Our Readers Advise The President…


VDARE.com Immigration
Policy Contest Results

 

George W. Bush has been
unaccountably slow in endorsing Robert Locke`s

proposal
for a 90-day moratorium on immigration
following the 9/11 atrocities. In fact, we can`t find
any sign that he`s endorsed any ideas at all about the
immigration dimension of the terrorism threat.  The
other boot just hasn`t dropped. To help him while
we`re waiting, VDARE.com recently

announced
<![if !supportNestedAnchors]><![endif]> a
contest for the best immigration policy suggestion.
(As we`ve
explained
, we don`t do foreign policy. We think
immigration is more important.) The results:

Short Suggestions

A Bounty on Expired Visas

Robin Corkery

palouse8040@home.com
, wrote:

The utility of my suggestion lies in
its simplicity. We already have a law that provides that
foreigners here on expired visas, “out of status” must
leave the country. The United States should begin to
offer $1,000 rewards for all reports of aliens who have
outstayed their visas. Addresses and/or workplaces might
be required, but that is a detail. If the report can be
verified, the alien will be arrested and deported, and
the reward paid. The act of having overstayed the visa
would create a permanent bar to readmission to the U.S.
After all, the alien would have violated a trust between
himself and the citizens of this country.

No Visas for the Enemy

Drew McDonald,

machoya85@yahoo.com
, has a
whole page of suggestions, but here`s a short one:

First, for the foreseeable
future, no visas of any kind to anyone from Afghanistan,
Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt (yes, them too), Algeria,
Libya etc. Let the universities tighten their belts. Who
knows – they even have to force some `60s radical
phonies into retirement without those Arab students on
campus paying full tuition. A necessary secondary step
would be a systematic process of ensuring that those
currently here on student or travel visas actually leave
(I`m going to be naive and assume we can find the vast
majority of them).

European-Style Registration For Foreigners

Peter Tunney,

pftunney@concentric.net
, has several suggestions, but
this is the most interesting:


When I was a `guest-worker` at
Philips in the Netherlands in the early 70s, I had to
register with the

Vreemdelingspolitie
(literally: aliens police)
office in my local town in order to get a residence
permit before being able to rent an apartment. I also
had to report any subsequent change of address, and
return at least annually for a renewal of my residence
permit. Since anyone who has had even the slightest
encounter with the INS is aware that agency is
terminally incompetent, should we not transfer the
responsibility for keeping track of non-citizens on
extended stays to local law enforcement?

 

Quotas for countries with lower birthrates

An anonymous
professional writes:


As for the barbarians at the gates,
we need merely order our immigration quotas to give
priority to native-born citizens of those countries with
the lowest birthrates. The country with the lowest
birthrate would be allocated the greatest number of
spaces for immigration. This would be fair, as it would
be based solely upon behavior, rather than ethnicity.
Cries of “racism” could be countered by asserting that
the assumption that only certain races are likely to
control their increase is itself racist. This policy
would address what a population did, rather than who
they are. I believe that this may introduce the notion
of consequences.


Last time I checked, Italy had the
lowest birthrate in the world. Italy is hardly the
whitest or most Protestant nation in Europe, so it makes
a nice xenophobia check for those of us who are very
white and Protestant. Would I welcome an increase in
Italian immigrants? Sure! Just look at their birthrate.

The problem with
this suggestion is that it`s possible for birthrates to
increase as a consequence of moving to a rich
country.

 

Democracy (more or less untried
on the immigration issue)

Do you recall voting for or against
immigration? You didn`t get much of a chance to, unless
you`re a Congressman, in which case you`ll probably deny
it. There`s just too much “bipartisan
consensus
” on unrestricted immigration. An anonymous
Asian-American writes:

I think
the best thing to do is to put it to a national vote.
For something like a 10-year pause in immigration, I
would think the majority of Americans would consider
voting yes. Of course some would be concerned about
possible riots and such. Others may succumb to the
constant accusations of racism and get ashamed to voting
no (effective social pressure at work, I guess). I do
not know exactly what it would take to get such a vote
to take place. However, once the discussions actually
take place nationally with the pause-immigration side
being able to present their arguments without being
vilified, I believe there are many who would begin
actively supporting a pause on immigration. We could
begin by arguing, “who are against the American people
being able to vote on such an important issue? Those
same people are against a true democracy.” Not that I am
always a fan of direct democracy, but this line of
argument would be unassailable to many. Also, I believe
a significant percentage of immigrants would vote yes
partly because it would be in their interests to keep
their competitors from coming.


