2005 April 17 Sunday
US Federal Court Makes Tens Of Millions Eligible For Immigration Asylum

Marcus Epstein reports that a recent federal court ruling could make tens of millions of women eligible for immigration amnesty in the United States.

On March 2, the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Mohammed v. Gonzales [PDF] that women from countries which allow female circumcision are eligible for asylum in the United States.

This ruling has many significant ramifications for American immigration policy. The first is the sheer number of people who could become potential asylum seekers in this country.

It is foolish take our standards for what is right and wrong and basically state that for any country that violates our standards its population should be able to emigrate to the United States. There are 20 times more people outside of the United States than inside it. Transportation costs are steadily falling. The more people who are made eligible to come the more who will come. It is as simple as that. We can't be the refuge for billions of people. The current illegal alien population in the United States (which might be as high as 20 million) is already far too large without adding in millions of asylum seekers.

According to Amnesty International, more than 100 million women have been subjected to female genital mutilation. Within the same societies, there are millions more who have not yet endured the practice.

All of them are now eligible for asylum.

If much of the world has governments and customs that are so terrible and if we should feel morally obliged to help the denizens of these places who are opposed to these laws and customs then there are other options for how to respond. Britain and some European countries have been exploring ways to safeguard refugees by allowing them to move to other Third World countries where they can escape whatever persecution they claim to be fleeing. Some countries can be induced to accept these refugees in exchange for aid.

Another possibility is a limited reintroduction of colonialism. Western countries could take over some forsaken country (there are plenty to choose from - how about Zimbabwe?) and impose colonial rule. Recruit fans of colonialism to administer the place (I would even argue for drafting Max Boot and a few other neoconservatives into service as colonial rulers). Then let refugees from other countries move there and live under the rule of people who will impose Western customs and law.

I don't think such a proposal has a snowball's chance in hell. But by the logic of the asylum supporters there are hundreds of millions stuck living in backwardness and ignorance who need some help. I'd rather they find some way to act out their desire to help those people that does not involve them inflicting the Third World's people onto the populations of the First World.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2005 April 17 01:55 PM  Immigration Culture Clash


Comments
John S Bolton said at April 17, 2005 3:24 PM:

A piece of despotism like this ruling relies on people forgetting that the welfare state exists. It has to be motivated by a depraved passion to destroy civilization, nothing less could explain the wish to replace a society that can make some advances with one that can only reproduce the third world.

Rick Darby said at April 18, 2005 1:57 PM:

I used to think it was just exaggerating to make a point when people used terms like "the hate-America left," but rulings like this incline me to wonder if they aren't the literal truth. The be-robed Caesars in the federal appeals courts must actually want to destroy our civil society by making it responsible for righting every wrong on the face of the earth -- and not just by fixing it where it exists (which would be quixotic enough) but by taking in every person who has been victimized or doesn't like it where he is.

If it were put to a vote, of course, any such policy would be crushed. But We the People can no longer be trusted to do the "right" thing, so it must be imposed by our judicial overlords. Vale, republic. Ave, empire.

John S Bolton said at April 18, 2005 2:28 PM:

It is a completely irrational establishment of religion for the federal courts to pretend that children overseas are born, not to their parents, but to the net taxpayers of our country, which is not theirs. There is to be no official determination as to whether they are enemies of ours; but only whether they are to be considered victims of their societies. Being a victim of some foreign society does not establish that they are not victimizing others, much less that they do not have the intention or high likelihood of victimizing the net taxpayers here. On the contrary, it would have to be assumed that those who are illiterate or lacking in knowledge of English sufficient to get positions paying above the median, are intending to go on net public subsidy here. It is aggression on the net taxpayer for officials to wave in those foreigners who will be net public subsidy; which itself demonstrates that they are hostiles. If there were screening for health problems like TB, with which 1/3 of these could be expected to be infected, it is admitted that there is no right for them to immigrate, just because their society victimizes them. Officials owe loyalty to the net taxpayers here who would be victimized in almost every case of immigration of those selected for victim status.

John S Bolton said at April 18, 2005 2:51 PM:

(cont.) Officials work for the citizenry; not for refugee agencies' convenience. The racial origin of the refugees from such sexual victimization would make them eligible for affirmative action quotas, and this indicates the malicious intent of the low shysters who decided this. The intent has to be to ramp up the racial and ethnic conflicts until we have civil war sufficient to permit dictatorship here. The antimerit feature is also obvious; the courts are here telling us that we need to bring in those selected, not in spite of, but because of their having only victimization to offer. From this , it can be inferred also that the motivation is hatred for human merit, and the desire to inflict further victimization, and in proportion as one is a net taxpayer, or having some success. There would be serious destruction of community of values; commonality of victimization is not a basis for a human society, but only a subhumanized one. With an average IQ in the 70's, such immigrants would be in the bottom percentiles; a ghastly degradation of quality of population, and such as only malice could long for. There is also unspeakable degradation in seeing loss of sexual pleasure as conferring a privilege which permits aggression on those who would have to pay for this orgy of handicap worship. To establish such and such a state religion is morally bestial. The mark of the unprincipled new leftist, Castroite beast is upon this decision.

John S Bolton said at April 18, 2005 3:04 PM:

(cont.) Please notice how they have it set up so as to be in a position to say that anyone who doesn't want to be plundered in this way, is animated by racism. The arbitrarily favored foreign victims would be instant disadvantaged minorities. It is clearly against the majority interest; and official malice seizes upon this with depraved glee. What is the expected outcome of an escalating series of racial provocations, in this context? Are the authors of such tactics to be considered ignorant and uneducated, and specifically with regard to the potential for such conflicts, agitated by these exact means? If not, then it is to be considered deliberate exploitation of such divisions. If the government schools are now certain to keep throwing us these movements, they must die out as publicly supported institutions, not their targets of aggression.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright