration and appropriate integration that some of our greatest strides were made as a nation.

Today, there are people who are not here for the opportunity. They despise our freedom. Rather than escaping the conditions they were in before, they want to impose the same conditions on America.

We are now in the era when vetting is absolutely necessary. The question that needs to be answered is whether or not true vetting can be accomplished. Unfortunately, it cannot be.

What about “extreme vetting”?

There are two misunderstandings being promulgated for different reasons by both political sides. On one hand, we have the Republicans talking about “extreme vetting” in a way that’s supposed to make us feel like everyone entering the nation has to go through intense psychological tests and are forced to wear tracking anklets at all times or a DHS team will swarm upon them. The Democrats want to paint “extreme vetting” as a racist roadblock that keeps the next Indra Nooyi or Shahid Khan out of the country so Caucasian males can reign supreme in the American patriarchy.

Yesterday’s Manhattan terrorist attack was perpetrated by a man, Sayfullo Saipov, who is a legal permanent resident of the United States. He came here in 2010 from Uzbekistan through the Diversity Immigrant Visa program. 50,000 people annually come from countries with low rates of immigration into the United States. They are selected via “lottery.”

Some, including the President, are calling for the program to be replaced by a merit-based system. Others are calling for it to be scrapped altogether. Neither solution addresses the bigger problem with our legal immigration system. It’s not about who comes in, how they’re selected, or their nation of origin. These elements can affect the likelihood that someone entering the country will be peaceful and productive members of American society, but they aren’t guarantees. Uzbekistan is conspicuously not on the President’s travel ban list.

Even if we’re willing to dramatically slow all forms of legal immigration and pay the tremendous cost to comprehensively vet every person attempting to come to America, we wouldn’t be able to stop all negative elements from entering. Some who pass any form of vetting will become criminals. Some will hate America. Some will become terrorists.

Do we close the borders completely?

This can actually be an initially appealing concept for those of us who are worried about terrorism or other negatives associated with legal immigration. Here’s the problem. If anyone attempted to put an end to all legal immigration, they’d be pushed out of DC faster than Harvey Weinsten was pushed out of Hollywood.

Let’s say support grew and it became feasible to call for closing the borders altogether. After all, there’s nothing that requires us as a sovereign nation to allow anyone into the country if we so choose. Could we really shut the doors completely? Yes. Shortly thereafter, the United States would crumble.

Between the intense opposition to such a move internally and the international outcry that would isolate us from the rest of the world, our entire financial and social systems would collapse rapidly. Riots would become regularities. International trade would come to a screeching halt starting a domino effect on the economy that could not be stopped until there was complete and utter chaos. America would become a third-world country in a matter of months.

Beyond concerns over the destruction that would ensue if we closed the borders completely, there’s another factor. Most legal immigrants integrate and become productive members of society. As a legal immigrant myself, I thought it necessary to point this fact out.

What then?

If there’s no way to truly vet those who enter the nation in a way that prevents attacks such as the one in New York City and there’s no way to stop immigration altogether without destroying the nation, what can be done?

I’ve read dozens of recommendations on fixing the legal immigration system. Most offer solutions that are broken down in a paragraph or two. All have major flaws that are conspicuously ignored. This brought me to the conclusion that we’re asking the wrong questions.

As I mentioned before, I’m a legal immigrant. Saying that doesn’t paint the full picture of how I became so earnestly patriotic. You see, this is all I’ve ever known. My father was in the Air Force and met my mother in the Philippines. They brought me here when I was 4-months-old, so unlike the majority of legal immigrants, I had no preexisting culture embed in me to compete with living as an American. I’ve only known what it’s like to be an American. I don’t speak Tagalog. I’ve never left the country. That’s not to say I abandoned my heritage completely, but I was never exposed to it any more than an average American who picks up a 5-pack of lumpia at a Filipino fast food joint.

Most of my family on my mother’s side now live in America. My uncle served in the U.S. Navy. One cousin is an engineer for the government. Another is a nurse. They all speak English very well, have barbecues on the weekends, and were rabid football fans until the Chargers left San Diego. None of them could be terrorists. None of them could be criminals. All of them contribute as productive tax-paying Americans.

What makes my family different from people like Sayfullo Saipov? They want to be here to experience the American dream and have always been willing to do what it takes to succeed.

In other words, my family appreciates the opportunity, freedom, and living conditions available to us in America. We need all legal immigrants to feel the same way.

Immigration as a privilege and a responsibility

As radical ideas go, this may be one of the strangest. That’s the situation we’re in, though; we can’t stop the flow of negative elements into the nation without cutting it off completely which would destroy America even faster than the negative elements. Radical ideas may be all we have left.

Currently, immigrants and their U.S.-born children number nearly 90 million. That’s over a quarter of the population. Anyone who says we haven’t done our part as a nation hasn’t looked at these numbers.

