2007 May 28 Monday
Barack Obama Favors Chain Migration

Ziel at Lying Eyes provides evidence that Barack Obama favors an immigration policy that effectively puts extended family loyalty over what is best for America.

On the Senate floor yesterday, Obama condemned the one feature of the proposed immigration bill that actually makes sense: de-emphasizing family ties and using a point system based on skills in selecting who gets to immigrate. The "family reunification" policy is, of course, insane, as there is no benefit to America whatsoever of allowing someone to live in the country merely because a relative is already living here, and any immigration policy that is not based on what is good for America is insane.

Obama wants to place a high value on extended family ties.

"The point system does not reflect how much Americans value the family ties that bind people to their brothers and sisters or to their parents," he said. "How many of our forefathers would have measured up under this point system? How many would have been turned back at Ellis Island?"

Barack Obama has very curious family ties. His Kenyan father was a bigamist and when his father married his white Christian mother from Kansas Barack Sr. was already married to a woman in Kenya (and his father went on to do more bigamy). One wonders whether Senator Obama thinks that reunification should include members of of an extended family from Africa born to a succession of wives.

When Americans think of family they think of the nuclear family first and foremost. We are able to have government which is less corrupt and inefficient than those in places like Iraq and Kenya in large part because each civil servant does not feel obligated to get jobs for every brother and cousin they have.

Obligations to extended family (as seen with the practice of cousin marriage in Muslim countries) come at the expense of obligations to the larger society. Extended family loyalty is the enemy of a modern free society and should be recognized as such.

To appreciate how extended family immigration creates problems see my post Over Half Of Pakistanis In Britain Married To First Cousins Also see Christopher Caldwell's article in the New York Times Magazine entitled Where Every Generation Is First-Generation

Marriage is not just an aspect of the immigration problem in Germany; to a growing extent, it is the immigration problem.

...

This leaves open only one avenue for non-European men and women who want to enter Germany legally: marriage to someone with legal residency in the country. Fortunately for would-be immigrants, young ethnic Turks in Germany have a strong tendency to marry people from the home country. Exact statistics are hard to come by, but it is possible that as many as 50 percent of Turks (a word that in common parlance often includes even those with German citizenship) seek their spouses abroad, according to Schäuble, the interior minister. For most of the past decade, according to the ministry, between 21,000 and 27,000 people a year have successfully applied at German consulates in Turkey to form families in Germany. (Just under two-thirds of the newcomers are women.) That means roughly half a million spouses since the mid-1980s, which in turn means hundreds of thousands of new families in which the children’s first language is as likely to be Turkish as German.

Binational marriage alarms many Germans for two reasons. First, it allows the Turkish community to grow fast at a time when support for immigration is low. The Turkish population in Germany multiplies not once in a life cycle but twice — at childbirth and at marriage. Second, such marriages retard assimilation even for those Turks long established in Germany. You frequently hear stories from schoolteachers about a child of guest workers who was a star pupil three decades ago but whose own children, although born in Germany, struggle to learn German in grade school. After half a century of immigration, every new generation of Turks is still, to a large extent, a first generation.

Extended families and chain immigration of families create parallel societies in which family loyalties trump and replace loyalties to fellow citizens and in which women have little freedom.

Why does all this matter? The US Senate is debating a bill, S.1348, that will provide a legal amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens and also help some of their family members immigrate as well. It is time to speak up against their proposal and tell your elected representatives you oppose massive immigration. Make a call to tell them. Here is the US Senate contact list. Here is the US House of Representatives contact list. Also, check out this combined directory and Senate and House contact numbers that includes both district office numbers and Washington DC office numbers. You can also call the U.S. Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121. Plus, you can call the U.S. House switchboard: 202-225-3121.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2007 May 28 08:27 AM  Immigration Culture Clash


Comments
birch barlow said at May 28, 2007 11:31 AM:

Unfortunately Leftists and politicians in general tend to gain status by distancing themselves from reality as much as possible (believing in the most outlandish and Utopian nonsense is a sign of personal security). This leads to politicians', and especially lefty politicians, to gain in position and status by supporting the most unrealistic, most destructive policies possible. Thus, in many cases, the interests of the United States as a whole and that of politicians are almost diametrically opposed.

purenoiz said at May 28, 2007 9:10 PM:

I really have not heard any politician as of late support Utopian ideals. Every single politicians wants you scared. Politicians are good at getting elected and then passing laws that are either unenforcible (cell phone driving laws) removing power from government agencies that protect our standards of living (FDA and Vioxx and the Army Core of Engineers and our Infrastructure), if you want to blame lefties for your problems , go for it, you live in a bubble of misinformation. You also don't get to be responsible for your "plight". The conservatives have been screwing American's for too long, and getting richer and richer at it. Immigration is not a new problem, illegals or legals are hated because they are different, and hard to talk to, and they depress wages. So why don't we as American's get pissed at the people profiting from immigration? Oh thats right we can't afford fancy shiny sh^t and groceries if we had people being paid decent wages laboring over our consumables. blah blah crime, blah blah whiteness. Politicians have you scared and you keep electing them. Obama is politicking what's new about that?

