Giving Shutdown Aid To Illegal Aliens Is Unethical, And There Are No Valid Arguments That It isn’t

Pop quiz: List the ways the above is dishonest and deceitful.

There are some progressive agenda items that are either dishonest or so dumb they defy belief. Open borders is in that category; ignoring immigration laws by letting anyone who slips through our porous security to stay here as long as they don’t kill or rape someone is there too; so is giving these individuals drivers licenses, and rewarding their children for the parents’ lawbreaking. All the arguments for these intellectually indefensible positions are either extreme rationalizations, based on emotion over reality+ or cynical deceptions used to disguise the real objectives.

Yet however unethical the arguments for letting illegal immigrants enter our country and stay here, the position that we should give them financial aid during the pandemic crisis and resulting economic shut-down is worse.

Of course California likes the idea; there are few terrible policy idea that the Golden State doesn’t like.

Last week Governor Gavin Newsom announced he is working on a plan with the state legislature to provide economic relief for illegal immigrants in California. “Californians care deeply about undocumented residents in this state,” Newsom said.

Ooooh, they care! Let’s see if they care when the money going to people who have no justification for being here comes out of citizens’ pockets. Is “undocumented” the deceptive euphemism of choice in California? Interesting. “Migrant” is sneakier, and of course there is the media’s favorite Orwellian “immigrants” to mean “illegal immigrants.”

Yes, it’s true: I am no longer interested in being nice or diplomatic about this destructive idea and the liars, knaves and fools who support it.

“I was appalled to learn hardworking, taxpaying immigrants were left out of the $2 trillion CARES Act,” California Rep. Lou Correa  on April 3.  CARES is the $2.2 trillion stimulus fund  available to sustain families and U.S. businesses while the nation is in a health crisis lockdown. Ah! Correa likes the “immigrant” deceit! Wise choice.

Correa is joined by 49 other House Democrats in support of the Leave No Taxpayer Behind Act which would allow illegal aliens to receive some of the funds provided by the CARES Act. Taxpayer! That’s a new cover-word for “illegal immigrant”! The idea with all of these rhetorical devices is to make the gullible and the dim forget that we are talking about people who have no right to be here, and who are collectively doing massive harm.

More double talk and deceit: “By casting out immigrants, we are placing some of our most vulnerable residents in grave danger. Every individual taxpayer, irrespective of citizenship status, needs government assistance now,” Correa continued.

1. Not immigrants. Illegal immigrants. 2. They are vulnerable residents here only because they snuck over the border when they should not have. They should be vulnerable residents of their own countries, and the U.S. should treat them as such. 3. These “residents” are in grave danger here because they put themselves in that position. “We” haven’t placed them anywhere.

Among the sponsors of the Leave No Taxpayer Behind Act are, of course, the”Squad,” Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, socialists and anti-Americans all.

Meanwhile, over in that toddlin’ town, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot signed an executive order  that made all immigrants and refugees living within city limits, no matter their legal status, are eligible to receive virus shutdown benefits. Minneapolis has approved similar benefits, specifying that being in the country unlawfully is not an obstacle to receiving the funds. Why, they will not be able to explain honestly. No one can. Here, for example, is what passed for a rationale from Mayor Lightfoot: “It is a statement of our values as a city and as Americans.”

Wait…what values are those? The value that laws don’t matter? The value that if you want to or need to enough, breaking the law should have no consequences? The value that the country you abused has an obligation to pay you for breaking its laws?  I don’t get it: please explain.

If this is all about “caring,” then shouldn’t we be caring more for the Mexicans and South Americans suffering in their own countries who haven’t broken our laws? They have proven that they respect our nation and its laws far more than those who have  defied our government to arrive and stay here….what kind of “values” dictate that those who cheat and push ahead in the metaphorical line should benefit, while those who obey laws and rules should be ignored?

________________________________

Source: Daily Caller

25 thoughts on “Giving Shutdown Aid To Illegal Aliens Is Unethical, And There Are No Valid Arguments That It isn’t

  1. Well, the answer is to whether to provide aid in an indiscriminate manner boils down to utilitarian balancing. Does giving aid to illegal immigrants benefit Americans and other legal residents? Does it meaningfully reduce the short term risk that illegal immigrants catch? Does it meaningfully reduce the short term risk that a sick illegal immigrants might spread the virus to others? Does it meaningfully reduce the potential burden that sick illegal immigrants place on the healthcare system?

    If honest risk assessment answers “yes” to any of these questions, then to deny illegal immigrants aid solely because they are illegal is irresponsible. Instead, the aid must be distributed according to where limited resources best reduce risk to all citizens and legal residents.