Anonymous

 

Putting the Fear of Allah into Immigration
Enthusiasts

Hugh Axton,

hughaxton@hotmail.com
, wrote:


Liberals will never change until they are scared
witless. A convincing case must be made as to why they
should be petrified. Of course, this idea assumes that
liberals are not 100% deluded.

A large assumption.


  

Background Checks on H-1B`s


H-1B`s Hall
of Shame`s

Rob Sanchez

ShameH1B@ZaZona.com
suggests this:


Demand that all non-immigrant visas
require a full background security check by both the
local FBI and the consular agency where the visa is
issued. Background checks will be paid for by the visa
sponsor, not the Federal government. We need to
eliminate or sharply curtail all non-immigrant visas, in
particular H-1B, F-1, TN, and B. A yearly fee will be
required of all visa sponsors and these fees will be
directed to the DOJ, INS, and DOL in order to track the
whereabouts and status of anyone on a temporary visa.


All our borders should be patrolled
and illegal aliens will be deported swiftly. They will
receive no benefits while here because they will be
considered dangerous criminals. All companies that hire
illegal aliens will be prosecuted and the Dept. of
Justice will be adequately funded to investigate these
un-American companies.


Rob Sanchez

The Pro`s

Howard R, Sutherland,

hsutherland@lycos.com
, wrote a long piece, which I`ve
given its own page, (Howard
R Sutherland: “Most are actions we should have taken
long ago.”)
But here`s a sample.


States should repeal, or not pass in
the first place, laws relaxing identification
requirements that allow illegal aliens to get driver`s
licenses. If there is a constitutional way for the
Congress to primped such state laws (make it a federal
felony for anyone in the United States illegally to
operate a motor vehicle?), it should.


States should repeal, or not pass in
the first place, “motor-voter” laws that invite
non-citizens to register to vote. A more egregious
breach of civic security than having aliens
participating in American political decisions through
illegal voting is hard to imagine. Aliens caught voting
in U.S. elections should be prosecuted and deported
(whether or not they were in the United States illegally
to begin with); such deportation should make them
presumptively ineligible to enter the United States in
the future. Again, if there is a constitutional way for
the Congress to pre-empt local or state laws that
purport to permit non-citizens to vote in local
elections, it should.


Brenda Walker
, of

LimitsToGrowth.org
“has a little list.” Two items
from the list, which also has its
own page<![if !supportNestedAnchors]><![endif]>:


Foreigners are not citizens. The tendency to accord
foreign nationals the same rights as Americans is
counterproductive with the current situation of Islamic
Jihad against America.  

• Naturalized citizens
should not be allowed in the

U.S. armed forces
.

Ali Mohamed
, a

convicted
bomber of the American embassies in
Africa, was born in Egypt and had served in the U.S.
Special Forces for three years and apparently was
affiliated with the Egyptian Islamic Jihad at the time.

 

Silly Suggestions

Not that there`s anything wrong
with silliness:

Ronald Kyser had some serious
suggestions, but also suggests that the US:

  • Require all aliens intending to
    stay for more than a month to arrive by boat.

Hey, our
ancestors did…

  • In atonement for centuries of
    gay-bashing, restrict immigration to homosexuals
    for 20 years or so. This would greatly slow down
    demographic change, and as a bonus few macho Middle
    Easterners will be eager to pass themselves off as
    fairies.

 

  • Restrict immigration to those
    Sen. Schumer would trust with a handgun.

Lists Of Things To Do

We got a lot
of these, and Joe Cocimano`s is a good one:


Joe Cocimano,

joe.cocimano@voss.com
, wrote:


Several thoughts on “What is to be
done”-yeah, I know it`s a

Lenin quote.