John S Bolton said at May 29, 2007 1:23 AM:

The politicians pushing for S1348 have got me alarmed as I believe, all patriotic citizens should be alarmed, especially concerning the millions of relatives who would be waved in, regardless of how much this would increase the level of aggression on those to whom loyalty is owed.
Obama is psychologially incapable of being loyal to the American citizen, on the above showing, and that makes him quite unfit to be given such an ultra-high security clearance.
In proportion as an official has relatives who are foreigners, and especially from countries which are not allies of ours,
so also must that official be considered a security risk, for that reason alone.
To have swarms of relatives in a third-world pesthole is most unbefitting a presidential candidate.
A president of the unspeakably malicious UN, might fittingly be so connected to the fast-multiplying squalor of the tropics
today, but not a US one.

Kenelm Digby said at May 29, 2007 4:39 AM:

And the European political class sweats blood day and night to bring Turkey into the EU, which means of course, that Turks would be as free to walk into Berlin as they are as free to walk into Istanbul.

Rob said at May 29, 2007 7:14 AM:

Has anyone pointed out that chain migration puts US immigration policy in the hands of immigrants, not Americans?

Jim said at May 29, 2007 9:25 AM:

anybody checked out Ron Paul for president? you probably would like his voting record.

http://vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=296

D Flinchum said at May 29, 2007 4:22 PM:

"Has anyone pointed out that chain migration puts US immigration policy in the hands of immigrants, not Americans?"

I certainly have - here is my letter to the editor publisked in the NYT:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/05/will-wonders-never-cease-smart-letter.html


birch barlow said at May 29, 2007 5:11 PM:

Yeah I agree that politicians move up in ways other than Utopian nonsense--petty crap like driving with a cell phone, or requiring ID (age 18+) to buy cough medicine. But pontificating in one's beliefs about how wonderful poor immigrants and low IQ people in general are is destructive and stupid, but unfortunately is often a boon for one's political status (Dems: we just need to spend more on education and healthcare, and everything will be great! GOP: cheap exploitable labor is great, we just need more education standards and tougher laws* and everything will be great!)

*I'm all for putting violent criminals and big time white-collar criminals (especially those responsible for hiring illegal aliens en masse) in prison for long periods of time, but cracking down on stupid stuff (pot, OTC and prescription drugs, cell phones, too much sex/violence/language on TV and in videogames, stem cell research = murder) only hurts innocent people. And there is a limit to how much good even the best laws and law enforcement can do. Thus, slow the growth of the low IQ population by immigration restriction and not encouraging births to low-IQ parents through benefit increases to single moms.

Ultimately I think the best solution will be genetic engineering, gene therapies, and better drugs. This can help raise IQ, and also reduce other socially descructive tendencies (depression, anxiety, ADD, chronic fatigue -- these people used to just be called lazy or underachievers. But they--we(I have major issues with the above) do need help). If an effective biological solution could be found to depression, ADD, etc (e.g. turning someone who struggles to study or work effectively for 20 hours a week into someone who can do so 40, 50, 60, or more hours per week effectively), society would see a huge gain. Sufferers of such conditions would have the double benefit of increasing their happiness and productivity, *and* discrediting moralistic a**holes who think any kind of failure is a matter of lack of free will, thus purely one's moral responsibility.

More importantly violent and dishonest tendencies could also be suppressed...not everyone who is poor and low IQ has criminal tendencies; while some high IQ and better off people do. Controlling these destructive tendencies would definitely be a boon.

Bob Badour said at May 29, 2007 6:31 PM:

Birch Barlow,

It is true that the majority of poor stupid people commit no crimes. Jailing the ones that do when we catch them smoking dope, trafficking in restricted prescription drugs, or using stolen cell phones -- as well as committing any of numerous other small crimes, reduces the reproductive fitness of the criminally poor and stupid relative to the honestly poor and stupid.