    • huh?

      Does giving aid to illegal immigrants benefit Americans and other legal residents? NO. Creating another incentive for illegal immigrants to break our laws does not benefit anyone and does absolute harm.

      Does it meaningfully reduce the short term risk that illegal immigrants catch? Catch what? They should take their risks of “catching” in their own countries.

      Does it meaningfully reduce the short term risk that a sick illegal immigrants might spread the virus to others? Huh? the money is for food and essentials, not health.

      Does it meaningfully reduce the potential burden that sick illegal immigrants place on the healthcare system? How? Why do you think CARE is about health care?

      • From a risk assessment standpoint, any preconceived answer is detrimental to the analysis. The goal for the duration of the crisis is to prevent the disease from spreading to Americans. If providing aid is shown to reduce this risk to Americans, it is utterly irrelevant if the the recipient is a legal immigrant or not.

        Example: someone who is sick with the virus goes to work because they cannot otherwise afford food. It is irrelevant the legal status of the individual (although arguably, this could be priority grounds for deportation).

        If aid is shown to reduce this behavior, omitting illegal immigrants is just as ideologically motivated as not omitting them. The only concern should be preventing the disease from infecting Americans. Helping people who do not deserve help is collateral effect. It is the same reason we sometime provide aid to dictators; sometimes unsavory characters further our interests.

        Now, only if providing aid is reasonably shown to reduce risk should it be made available. The questions are examples of questions that must be asked. The answers may be “No” to all the question after the analysis is complete, in which case omitting illegal immigrants is not ideologically motivated.

        Even if the answers were “Yes” to some, any aid must be funneled to where it is most effective. All other things being equal, Americans should be prioritized. But only goal should be protect Americans, regardless of where benefits are strategically distributed.

        Stipulated: Political grandstanding regarding this indicates it was not based on coldly calculated risk assessment.

    • Rich, my initial thoughts were such that I would tend to agree but the funds are being distributed whether you are financially affected by the pandemic or not so it seems that the idea is to give legal residents under a certain income threshold a benefit to offset some of the hardship they are enduring. It does not matter if you lost a job or remain employed. Even with the massive numbers unemployed because Governors put them out of work when they closed non essential businesses and forced the curtailing of hours in big box grocery 80% of the people are working. In some cases, people are getting premium pay to work an essential job. If being a (income) taxpayer is the criterion for eligibility why are social security recipients entitled to anything unless they had a part time job that they lost when the business closed? Given that this is a federal aid package, paying local property taxes or state sales taxes that don’t go to the feds should not count toward federal eligibility. So if the state wants to give illegal aliens a cash bonus then they can do so but the amounts of other federal aid provided to the state must deduct from the state all amounts the state chose to give non-legal residents because money is fungible. The state cannot ask for money from the feds if they chose spend their receipts on programs for the those not legally residing in their state.

      Upon reflection I can say that all the reasons you offered are reasons to do all that we can to dissuade illegal immigration. You asked:

      “Does giving aid to illegal immigrants benefit Americans and other legal residents?”

      No. The aid provided comes directly from the legally employed taxpayer. Taxes collected from the undocumented or illegal aliens may have already been offset through the provision of normal services prior to the pandemic. It is highly unlikely that given our progressive tax system and with various tax credits for low income people and parents, the likelihood that any single undocumented person pays in more than they receive in refundable credits or services.

      “Does it meaningfully reduce the short term risk that illegal immigrants catch?”

      The answer to this is unable to be determined. We could use the aid to fly them back to their country of origin that has a lower rate of viral spread. Giving people cash gives them a reason to stay and if they are infected they pose a risk to all legal residents.

      “Does it meaningfully reduce the short term risk that a sick illegal immigrants might spread the virus to others?”

      No. If they were not here in the first place they would not pose a risk at all. Giving cash means that they will be more likely to stay and spend it in an open store and if they are sick they can transmit the virus. Without cash they will stay at indoors or return to their home country.

      “Does it meaningfully reduce the potential burden that sick illegal immigrants place on the healthcare system? ”

      No. The illegal alien will remain a potential burden irrespective of the aid unless that aid is turned over to health care providers to be held in escrow for their care until the pandemic is over.

      The policy is designed to not give an economic reason to continue breaking US immigration law.

      • But this doesn’t exist in a vaccum. Studies show that illegal immigrant contribute to the economy and are wanted in these communities. If not the actual practice of illegal immigration would not be liked in California or Chicago or Minneapolis.