1. Arm all civilian aircrew-George
Bush is already going weak and wobbly on this request
from

ALPA
.


2.Freeze all granting of Visas
immediately, especially from countries with populations
hostile to the West.


3.Find and deport all illegal aliens
in the US.


4. Penalize businesses that employ
illegal or undocumented workers.


5.Reform immigration laws, possibly
along the lines of McCarran-Walters of

1924
.
[i.e. a
national-origins system, restricting immigration to
countries with compatible cultures.]


6.Completely revamp airport security,
including the personnel who work on or around the
planes.


7.Improve cooperation between intelligence agencies and
law enforcement.

 

Phillip Hilton
writes from Australia, with a different, and useful
list:


Here are my suggestions. Some may not
be viable for obvious political reasons, but I think
that such ideas may be a useful point of departure for
debate/reflection:


1)   Foreign nationals from
countries that have produced terrorists that have
targeted American institutions or people who seek a visa
for entry to the USA should post a good behaviour bond
with the INS (to be forfeited at the discretion of US
authorities, without rights of appeal) or should be
required to have a US citizen sponsor their temporary
entry – this will nor eliminate terrorism by any means,
but it would establish a clear cut paper trail that
would assist the authorities in managing the problem;


2)   The US should prohibit the entry
of missionaries from the Wahabi sect of Islam (the
established faith in Saudi Arabia and, I think Qattar)
who have a well established history of conducting
radical Islamic agit-prop on their

`pastoral` missions
and should also prohibit the
receipt of funds by US mosques etc from Saudi sources;


3)   The US should also amend its
extradition laws to expedite terrorist suspects to the
countries that are seeking them – gov`t directly
threatened by Mid-East (or other) terror will do the
dirty work, all America has to do is to desist from
unwittingly providing shelter to mutual enemies; such
laws might restrict extradition to countries that are
proven US allies; and


4)   The US should amend its
commercial law to make US based organisations that
promote or assist terrorism or violent political change
in or against allied states liable to civil suits from
foreign gov`t`s or private citizens that wish to seek
redress for damages (this might eventually see
universities that hire tenured apologists for terror
being sued, or `charities` that raise funds to help
guerrillas/terrorists/fanatics; it would be especially
helpful if these laws extended the liability to the
directors/managers of the institutions involved); this
would kill off troublemaking in various émigré
communities extremely fast.

The Winner: A Return to First
Principles

This is so
simple, but so important. There is nothing here that
you
don`t already know, but there is also none of
these principles that won`t be disputed by an
immigration enthusiast, set aside by a court or sneered
at by the Wall Street Journal. I think this is
worth writing down, memorizing, and reciting. In fact,
I`ve given it its
own page so you can print it out and frame it.

John Miano,

miano@colosseumbuilders.com
,wrote:


John Miano`s Principles of
Immigration


1. The purpose of immigration policy
is to benefit the citizens of the United States.


2. As immigration shapes the country,
immigration policy should be set by action, not
accident.


3. Policy is set by laws that are
enforced.


4. There is no legal right for
non-citizens to remain in the U.S, whatsoever.
Non-citizens enter the United States as guests and may
be removed at will by the government of the U.S.


5. The U.S. should keep track
of guests while they visit.


6. Those who enter the U.S. illegally
or remain beyond the terms of their visas are criminals
and should be regarded as such. Anyone doing so should
be permanently barred from entering the U.S. for any
purpose.


7. Guests who will not be accepted
for return to their home countries may be detained by
the government until such time as their home country or
suitable alternate country will accept them.


8. Adjustments of status must take
place in the applicant`s home country. The only purpose
bouncing among the alphabet soup of visa categories
serves is to feed immigration lawyers.


9. There must be numerical limits on
immigration. Numbers determine funding. If funding is
set at one level and the number of people allowed is set
at a higher level, you have a mess.


10. It is not possible for everyone
in the world to live in the United States.

A signed copy
of Alien Nation is on its way to him.


More proposals? Write me at

jfulford@vdare.com

 

October 10, 2001