To make immigration a privilege, we have to limit it dramatically.

To make it a responsibility, we have to set criteria for proper integration.

It’s time to make “extreme vetting” a secondary notion. That’s not to say we don’t need to vet immigrants. We cannot rely on vetting alone. It can’t be done, not with the numbers that are currently coming in. America does not have a responsibility to the world to take in so many immigrants every year. 50,000 are part of the diversity program annually. How about we make that 5,000. Random lottery? How about we go with “merit-based,” though not exactly what President Trump describes.

What merits should be considered? The standard ones should definitely apply, such as an ability to support oneself and one’s family without government assistance. On the other hand, I’m less interested in bringing over the “best people” as the President often discusses. He envisions engineers, scientists, and accountants. In reality we need them to be from a wide spectrum of vocations. Why? Because we cannot allow any industries to take on an infusion of immigrant talent that prevents Americans from getting those jobs. Full-spectrum immigration means the responsible laborer is just as important as the responsible chemist. As long as they can provide for themselves and pay taxes, they cover the first merit.

The second merit is a controversial one for some reason. They need to be able to speak English. I’m not going to argue this point. Either you get it or you don’t.

The third merit is even more controversial. There can’t be a religious test, but there can be a Constitution-alignment test. There are certain ideologies within religions such as sharia law that run contrary to the Constitution. We shouldn’t prevent Muslims from immigrating, but we can prevent those who embrace sharia law because it opposes the Constitution. Every immigrant should know the Constitution, swear to defend it, and be willing to abide by all of our laws.

Lastly, there should be love for America. It’s easy to fake, impossible to test, and patriotically corny, but it’s also a necessity. Those who want to take advantage of what America has to offer need to also be willing to embrace the nation they’ve chosen as their new home. That doesn’t mean abandoning culture, but they have to be willing to embrace ours simultaneously. In other words, they need to be willing to assimilate rather than hoping to assimilate us.

If we dramatically reduce the number of immigrants and impose stricter criteria for them to enter, it’s more precious. It’s a privilege. It can be made into a responsibility. Today, the immigration system cheapens the importance of becoming an American. This has to change.

Final Thoughts

Reduce legal immigration. Improve vetting. Set standards by which immigrants are coming for opportunity, freedom, and to contribute. We cannot keep every potential criminal or terrorist from entering the country, but we can do our best to limit the potential. If we are going to continue as a thriving nation, this is absolutely essential.

Christian, husband, father. EIC, NOQ Report. Co-Founder, the Federalist Party. Just a normal guy who will no longer sit around while the country heads in the wrong direction.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

The Progressives and the Race Card

Published

on

The “race card” has been the left’s longtime weapon against conservatives. It must stop now, or America will be lost forever. Just as with other fallen nations and empires of ancient past.

For many years the left has accused the Republican party, conservatives and moreover, Bible-believing Christians of being racist and wanting to keep America purely Anglo white. Just recently Univision’s equivalent to Walter Cronkite, Jorge Ramos; just made a reviling statement during his appearance on CNN only proving the conservative right about the news media bias in favor of the Democratic Party and their agenda of supporting chain migration.

“They are not proposing immigration reform, they are proposing immigration revenge,” Ramos said. “Because they not only want to help the DACA students but also they want to have a wall, they want more border security, they want to end the so-called chain migration which is family reunification and then the visa lottery.”

However, as the truth gets out about the real history of the American progressives especially those involved in the Democrat party, the true racists proved to be the Democrats themselves. Before Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party which won Dinesh D’Souza four Golden Razzies (which he accepted with honors), the respected Steven Spielberg stayed true to history and showed the open display of racism and the advocacy of slavery that the Democrat party was supporting back in the days of Abraham Lincoln in his namesake 2012 film that Spielberg produced and directed.

In spite of these two films, the race card has been the best weapon that the Democrat progressive leftist to use against people who want to see a cap put on this chain immigration crisis in America. Those who want that cap are so afraid to be seen as bigots and people that hate blacks, Asians, Latinos, etc, etc. If we are going to preserve America and its founding principles we can no longer play defense on this issue. We must play offense, and the above movies I mentioned are a good start to use against the Democrat pravda machine.

I am convinced more than ever that the white progressives are not suffering from “white liberal guilt” nor do they really want to pay penance for own past sins nor the sins of what their movement and political party (the Democrats) has done in the past.

No, they show their true colors when they accuse us of doing what they have done and/or what the Democrats and other progressives of the past have done. History has shown to all of us that they are the racists, xenophobes or what other names they can throw at us hoping that it sticks. The biggest of this bunch at least in the 20th century are Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Wilson abandoned Biblical truth in favor of Darwinism and ushered that into Princeton University when he became president of that respected educational institution. LBJ was always a racist but like smoking the honeybees he knew to give the African-Americans enough money from the taxpayers to keep them quiet and have them vote Democrat for the next 200 years or so when he lost the civil rights fight in the 1960’s. Both were big-time racists and hated the negro citizen with a passion. Lest we forget that Wilson screened the pro-Ku Klux Klan movie “The Birth of a Nation” at the White House when he was POTUS.