      • The answers can “No”. The point is that they must be asked and answered honestly, or omitting illegal immigrants is just as ideologically motivated as not omitting them.

  2. I wonder how long this type of BS would take place if the Federal aid was a fixed amount and given to the state with instructions to divide it up equally to all persons legally entitled to live in the US. When illegal immigrant Julio starts getting money that would have otherwise gone to a legal resident of color or not I would bet that ol’ Gavin will have to make some hard choices.

    • IMO, a score-keeping opportunist like ol’ Gavin realizes that rungs exist above “legal residents of color” on the Grievance Ladder; the farther ascends, the less difficult a choice becomes.

      • Paul

        I don’t think so. The whole concept of calling some “people of color” is to increase the perceived minority vote and to create a coalition of oppressed versus the not oppressed. If the legal residents are informed that their aid is being reduced by some significant amount they will scream bloody murder. I have to believe that legal persons of color are in far greater numbers than non-legal persons who of course cannot vote.

        Alliances battling “the man” usually start to unwind when one part of the alliance begins to think the others are taking bread off their table.

      • our maybe he’s not an internet troll and just wants to save lives and treat people with dignity?
        The fact that his poll ratings have gone up clearly speak to the fact that this is what California wants.
        Addtionally, what business is it of people outside of California to dictate how California should treat their immigrants? The people makiing these complaints hipocritically support states rights when it’s convenient to them.

        • Your logic is horrible. If studies showed (they are, in fact, ambiguous) that the communities wanted Colombia drug cartels the government would still have an obligation to get rid of them.

    • I would assume that Gavin is driven by his poll numbers and what his residents want. He’s not acting unilaterally. He’s being judged on whether he made the right move in this situation, anything else is a slippery slope fallacy. In this situation, his poll numbers went up so he did right by his constituents and (in my view) humanity.

      • Another pure emotional rationalization. His job is not to benefit “humanity.” His job is to benefit citizens of California, regardless of what polls say. Your view of political service is infantile, or to be nicer, incredibly naive and misguided.

  3. If you’re going to put that “it’s indefensible” and “there’s no possible way this is morally right” (views that I do happen to hold) what’s the point of having an ethical discussion about it. You’ve already broadcasted that you’re unwilling to listen to opposing reasons.It seems like the sole purpose of this post is to spew hatred towards illegal immigrants and those who disagree with you about how to solve the migrant crisis.

    Nonetheless, I maintain that not all laws are ethically justified. We could criminalize bicycling tomorrow but that doesn’t mean I harbor hatred for bicyclists. The fact of the matter is that we haven’t passed meaningful legislation to sort out our immigration system for over 3 presidential administrations and people who have needed to flee persecution have been caught in the crossfire. This administration has been the most egregrious offender as they’ve basically been operating under the mission “keep foreigners out at all costs” and spreading lies (the caravan, Mexicans are rapists) rather than fixing it. For the money that this president spent on the wall (not to mention the economic costs of shutting down the government for six weeks in a futile effort to enact it) (which has already been breached: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/2/20945336/trump-border-wall-smugglers-saw-us-mexico) he could have easily sent aid to Honduras, Guatemala and actually made the world a better place

    There is no inherent value in following a bad law and considering the actual costs in life of letting these people die outside your country when they can be easily saved and be productive members of your community, it’s downright inhumane. That’s why the UN has enacted international laws of refugees that saved Stephen Miller’s grandparents from the Nazis and which Trump is attempting to circumvent as possible.
    (https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-central-americans-asylum-protections-20190715-story.html)

    Lastly, these communities by and large like to have these immigrants because economic study after economic study shows that immigrants fill up holes in the economy that are needed and don’t take jobs and they’re less likely to break laws ((https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/business/economy/immigration-labor-economy.htm). Bottom line: These laws are happening because these communities want them to happen.

    You can stir up hatred from afar but you don’t live in California so if you’re going to be a true Republican and support states rights, stay out of their business. While you’re at it, stay out of Chicago, stay out of Minneapolis, and as Trump famously said to 4 American citizens “go back to your own country.” I’m perfectly comfortable with one less American citizen with your viewpoint. Not only does your viewpoint not represent America’s future but it doesn’t even remotely represent our country’s past (ever read the Statue of Liberty’s poem). Just the worse instincts of backwards people that pushed away the Chinese and Irish and Jews and everyone else. You’re going to make a moral judgment on states that want to protect immigrants and their own citizens so I’m making one on you, sir.

