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
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 SuggestionsA Bounty on Expired Visas
Robin Corkery email@example.com
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, firstname.lastname@example.org
, 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, email@example.com
, 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, firstname.lastname@example.org
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`sH-1B`s Hall of Shame`s
Rob Sanchez ShameH1B@ZaZona.com
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
Howard R, Sutherland, email@example.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.
, of LimitsToGrowth.org
“has a little list.” Two items from the list, which also has its own page
- 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.
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.
Lists Of Things To Do
- Restrict immigration to those Sen. Schumer would trust with a handgun.
We got a lot of these, and Joe Cocimano`s is a good one:Joe Cocimano, firstname.lastname@example.org, wrote:Several thoughts on “What is to be done”-yeah, I know it`s a Lenin quote.
- Arm all civilian aircrew-George Bush is already going weak and wobbly on this request from ALPA.
- Freeze all granting of Visas immediately, especially from countries with populations hostile to the West.
- Find and deport all illegal aliens in the US.
- Penalize businesses that employ illegal or undocumented workers.
- 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.]
- Completely revamp airport security, including the personnel who work on or around the planes.
- 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; and4) 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, email@example.com
,wrote:John Miano`s Principles of Immigration
- The purpose of immigration policy is to benefit the citizens of the United States.
- As immigration shapes the country, immigration policy should be set by action, not accident.
- Policy is set by laws that are enforced.
- 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.
- The U.S. should keep track of guests while they visit.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 firstname.lastname@example.org