Comments:
* If the immigrants in question are what the sponsors claim, then what do the sponsors have to worry about?
* If the refugees will not commit crimes and cause terrorism, as the left claims, then this is no problem to any of them.
Why not “put your money where your mouth is?”
A similar argument exists for getting a fiancé to sign a prenup. The prenup only matters if the relationship ends horribly so it is not applicable if things work. But if they don’t…
Regardless, this type of bill will go over just as well with the left as prenup does with the future wife. No one would ever accuse either of being logical.
* Apparently this time it did go from Steve Sailer’s lips to God’s ears. Or at least to within earshot of some attentive South Carolinians.
The wailing and the gnashing of teeth from the irresponsible left has already begun. God forbid that they be truly accountable for their “good” deeds.
I salute you Steve Sailer. This is a public policy worthy of implementation in red states nationwide. If the blue state pols turn their backs on it, then their lack of responsibility will be an issue for the voters to have the last word on. And we know which way the wind will blow on this one.
* The proposed South Carolina law is so self-evidently reasonable that it has approximately zero chance of being enacted, or of being enforced if enacted. The cheap labor lobbies are going to pull out the stops to lobby to defeat it. If enacted it will immediately be challenged in federal court as a state attempt to intrude into Congress’s power to enact uniform rules of naturalization and the President’s power to conduct foreign policy (appoint Ambassadors and enter into treaties). The state will lose. But I’m glad they’re trying something.
* As a US citizen who was formerly an immigrant and who has gone through the process of importing a wife and children, I think that people tend to overlook that immigration is a business.
I have spent a fortune in application fees, medical exams, obtaining numerous obscure documents from places where it is difficult and dangerous to travel, and so on.
Immigration provided numerous jobs to American consular and USCIS officials and attorneys, bolsters the income of airlines, and all the businesses used by immigrants when they arrive.
Legal immigrants have to go through this expensive and humongously difficult process that can last years, and are justly frustrated that so many illegals and so-called refugees are able to by-pass the process.
Legal immigrants have little sympathy for illegal immigrants.
The solution is simply to impose a very stiff fee similar to a bail bond for refugee visas and then make them open to anyone who can afford them or get someone to sponsor them. Half the bond money could be refunded after 10 years of good behavior.
* It’s like a lot of anti-immigration proposals. It’s sound common sense, but if the will to implement it was there, it wouldn’t be necessary in the first place. Some law would have been passed to stop these “refugee resettlements” years ago if there was a genuine desire among the political class to do so. That’s where Trump’s candidacy makes a difference – it has widened the scope of discussion and given people hope that they won’t have to put up with the same traitors forever.
* Heh, some Canadian province recently voided a will that left a local man’s estate to a WN group in the US. Something about it not being “in the public interest.” Postmodern Canadians view liberal individualism as a toxic right-wing American ideology.
* Vote Trump get dumped is a group started by Left Wing women who vowed to never have sex with and date men who support Donald Trump.
No wonder Gavin McInnes believes one of the worst things to ever happen to Western civilization was giving women the right to vote.
* Will they add insurance to cover the cost of these folks taking welfare? A business has to contribute to state unemployment so that when one of their employees has been let go, the business has contributed to the fund to provide for unemployment bennies. Over time a business’s unemployment contribution is adjusted based upon whether it has a track record of having too many or too few on unemployment. That is businesses that have let go more employees will pay higher rates than those who let get fewer.
A similar system should be set up in regard to refugees and how much government assistance they end up using. If the sponsoring group had to help pay the costs, they’d be less likely to sponsor deadbeats.
* Lutheran Social Services has a hell of a lot to answer for. They’ve wrought havoc in what used to be a peaceful area of the country. Unfortunately, a certain percentage of immigrants leave their countries for their countries’ good and in coming here, make us realize why their old neighbors couldn’t stand them.
* A very small number of the world’s countries are into accepting immigrants.
But every economically third-tier country in the world maintains significant numbers of consulates around the world. Consulates exist, first & foremost, to facilitate trade. Passports & visas didn’t really catch on before WWI, yet countries had Consulates.
Look, it doesn’t get much poorer than Bangladesh. But they maintain a consulate in LA. If they didn’t they probably would not – in PRACTICE – be able to have a garments-sewing industry exporting to North America. which right now, is their main source of incoming hard currency.
Look at a second-and-a-half tier country like Philippines. They have quite a few consulates in USA and more in Canada.
* Better yet, how about imposing a LEGAL requirement that sponsors of refugees be financially responsible for them for a period of years? Right now, refugee resettlement organizations get money from the federal gov’t for a few months to do the resettlement. When the money dries up, the refugees are thrown on the local community to support, including welfare and social services. Since Third World refugees can take years, if ever, to become self-supporting, that’s a real burden for communities where groups of refugees are resettled.
* Steve: This was one of your best ideas. It’s a pity it didn’t get more traction. It’s rational and pragmatic, making the common-sense assertion that a party ought to be held responsible for changes it introduces into the existing society.
In that same vein, my pet policy prescription is that welfare ought be tied to birth control especially since we have long lasting and mostly foolproof implantable method like Depo-Provera. It’s incontrovertible that if a woman is unable to support herself, she is therefore unable to support any new humans she may create from her womb. This begs the question of whether a woman has a right to create an unlimited number of new liabilities for the public treasury. If she does not, then it seems entirely reasonable to require her to desist from creating new liabilities while she is herself a liability. We already have other restrictions on behavior tied to acceptance of public support, why not restricting procreation which is by far the most expensive thing a welfare recipient can do? And since Depo-Provera is a short acting (3mo) contraceptive, we avoid the “Nazi!” stigma of sterilization as well as the “Sinner!” stigma of abortion. The policy would be attacked as an assault on the poor, but that countered by argument that it helps the poor escape poverty which is impossible when babies just miraculously appear every eight and a half months. Longer range goals for such a policy could extend to foreign aid in third world countries (i.e. all of Africa) – again pitching it as benefit for the recipient (again, how can a woman hope to educate and advance herself when infants just magically appear every eight and a half months?).
* I’ve always maintained that the fundamental flaw in universal suffrage is in allowing the parasitic class to vote for more government goodies. Voting should be the right only of those who contribute more to the public treasury than they collect in benefits. Our current mess is analogous to a family where all the decisions are made by the three dependent children who govern the two working parents via majority rule. In a rational nation, government workers, welfare dependants, and government contractors would have voting rights suspended for the duration of their time as tax-eaters while only true tax-payers had a say in public policy and law.