    • I owe it to the blog and, I suppose you, to debunk this mess. By the end, the comment is so offensive and dim-witted that I was tempted to ignore it and just ban you under several rules in the Comment guidelines. But I’ll be generous. I’ll reply in detail, and see how ticked off I am by the end. Good luck.

      1. If you’re going to put that “it’s indefensible” and “there’s no possible way this is morally right” (views that I do happen to hold) what’s the point of having an ethical discussion about it. You’ve already broadcasted that you’re unwilling to listen to opposing reasons.

      I do not discuss morality here, and if you’ve really been reading here before, you should know that. If you want morality, visit a religious blog. This is ethics. I’d suggest you review the Rule Book above. You’re right, though: I don’t think there is valid argument in favor of allowing people to defy our borders and get away with it. I know this, because I’ve been looking for one for more than a decade, There’s a reason to find a way to allow people who have been here a long time to become citizens if only because we can’t deport 11 million people, but that’s a practical consideration. They don’t deserve it, but we’re stuck. But there are no valid arguments for allowing illegal aliens in or giving them incentives. You, in fact, hep prove it, because you offer nothing but emotion, rationalizations and BS yourself. A single good argument would have been appreciated. This was a bipartisan deception originally: business wanted cheap labor , meaning people they could exploit; Democrats wanted more left-leaning voters. Both were unethical.Then the libertarians and the globalists decided that open borders were “moral,” when history has proven decisively that they are suicidal.

      2. It seems like the sole purpose of this post is to spew hatred towards illegal immigrants and those who disagree with you about how to solve the migrant crisis.

      You say twice that the post is hateful. Do it again, and you will be banned. There is not one hateful word about illegal immigrants in that post. Saying someone broke the law who broke the las isn’t hateful. Reality isn’t hateful. Facts aren’t hateful That’s progressive bullying, and I don’t allow it here. there isn’t a word of hate in that post. Debate fair, or shut up.

      3. Nonetheless, I maintain that not all laws are ethically justified.

      You can maintain that, but you still have to obey them. Protecting borders, hwoever is ethically justified, because the alternative is chaos.

      4. We could criminalize bicycling tomorrow but that doesn’t mean I harbor hatred for bicyclists.

      Idiotic statement, and that’s the second hate smear.

      5. The fact of the matter is that we haven’t passed meaningful legislation to sort out our immigration system for over 3 presidential administrations and people who have needed to flee persecution have been caught in the crossfire.

      Republicans object to “amnesty” on principle, and Democrats don’t want refor, they want unenforced laws. But that’s irrelevant to the FACT that illegal immigration is a crime, and must be discouraged. Illegal immigrants are not “percecuted,” any more than the violators of any law are persecuted when they are held accountable for what they have done. This statement gets you points on my “stupidity scale’—at a certain level, I’ll conclude that you just aren’t bright enough to debate here.

      6. This administration has been the most egregrious offender as they’ve basically been operating under the mission “keep foreigners out at all costs”

      Another point or two. The administration has and spreading lies (the caravan, Mexicans are rapists) rather than fixing it.

      There was a caravan; how did you ever get the idea that this was a lie? Trump did not say Mexicans were rapists, and taht get you about ten points, right there. You can check the facts on the blog. I’m sick of correcting that particular Big Lie.

      7.or the money that this president spent on the wall (not to mention the economic costs of shutting down the government for six weeks in a futile effort to enact it) (which has already been breached: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/2/20945336/trump-border-wall-smugglers-saw-us-mexico) he could have easily sent aid to Honduras, Guatemala and actually made the world a better place

      Boy, you’re going to blast past the stupidity limit before I even finish the post. The united States is not a charitable institution, “sending money” doesn’t fix problems (I bet you really think that money would get to the poor, don’t you? Wow.) Anyway, none of this is remotely relevant to the post.

      8.There is no inherent value in following a bad law and considering the actual costs in life of letting these people die outside your country when they can be easily saved and be productive members of your community, it’s downright inhumane. That’s why the UN has enacted international laws of refugees that saved Stephen Miller’s grandparents from the Nazis and which Trump is attempting to circumvent as possible.

      This isn’t an argument, it’s a “throw stuff and see what sticks.” The inherent value in following any law is called the Rule of Law, which is essential to the operation of a democracy.Legitimate refugees aren’t illegal aliens. People die outside our country who don’t live in our country, and the US has no duty, ethical or otherwise, to “save them.” Did you go to school? Is this what they taught you was critical thought? I’d sue them. I’m serious.

      9.Lastly, these communities by and large like to have these immigrants because economic study after economic study shows that immigrants fill up holes in the economy that are needed and don’t take jobs and they’re less likely to break laws ((https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/03/business/economy/immigration-labor-economy.htm). Bottom line: These laws are happening because these communities want them to happen.