As Christians we need to continue to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the one and true single race…that being the “Human Race.”

God wants all humans to be saved by his son Jesus regardless of skin color or heritage (Mark 16:15). Yeshua did not just die for the Jews (his own people) and the white gentiles. He died for the black, the yellow, the red, the brown etc. etc. The Gospel is the one and only true melting pot while America’s version is a secondary one but based on the principles of the first one. The progressive’s gospel of diversity celebration and co-existence only creates a ‘salad bowl’ which only leads to more division among the citizenry and power-hungry tyrants ready to take control. That control is why they are currying favor among the minorities, and that will not end well for them or any of us who is not a politician or bureaucrat.


This piece was originally published in The Christian Post

Continue Reading

Immigration

Prison Work Camp USA?: Sen. Menendez Now Calls Illegals “Undocumented Americans”

Published

on

The latest assault on the concept of American citizenship: calling illegal immigrants “undocumented Americans.”

That’s the fresh term used Wednesday by incumbent Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey on the floor of the United States Senate in a debate about the status of the so-called “Dreamers,” illegal immigrants brought over as minors.

Menendez faces reelection this fall in a strong (Hillary beat Trump by 13 points) Democratic state: New Jersey. But he recently went through criminal trial on federal corruption charges that ended in a hung jury last fall, and the Justice Department recently decided not to retry him.

Takeaway

The emotional plea of the purportedly-victimized Dreamers obscures many highly-alarming truths.

First, as to their claim to be victims: The Dreamers are victims.

They are victims of their own lawbreaking parents.

And when you hear the taunts of “family values” from Democrats-cum-Marxists, ask what type of family values are in evidence from illegals being deported, who would leave their children behind?

Second, calling any illegal an American is to degrade the term, degrade the concept of citizenship and degrade existing Americans. Why stop at the border? Why not argue that everyone on the planet is an American — and by extension, that Americans’ “exceptionalism” compels us to be “our brothers’ keeper” with all seven billion people on the planet?

Who gets to set American immigration policy? Is it Americans? Or the rest of the world?

And let’s ask the common sense but hardly ever articulated questions that need to be asked.

If Americans must admit the entire world, no questions asked, but cannot enjoy the reciprocal “right to flee” to a distant land where individual rights and liberties will still be respected, then hasn’t America become just one large prison camp, existing for Americans to work, increasingly to suffer the burden of supporting the rest of the planet who travel here at their leisure and whim and leave their refuse here when they leave?

At that point, are we really all that different from the notorious prison camps in North Korea?

Continue Reading

Immigration

Tom Cotton lacks political will to oppose Trump’s amnesty and citizenship for illegals

Published

on

Before he was elected US Senator of Arkansas, Tom Cotton served one term (2012-2014) in the US House representing the 4th congressional district of The Natural State. As a rising star in the GOP and a military veteran who served in Afghanistan, Cotton became only the second Republican since Reconstruction to represent the 4th district, thanks to the support of both the TEA Party and the GOP establishment—support that he continued to receive in his 2014 campaign for the US Senate.

One of the reasons Cotton received conservative support—I supported him—was due to his positions on a host of issued important to conservatives. One such issue, which is the topic of the week in Washington, was immigration, specifically, what America should do with illegal aliens already in the country.

“We cannot afford to grant illegal aliens amnesty or a so-called ‘earned pathway to citizenship.’ Amnesty would cost billions of dollars that our government cannot afford.

“Also, amnesty would attract millions of new illegal aliens just as the 1986 amnesty did, by advertising to the world that America lacks the political will to enforce its borders.”

SOURCE: 2012 House campaign website, CottonforCongress. com, “Issues,” November 6, 2012

Sounds great, doesn’t it? Unfortunately, 2012 was an election year and in a non-election year, Cotton’s loyalties are the same as every other Republicrat and Trumplican in Washington to the party establishment.

In an interview yesterday with Trump’s morning intel team—a.k.a. FOX and Friends—Cotton issued a strong endorsement of Trump’s plan to grant amnesty and citizenship to 1.8 illegals. Calling it a “popular proposal” supported by “2/3 of the American people,” Cotton admitted that the plan would cause an increase in illegal immigration, a consequence he once believed was reason enough not to support such a plan.

In what has become an increasingly common theme within the GOP, Tom Cotton is another example of how Republicans make whatever conservative-sounding promise they need to make in election years in the interest of political self-preservation but then toss those promises aside when the party machine comes calling.

Using his own words, Tom Cotton’s support of Trump’s DACA displays a “lack of political will” to do what’s right for America—a disappointing reality coming from a war hero.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

 

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.