There are only two ways of looking at the immigration issue overall.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which still technically sets the terms of federal law, is based on the former assumption: no foreigner has a right to move here, and "We the People" decide if there are specific grounds to admit a limited number of people.
There are varying opinions about how to manage new entries-what the numbers should be, what the categories should be, and so on-but all of those differences of opinion are based on the same assumption: immigration is a privilege, granted by the American people through laws enacted by their elected representatives.
This administration's approach to immigration is based on the opposite view: that everyone in the world has a right to move here if they choose to, and the American people have no right to place limits on immigration, apart from those related to basic safety such as keeping out terrorists, violent criminals, or people with highly contagious, deadly diseases.
Instead, the Biden-Harris approach would be better described as one of "Unlimited immigration": any limits on the level of immigration are taken to be morally indefensible, and circumventing those limits by any means available is considered a moral duty.
The most common pretext for subverting the people's will on wanting limits on immigration is asylum; the chief practical means of achieving unlimited immigration are unlawful releases from detention and unlawful grants of mass, categorical parole.
For nearly four years, she has helped to do the opposite, creating the kind of immigration system no self-governing people should accept.
No comments:
Post a Comment