      Arghh. What you don’t understand about government would fill Lake Huron. The fake argument that illegals do jobs citizens won’t was part of the Big Business lie. See, if you pay what the jobs are worth, and not exploit people afraid of being arrested, citizens WILL take those jobs. Yes, expenses go up, and prices, but they both should go up. “They are less likely to break laws”—see, that’s another ridiculous argument, but they all are. Out of 11,000,000 illegal residents, how many crimes do they commit? A million? 500,000? It doesn’t matter if its 25—every one of them shouldn’t happen here. You can’t compare crimes by citizens with crimes by illegals, because we have to accept crimes by the former. We should not accept ANY crimes by the latter

      10 You can stir up hatred from afar but you don’t live in California so if you’re going to be a true Republican and support states rights, stay out of their business.

      Well, that one put you over the line. I’ll think about whether I’ll be strict about it. I already caustioned you about the hate slur—go ahead, I dare you: find a hateful statement in the post. Look, dolt, no states can refuse to follow national laws. That’s what the segregation fight was about. Don’t talk about concepts you don’t comprehend. Immigration has nothing, NOTHING, to do with States Rights. Yeah, a Governor can spend money foolishly and undermine our laws by doing so, but it’s irresponsible, meaning unethical.

      While you’re at it, stay out of Chicago, stay out of Minneapolis, and as Trump famously said to 4 American citizens “go back to your own country.”

      He famously said that, did he? No, he didn’t. If you come back here, if I let you, don’t you dare load up on false talking points and spin. What the President did say was ugly and stupid, but he did not tell them to go back where they came from he said:

      So interesting to see ‘Progressive’ Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run
      Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came…Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!”

      He said they should go back to these countries, fix their problems, and then come back and show us how it’s done.That is materially different from saying they should leave the country. It’s still inexcusable. But words matter. I’m sure you can’t tell the difference, but trust me on this.

      I’m perfectly comfortable with one less American citizen with your viewpoint. Not only does your viewpoint not represent America’s future but it doesn’t even remotely represent our country’s past (ever read the Statue of Liberty’s poem). Just the worse instincts of backwards people that pushed away the Chinese and Irish and Jews and everyone else. You’re going to make a moral judgment on states that want to protect immigrants and their own citizens so I’m making one on you, sir.

      And I am now officially convinced that you’re an idiot. Our past and future will always include obeying laws and having enforced borders. Citing the “New Colossus” is signature significance for an immigration hack, and an activist with nothing legitimate to say. It’s a poem, you boob. Not policy, not law, not anything but romantic appeal to emotion, written for another age, about different conditions.

      Call me backwards, will you? Got it. Those Chinese and Irish and Jews (and Greeks, my “people”–My grandmother came her at 15, worked to bring her family over from Sparta, became a citizen, learned to read and speak English, and raised 6 children) were LEGAL immigrants. They came here with full respect, determined to be law-abiding from the start. Immigrants aren’t illegal immigrants, and your long, ignorant argument includes false assumptions about the law and history, ethics and facts, and is even terrible by illegal immigration apolgizt standards.

      I just wasted time that I will want back on my deathbed. I’ve made my judgment on you, too, SIR. (God I hate that). You’re too simple-minded and ill-informed to comment here. I’ll leave today’s sad array up, but that’s it. Comments like yours pollute the blog…not because of the opinion expressed, but because you made dumb arguments with no apparent comprehension of how dumb the were. In my experience, that’s a bad sign.

      Bye.

      • To any other commenters tempted to rebut this guy, which is shooting fish in a barrel, don’t. I just wasted my time so you wouldn’t have to. This is the an example of someone who triggered The Stupidity Rule,“which holds that some people are just too ignorant or stupid to take part in the discussion here, and interfere with the orderly exchange of opinions and ideas.”

          • The ‘progressive commentators’ have shown themselves incapable of up-front, reason-based argument.

            They can argue emotionally and with blame, but not with sound arguments.

            They get frustrated at the necessary terms of argument, and to save wear-and-tear on fragile egos, stop writing.

        • If we look at other countries, we c an see what illegal iommigration has wrought.

          Judith Bergman wrote several articles on this subject.

          http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15290/the-terrorists-migrating-into-europe

          The Terrorists Migrating into Europe
          by Judith Bergman
          February 15, 2020 at 5:00 am

          Send
          Print

          Share603
          Translations of this item:

          Czech
          “Most migrant terrorists involved in thwarted or completed attacks were purposefully deployed to the migration flows by an organized terrorist group to conduct or support attacks in destination countries.” — Todd Bensman, “What Terrorist Migration Over European Borders Can Teach About American Border Security”, Center for Immigration Studies.

