Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
Washington D.C. – April 26, 2016. Today, the Niskanen Center released a new paper describing the U.S. private sector’s strong tradition in supporting refugee resettlement. The paper, “Private Refugee Resettlement in U.S. History,” provides a detailed history of the successful resettlement of refugees using private funds, and calls for the urgent reinstatement of a private refugee program in the wake of the current global refugee crisis.
“The United States has demonstrated great generosity toward refugees throughout its history, with the private sector playing the leading role,” said David Bier, Niskanen Center’s director of immigration reform. “The history should inspire the federal government to create the opportunity for Americans to sponsor or fund the resettlement of refugees fleeing violence and persecution abroad.”
The concept of private refugee sponsorship has been endorsed by nine U.S.-based Syrian, Arab, and Muslim American organizations last year in a letter to the president coordinated by the Niskanen Center. “Since we launched this project, Americans from all walks of life have contacted us to describe their desire to sponsor refugees,” Mr. Bier said. “It’s time that we unleashed American philanthropy to save many more lives.”
Reagan wasn't very sharp, but on this issue his shining hill rhetoric actually reflects a wise long term perspective on the value of immigration to a nation.
Our nation of immigrants has, by and large, profited handsomely by being a destination for those seeking opportunity. Germany has decided to mimic us, taking the long view that immigration is a net boon (just like they decided to mimic our public school experiment a century or so ago).
And Reagan was played for a fool by the Democrats who never followed through on their promised part of the deal when real Amnesty was granted. They never intended to keep their promises. Liars, all of them.
Had the Dems followed through, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Period.
If you're for open borders, you're anti Black, because they are the biggest losers in that proposition. Its their jobs more than anyone else's who are being taken over by the illegals and under educated.
The pie is only so big.
And howze the open borders thing working out for the EU right now ?
Reagan wasn't very sharp, but on this issue his shining hill rhetoric actually reflects a wise long term perspective on the value of immigration to a nation.
Our nation of immigrants has, by and large, profited handsomely by being a destination for those seeking opportunity. Germany has decided to mimic us, taking the long view that immigration is a net boon (just like they decided to mimic our public school experiment a century or so ago).
And Reagan was played for a fool by the Democrats who never followed through on their promised part of the deal when real Amnesty was granted. They never intended to keep their promises. Liars, all of them.
Had the Dems followed through, we would not be in the mess we are in today. Period.
If you're for open borders, you're anti Black, because they are the biggest losers in that proposition. Its their jobs more than anyone else's who are being taken over by the illegals and under educated.
The pie is only so big.
And howze the open borders thing working out for the EU right now ?
Nearly everyone will speed while driving when given a chance to.
Speeding is an illegal activity.
Sneaking into the country is an illegal activity.
Now here is where I get confused.
Is it if you drive a car, you can't judge any other law breakers ... or ...
only 90% of car drivers are not allowed to pass judgement on those who break law and sneak into this country.
Lessee, speeding, generally a civil matter, illegally entering this country, a criminal matter.
Makes perfect sense to me.
The point is, it's kind of silly to refer to "illegal immigrants" who are technically lawbreakers but face no real enforcement because we as a nation want them to be here as temporary cheap labor. Unless we also refer to "illegal drivers" (i.e. you and me) who are technically lawbreakers but face no real enforcement.
Just as you point out that nearly everyone will speed when they think no one is looking (or roll through stop signs without coming to a complete stop, or fail to give proper signals when turning), nearly everyone will seek better wages in another country when given a chance to, and we do give them the chance.
As the article says, no one is happy with the current situation, but attempts to see it as a failure of government may be utterly impractical (do you really think we can deport the 11 million here illegally and keep them and others out? Do you really want to spend the money needed to do that?). Perhaps it's more realistic to see it as a problem that no one wants to solve.
So if you want to insist on referring to illegal immigrants, you should also refer to yourself as an illegal driver (i.e. someone who is in violation of the law). Who cares if it is considered a civil infraction or a misdemeanor crime? That's hair splitting IMO. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Would you be less upset about illegal immigration if it were categorized as a civil infraction?
(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal. (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.
