Connect with us

Opinion

Democrats want open borders but won’t say so

Published

on

Democrats want open borders but won't say so

There is a crisis at our southern border, whether Team Biden will admit it or not. Actually, that’s precisely the problem: Democrats won’t admit a lot of things when it comes to immigration. 

Last month, more than 170,000 would-be migrants crossed the border — the highest level in 15 years. This isn’t a coincidence. President Biden’s irresponsible rhetoric has led directly to this surge. 

For years, Democrats painted then-President Donald Trump as cruel to migrants. Biden’s campaign site promised he would “welcome immigrants in our communities” and “reassert America’s commitment to asylum-seekers and refugees.” Message received: Millions of desperate people in Latin America, and the cartels and trafficking networks that profit off their misery, are ready to cash in those promises.

In practice, the Bidenites’ compassion takes the form of thousands of children stacked atop each other in filthy cages. Social distancing isn’t even attempted. It’s a full-on emergency, while the president, his party and his blue-check media allies studiously look the other way. 

Have you noticed? All your friends who took to Facebook to decry Trump’s “concentration camps” are oddly silent now.

The real problem is that Democrats want open borders but refuse to admit it. Open borders, where we fling the gates wide to anyone who wants to enter, are extremely unpopular. They’re also untenable: We simply can’t take in everyone who wants to come. 

This isn’t some right-wing ­position. In 2019, Sen. Bernie Sanders said, “If you open the borders, my God, there’s a lot of poverty in this world, and you’re going to have people from all over the world.” 

Once the party of the American working class, whose earners can’t afford limitless low-wage competition, Democrats have now embraced the vision of a world without frontiers. But they can’t quite say so. And out of this contradiction comes ­today’s messy policy: Dems encourage people to go around our legal immigration process, anyone who objects is branded racist — and yet the left refuses to admit what it really wants.

Kids end up in our holding facilities because we have led desperate people to believe it’s OK to send their unaccompanied children to our country in search of a better life. Once they get here, we have no idea what to do with them. 

There is no easy answer once an unaccompanied child gets here: Do we just set her loose on our streets, at the mercy of criminals? Do we find some distant relative, if she is lucky enough to have one? How can we be sure we aren’t handing her over for abuse? 

Meanwhile, Democrats in New York are working on the “Excluded Worker Fund” to provide unemployment funds to illegal immigrants. Teachers in San Diego, who have refused to go back to teaching Californian kids in person, are traveling to border holding facilities to teach the arriving kids instead. Are we welcoming those who broke the law to get here — or not? Why do we keep sending the message that they should come, and it will be OK?

Americans aren’t heartless. They just don’t like being lied to. It’s maddening to see an open-border policy enacted without anyone admitting the truth or holding a real debate. Politicians who want open borders have to say so and let their constituents decide whether that’s what they want, too. 

I came to the United States as a refugee from the Soviet Union when I was a small child. I understand hopelessness, and, as a mother, I appreciate the yearning to improve your children’s lot in life. I also know that America remains a beacon of freedom and possibility — notwithstanding the poisonous race-theory propaganda spread by the same leftists who want to admit millions of brown people to our (supposedly) hellishly racist nation. 

But my family didn’t hop on a flight to JFK and hope for the best. We were granted permission to wait in Italy, where we applied for entry into the United States. We stayed there for three months until we were approved. Some families stayed far longer. Some didn’t get permission from the United States and ended up in Australia, ­Canada or Israel. There was a process, and we followed it. 

We need to have a process again, and if we care about the children in cages on the border, we have to discourage their parents from sending them. None of this can happen, however, unless Democrats come clean about what they really want.

 Twitter: @Karol

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Opinion

Biden finally saw the folly of our Afghan adventure, but Trump got it first

Published

on

Biden finally saw the folly of our Afghan adventure, but Trump got it first

Nearly two decades, $2 trillion and more than 2,300 US casualties later, President Joe Biden has announced that it is time to withdraw our forces from Afghanistan.