          Bensman’s report indirectly proves that the three EU countries — Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic — which refused to take in any of the migrants that came during the migrant crisis, citing security concerns, were right.

          The leadership of the European Union, however, initiated legal proceedings at the Court of Justice of the European Union against the three countries over the issue…. A ruling on the issue by the Court is expected early next year.

          In response to the Advocate General, Polish government spokesman Piotr Muller, said that “ensuring security for our citizens is the most important goal of the government’s policies. Our actions were dictated by the interests of Polish citizens and the need for protection against uncontrolled migration”. — Polish government spokesman Piotr Muller, Reuters, October 31, 2019.

          Todd Bensman, a senior national security fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, describes in a new report the extent to which terrorists disguised as migrants have entered the European Union to commit terrorist attacks. (Image source: Elekes Andor/Wikimedia Commons)

          A new report, “What Terrorist Migration Over European Borders Can Teach About American Border Security”, by Todd Bensman, a senior national security fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, describes the extent to which terrorists disguised as migrants have entered the European Union to commit terrorist attacks. Although the study was written primarily for an American audience to prevent the same mistakes from being made on US borders, the study is extremely relevant for the European public — especially as Germany recently warned of a repeat migration crisis, similar to the one that occurred in 2015. According to Bensman:

          “Between 2014 and 2017, 13 of the 26 member states lining the so-called Schengen Area’s external land borders recorded more than 2.5 million detections of illegal border-crossings along several land and sea routes, an historic, mostly unfettered surge that came to be known as the ‘migrant crisis’. The Schengen Area, which generally encompasses the European Union, consists of countries that combined immigration enforcement of a common external border of 27,000 sea miles and 5,500 land miles while removing all interior border controls to facilitate the free movement of goods and people.

          “During the 2014-2018 migrant crisis, the majority of travelers who crossed the external border and were then able to move unfettered between member nations came from nations in the Middle East, such as Syria and Iraq; South Asia, such as Afghanistan and Pakistan; and Africa, such as Somalia and Eritrea. It first became known that some ISIS terrorist operatives also were in the flows after some of them committed the November 2015 Paris attacks… and then the March 2016 Brussels attacks”.

          According to Bensman “The totality of how migration and terrorism intertwined as a destructive force against Europe, and the continent’s response, remains largely unacknowledged, undocumented, and not analyzed”.

          Nor does it get much — if any — prolonged attention in European public debates about migration.

          According to Bensman:

          “Between January 2014 and January 2018, at least 104 Islamist extremists entered Europe by way of migration over external sea and land borders among more than two million people who crossed external European Union borders. All 104 were killed or arrested in nine European nations after participating either in completed and thwarted attacks, or arrested for illegal involvement with designated terrorist groups…

          “The majority of the 104 Islamist migrant-terrorists — 75 — were primarily affiliated with ISIS, while 13 were affiliated with Jabhat al Nusra. Others were associated with Ahrar al Sham, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Al-Shabaab, and the Caucasian Emirate. Some had unknown sympathies and some shifted among several groups. Only one was a woman and their average age was 26. They were from Syria and Iraq, but also from North Africa and South Asia…

          “Of the 104 migrants implicated in terrorist acts, 29 were involved in 16 completed attacks inside Europe between 2015 and 2018. These attacks killed 170 people and wounded at least 878 more, according to an analysis of media accounts…

          “At least 27 were part of one large cell of operatives dispatched onto the migration trails by ISIS. Most of the 27 were involved in the two highest-casualty completed attacks: the November 2015 multi-location strikes on Paris and the March 2016 attacks in Brussels. Most of the other completed attacks were smaller in scale and sometimes involved additional deployed operatives or long-distance communications with ISIS in Syria”.

          One of the most noteworthy findings of Bensman’s report was that, “Most migrant terrorists involved in thwarted or completed attacks were purposefully deployed to the migration flows by an organized terrorist group to conduct or support attacks in destination countries.”

          “Of the 65 migrant-terrorists involved in completed or thwarted attacks, at least 40 appeared to have been purposefully deployed into migrant flows toward Europe, impersonating war refugees, to conduct or support attacks in Europe. ISIS was responsible for this infiltration operation. Eleven others apparently initiated attacks or plots in small groups of relatives or associates, not coordinated by any foreign group. The balance were self-propelled lone offenders or information was insufficient to determine whether they were deployed…

          “In 2016, the New York Times reported, based on French intelligence material, that a clandestine ‘external operations’ division of ISIS in January 2014 sent its first of ‘at least’ 21 well-trained operatives to Europe camouflaged among refugee and migrant flows…

          “More fighters trained by ISIS in Syria traveled the migrant routes alone or in pairs at the rate of every two to three months through the balance of 2014 and early 2015, according to the Times.”