John S Bolton said at May 29, 2007 11:37 PM:

Congratulations to D Flinchum for getting an excellent restrictionist statement published
in that great big liberal organ, the NYT.
I also noticed James Pinkerton has an article raising many of the same points which are made here,
entitled: "Poor immigrants end up being expensive", as in Newsday, L.I.,N.Y. 5-29-07 p.A35.

John S Bolton said at May 30, 2007 7:29 AM:

This is part of Pinkerton's op-ed, copied from Newsday, linked by Isteve.com:


..."the reality of today, as opposed to the Ellis Island era, is that new Americans collect lots of social benefits. One way or another, they get welfare and Social Security, and their kids go to public schools.

Some might argue, of course, for the withholding of such services to noncitizens. But that's not only not nice, it's not smart. We don't want tubercular people coughing up their lungs on city streets.

[...] Robert Rector of the right-of-center Heritage Foundation estimates that the total net social cost of amnesty - oops, "earned citizenship" - for 12 million illegals will be $2.5 trillion over 30 years.

[...] Bush has signed on to the sentimental pro-immigrant narrative, in which "honest" and "hardworking" folks are forced by cruel circumstance to come to America.

And if they have to commit a crime to get here? If they join a criminal "coyote" conspiracy to cross the border? Well, Bush obviously thinks that the end - "feed their families" - justifies the means. [...] the president who brought Brazil-ification to the United States.

That is, who brought a demographic transformation of America that increased inequality and multiculturalism - the proved formulas for debilitating class and ethnic warfare."...

birch barlow said at May 31, 2007 12:39 PM:

I don't see what the big deal is with pot and OTC and prescription "drugs of abuse." I'd rather have someone doing Robitussin than PCP, Ritalin rather than speed or coke, methadone or Vicodin rather than heroin. Pot is considerably safer still than Robitussin, Ritalin, Vicodin, etc, or even alcohol. Drugs can certainly be harmful, but people often underestimate the extent of one's low IQ and/or criminality and/or mental conditions (ranging from depression, anxiety, and ADD to schizophrenia) in a sober drug abuser (including before they so much as laid eyes on any drugs of abuse).

Both the moralistic Right and the Left have reasons to overplay dysfunctionality caused by drug use and underplay dysfunctionality in drug abusers even before they used drugs, or while they are sober. Religious righty types want to blame the drug (ab)user so they can be punished for their "free choice" to (ab)use drugs...either sent to jail, or rehab (which is preferable to a long prison sentence, but still much more moralistic/religious/"spiritual" than medical or rehabilitative).

The Left wants to believe that if drug (ab)users are simply isolated from drugs and the environments in which people are most likely to use drugs, that low IQ, criminality, depression/anxiety/ADD, and psychotic mental disorders in druggies and drunks will simply evaporate.

Well...I've got news. Blaming drug (ab)users (and this includes those who abuse or regularly use alcohol) for their "free choice" and punishing them will definitely not work; indeed, those with depression issues, or who have crappy lives because of low IQ, will just find themselves more depressed, having a crappier life, and wanting to abuse drugs more. Criminal types will likely become extemely resentful when they are nailed for pot possession or chugging Robitussin or popping Vicodins in public; these people don't even believe in laws against burglary and assault, how the hell are they going to respect laws against smoking pot or laws relating to pharmaceutical use? So punishment is definitely not a solution, and if rehab is to be a truly effective solution, it needs to be reformed to come from a much more medical-scientific, rather than moral-spritual, direction.

As for lefties, poverty, low IQ, dysphoric and psychotic mental disorders are not going away without some kind of radical biological intervention, which is probably at least 20 years down the road. Standard social science type "solutions" are likely to be of minimal effectiveness.

--And as a side note, I was not speaking of stolen cell phones (this should be prosecuted as theft like anything else) I was speaking of laws against cell phone use while driving

Bob Badour said at June 1, 2007 10:50 PM:

I don't care if they are resentful as long as their only available sexual partners render the chance of conception negligible.

I once saw a well-dress man driving a new car at about 70mph talking on a cell phone while reading a map. I say: "Throw away the key!" I would nominate that guy as a sexual partner for criminals in a heartbeat.

John Galt said at May 25, 2009 10:51 AM:

For one thing Birch, it's the Right who want to prosecute victimless crimes, not the Left. I know Birch, why not just kill anyone below a certain IQ level? Or do we need the epsilons to do our dirty work? I'm sure you think the world would be perfect if only you were in charge. I wonder what they will consider normal and abnormal when they start genetically engineering us into proper automatons.


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 ©