Biden is absolutely right. As we approach the 20th anniversary of 9/11 and the 10th anniversary of Osama bin Laden’s killing, we need to accept the fact that we accomplished our only real objective in the region long ago: eliminating the terrorist mastermind responsible for the murder of thousands of Americans.

There was never any other reason to be there. Killing Osama bin Laden was an appropriate response to heinous attacks on American soil, and it is unfortunate that it took us a decade to find him hiding out in neighboring Pakistan. But a decades-long attempt to bring democracy to a country that has never known anything but brief intervals of peace amid thousands of years without a centralized government? This was mad folly, and no one should be surprised that the authorities in Kabul have accepted the reality of sharing power with the Taliban.

We should, too.

The saddest thing about our “forever war,” to use a phrase Biden has appropriated from his predecessor, is that its futility was totally predictable. I hate to be one of those young fogies who laments the decline of reading, but sometimes I wish people in charge would just open an encyclopedia for once. Here is what it says in my dusty old set of the Encyclopædia Britannica, published in 1911:

“The Afghans, inured to bloodshed from childhood, are familiar with death and audacious in attack but easily discouraged by failure; excessively turbulent and unsubmissive to law or discipline; apparently frank and affable in manner, especially when they hope to gain some object, but capable of the grossest brutality when that hope ceases.”

Does this sound like the start of a modern fairy tale about the triumph of liberal democracy and brotherly love in a despotic wasteland? Did anyone really think that democracy hadn’t arrived in Afghanistan before 2001 because no one had ever thought of trying it before and that its people would abandon centuries of habits to play along with our pet project? Let’s keep reading:

“Among themselves the Afghans are quarrelsome, intriguing and distrustful; estrangements and affrays are of constant occurrence; the traveller conceals and misrepresents the time and direction of his journey. The Afghan is by breed and nature a bird of prey.”

These are hard words, ones that would never appear in a modern reference book. But they are full of genuine wisdom, the fruit of decades of British experience in Afghanistan, which even the Empire upon which the sun never set could not subdue. The Russians couldn’t do it, either, which was why the United States was happy to watch the crumbling Soviet Union waste what was left of its military might there in the 1980s. Why did we think we would fare any better?

I am old enough to remember when what Biden is attempting now was unserious at best and at worst criminal, a return to the wickedness of Charles Lindbergh and the anti-World War II “America First” movement. But lots of things (elite belief in the efficacy of coronavirus vaccines, for example) have changed since the last administration. Maybe if former President Donald Trump had campaigned on staying in Afghanistan for all eternity, he would have been impeached for not getting every last American home by Thanksgiving 2017.

The truth is, though, that even Biden isn’t going to have an easy time getting us out of Afghanistan. Like both of his predecessors, he is about to discover that the Pentagon is used to getting whatever it wants and that the US foreign-policy establishment has decades worth of spurious justifications for keeping American troops in the region indefinitely. While it would be nice to think that the president has enough of a mandate to push through a withdrawal, there are good reasons to remain dubious.

In his speech announcing the move on Wednesday, Biden said that all 2,500 US troops will be home by Sept. 11. This is a fitting date.

But I will believe it when I see it.

Matthew Walther is editor of The Lamp magazine.

Twitter: @MatthewWalther

Continue Reading

Opinion

NYC needs a crime-fighting mayor again — not one out to appease the defunders

Published

on

NYC needs a crime-fighting mayor again — not one out to appease the defunders

“As you look down the road, as far as crime-reduction in New York City, it’s a very bleak picture,” ex-NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly recently told radio host John Catsimatidis. “There’s no light at the end of the tunnel, as far as I can see.”

That was one bleak assessment by the city’s former top cop. Kelly lamented that none of the leading mayoral candidates has shown an interest in cracking down on crime.

Case in point: Mayoral candidate Andrew Yang was heckled and called “pro-cop” by demonstrators during a bike ride protesting the police-involved shooting death of Daunte Wright on Tuesday night.