          In Germany, the Federal Intelligence Service (BND) warned in 2016 that Islamic State fighters had come into Europe disguised as refugees and that Islamic State leaders were training the fighters on how to apply for asylum.

          The risks that European leaders took by allowing the migrant flows to continue ended in tragedy, as the terrorist attacks committed by the terrorists posing as migrants claimed the lives of 170 people and wounded 878 in the 2014-2018 period, as mentioned above. Furthermore, according to Bensman:

          “A majority of the 104 terrorists applied for international protections such as asylum and were able to remain in European nations for an average of 11 months before attacks or arrests for plots, demonstrating that asylum processes accommodated plot incubation”.

          The process of former ISIS fighters applying for asylum is still ongoing, proving that European authorities are still incapable of handling the issue. In late November, police in Switzerland reportedly arrested an alleged Islamic State fighter who had lived in the country as an asylum seeker for at least six months. Several other migrants had come forward and said that they recognized the man as a former ISIS terrorist.

          Bensman’s report indirectly proves that the three EU countries — Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic — which refused to take in any of the migrants that came during the migrant crisis, citing security concerns, were right. The leadership of the European Union, however, initiated legal proceedings at the Court of Justice of the European Union against the three countries over the issue. In October, the Advocate General, legal advisor to the Court, said that EU law must be followed and that the EU’s principle of solidarity “necessarily sometimes implies accepting burden-sharing”.

          A ruling on the issue by the Court is expected early next year. If the Court follows the advice of the Advocate General, it will rule that the three countries were in breach of EU law when they refused to take in their appointed quota of migrants. In response to the Advocate General, Polish government spokesman Piotr Muller, said, “ensuring security for our citizens is the most important goal of the government’s policies. Our actions were dictated by the interests of Polish citizens and the need for protection against uncontrolled migration”.

          Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

      • “…you don’t live in California so if you’re going to be a true Republican and support states rights, stay out of their business.”

        Apart from tax fraud & etc. another consideration of national interest would be that California has acquired several extra congressional seats by dent of large numbers of illegals in the census. This dilutes the rights of all legal citizens.

  4. Giving aid to citizens and US companies that are struggling due to shut down gets first dibs on the limited pot of assistance. Foreign companies and illegal immigrants already draw more on public coffers than just paying sales tax covers. Skipping paying income and other taxes does not mean they get the incentive on top of not paying income or fica deductions on their under the table jobs. That’s the opposite of double jeopardy, but double stiffing the system. Very low income citizens won’t get aid, and they should be ahead of aliens.

  5. Judith Bergman explains the cost of illegal immigration.

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/15081/sweden-migration-price

    Sweden: The Price of Migration
    by Judith Bergman
    November 22, 2019 at 5:00 am

    “The industries have a very limited need for people without experience and education.” — Johanna Odö, municipal councilor; Aftonbladet, October 3, 2019.

    Now, to save money, the Ystad municipality will no longer serve hot meals to the elderly and cleaning services will be limited to once every three weeks.

    Motala municipality had said that it would lower the heat in buildings managed by the city, including old age homes, to save money. “We will take care of the elderly; they will not be freezing, they can have blankets,” the message went.

    Meanwhile, in June, the Swedish parliament voted in favor of a law that is likely to increase immigration to Sweden based on family reunification.

    Every fourth municipality and every third region in Sweden ran a budget deficit in 2018. Many municipalities are making budget cuts. The cities of Ystad and Motala will no longer serve hot meals to the elderly. Motala announced that it would lower the heat in buildings managed by the city, including old age homes, to save money. Pictured: An elderly homeless man in Stockholm, Sweden. (Image source: iStock)

    New figures from the European Union’s statistical bureau, Eurostat, show that unemployment is rising in Sweden. According to Eurostat, unemployment there was 7.4% in August, whereas the EU average for August was 6.2 %. This leaves Sweden, on Eurostat’s unemployment ranking of countries, at number 24 out of 28. According to the daily newspaper Expressen, one of the main reasons for Sweden’s high unemployment happens to be the large number of immigrants that the country has taken in.