Apparently, the anti-cop protesters took offense at Yang’s mild call for more funding for the NYPD’s Asian Hate Crimes Task Force amid a spate of violent attacks. But Yang’s remarks are in-sync with most New Yorkers, who want police follow-up to both solve crimes and prevent future ones — with the perps arrested, tried and imprisoned.

But speaking common sense out loud will get candidates heckled, shamed and run out of events, as the radicals did to Yang.

The bullies have most of the Democratic mayoral wannabes embracing the “Defund the police” nonsense. Progressive favorite Maya Wiley would cut the headcount at 1 Police Plaza and city jails and use the savings to fund one-stop community centers and so on.

Establishment Democrat Scott Stringer strives to appease the radicals by taking various responsibilities (and funding) from the NYPD and giving the Civilian Complaint Review Board final say over cop discipline — kneecapping the department’s commissioner.

Eric Adams, a retired police captain, vows to . . . name the first woman police commissioner. He’s anti-“defund” but promises to find $1 billion in “savings” in the NYPD budget. Another dodge: Rather than disbanding the NYPD’s anti-crime unit, he says he’d have turned it into an anti-gun unit — which is what it actually was anyway. But Adams would much rather talk about his big plans for . . . wind power.

Yang and Ray McGuire talk about naming a deputy mayor just to bird-dog the department. Yang also wants a civilian, not a career cop, to head the department, while McGuire also vows to find “savings” in the NYPD budget.

Absent is any loud vow to get New York off the path to being an open city for criminals and violent street crazies, any clear recognition that subways, buses and other public spaces won’t become safer on their own.

City Hall needs straight-talking leadership with a laser focus on reducing crime and disorder — someone who’ll face down the radicals who demand police scalps and stand with a public that desperately wants the “good old days” of ever-increasing public safety to return.

Continue Reading

Opinion

The feds’ foolish new J&J delay further feeds false anti-vax fears

Published

on

The feds’ foolish new J&J delay further feeds false anti-vax fears

Just two days after the feds announced the pause on the Johnson & Johnson’s vaccine, vowing it’d only be “a matter of days” as they looked into six cases of blood clots in the 7 million Americans who’ve gotten the jab, they’ve found just two more — and now say it’ll be at least a week to 10 days before they un-pause. This “abundance of caution” has nothing to do with science, only bureaucratic indecision. And it’s downright dangerous as it puts vax programs on hold and feeds anti-vax hysteria.

The issue is a rare blood clot, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, which occurs in about 5 to 15.7 people per million each year. The J&J shot has an even-lower case rate — if it’s actually linked to them. (The first six cases involved women of childbearing age, and birth control heightens the risk of blood clots; one of the two new cases is a man. All eight also suffered low levels of blood platelets, making the clots tough to treat.)

Yet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention held a three-hour emergency meeting Wednesday to assess whether this handful of cases should keep a halt on the vax.

Three bureaucrats — Dr. Anthony Fauci, CDC chief Rochelle Walensky and President Joe Biden’s vaccine czar, David Kessler — testified to Congress Thursday that all three federally authorized vaccines, including J&J’s, are safe and effective. And they urged Americans to get one of them as COVID cases continue to rise.

But the decision to halt the only vaccine that’s given in one dose rather than two and doesn’t need freezer storage is making mass vaccination more difficult. It’s put a hold on New York City’s home-vaccination program for the elderly and disabled, and likely many others across the nation.

And it’s tanking public confidence in the safety of J&J’s vaccine, from 57 percent before the halt to 32 percent after, per a YouGov/Economist survey. And anti-vaxxers are pointing to the pause to fuel their conspiracy theories about all brands of the lifesaving shot.

You’re far likelier to die in a plane accident than get a blood clot from J&J’s jab, yet we still allow air travel. And getting as many people immunized ASAP is vital to beating COVID and saving far more lives. People can make up their own minds about the minuscule J&J risk, and there’s nothing scientific about bureaucrats taking the decision out of their hands — or about politicians letting them do it.

Continue Reading

Trending