    As late as February 2019, Sweden’s Minister of Justice and Migration, Morgan Johansson, mocked those who worried that migration would lead to mass unemployment: “Do you remember when the doomsayers were squawking that migration would lead to mass unemployment?,” he tweeted. “Now: unemployment continues to fall among foreign-born and young people. For domestic-born it is at a record low”.

    He cannot mock anyone now. In 2013, Social Democratic leader Stefan Löfven, who has been prime minister since 2014, said he would ensure that by 2020, Sweden would have the lowest unemployment in the EU. That is evidently not about to happen.

    The disproportionately large influx of people who do not have the educational or language skills to work in the Swedish economy was never likely to help bring about the lowest unemployment in the EU. As previously reported by Gatestone, the small Swedish city of Filipstad exemplifies a place where the influx of non-Western migrants, some of them illiterate, with little or no education, has meant that the unemployment rate in that group is at 80%: they depend for their livelihoods on the municipality’s social welfare program.

    In 2015, during the European migration crisis, nearly 163,000 migrants arrived in Sweden seeking asylum — primarily from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a recent report by the daily newspaper Aftonbladet. Out of those 163,000 migrants, 60,000 received a residence permit. In the group of people over the age of 15, made up of 40,019 people, only 4,574 get their livelihood from employment, according to Aftonbladet’s report. 18,405 people from the cohort live on welfare handed out by municipalities and 9,970 people receive funds for studying.

    According to Aftonbladet, eight of the ten municipalities that received the most asylum seekers in 2015 have higher unemployment than the national average, and in all ten municipalities there is a higher proportion of the population living on welfare. Aftonbladet mentions Ljusnarsberg in Örebro County as the municipality that received the highest number of asylum seekers — 230 per 1000 inhabitants. There, the unemployment rate is more than 10% and the number of welfare recipients is 22.9%. In Norberg, which received the second highest number in relation to its size, the unemployment rate is 8.6%. “The industries have a very limited need for people without experience and education,” said municipal councilor Johanna Odö. “Even if we had money to hire more people, we would not find these people among those who are outside the labor market in our municipality today”. Economist and professor Per Lundborg told Aftonbladet:

    “Sweden is one of the most high-tech countries in the world, where we have cut simpler jobs. Therefore, the knowledge gap is too large for many of the refugee immigrants who come here”.

    In Malmö, where unemployment is 13.7 %, almost double the national average, the municipality is looking at a deficit of 390 million kroner ($40.2 million). “This is something we share with many other municipalities. It is due to the demographic development, where fewer [people] have to provide for more,” the financial director of Malmö municipality, Anna Westerling, recently told the daily newspaper Sydsvenskan.

    Every fourth municipality and every third region, according to a report by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKL), had a budget deficit in 2018. At least 110 municipalities expect to run a deficit this year. (There are 290 municipalities and 21 regions in Sweden.)

    Many municipalities therefore need to make budget cuts. In Ystad, in the south of Sweden, the municipality, as part of the services of the welfare state, helps the elderly with hot meals and cleaning services. Now, to save money, the municipality will no longer serve hot meals to the elderly and cleaning services will be limited to once every three weeks. The elderly will instead have to get ready-made meals from the supermarket.

    “It’s about trying to streamline our work processes. But also to inspire and rethink,” said Dan Kjellsson, Social Manager of Ystad municipality, when interviewed for an article in Aftonbladet. The article also quoted the daughter of an elderly person who receives help:

    “Imagine that you cannot do very much on your own, which is why [the municipality helps with] cleaning. Imagine the toilet, what it looks like after three weeks? How does it look in the kitchen, hygienically? I think there needs to be cleaning every two weeks” she said.

    Motala municipality, according to a report in Aftonbladet, announced that it would lower the heat in buildings managed by the city, including old age homes, to save money. “We will take care of the elderly; they will not be freezing, they can have blankets,” the message went.

    The criticism of the proposed savings on care for the elderly in Motala, however, was so massive that the municipality had to back down. “It is good that Motala has changed its mind and listened. We assume that they have learned their lesson and that care for the elderly will be the last thing that is saved on in the future,” said Eva Eriksson, the spokesperson for the organization of pensioners in Sweden, SPF Seniorerna. Motala municipality is also planning to save on hot meals for the elderly by replacing them with ready-made microwavable meals. It remains to be seen whether that idea will also be scrapped.

    Meanwhile, in June, the Swedish parliament voted in favor of a law that is likely to increase immigration to Sweden based on family reunification. The Moderate Party and the Sweden Democrats were the only ones to vote against the proposal. “The government is completely relaxed about this. They are closing their eyes to what has happened after 2015,” said Maria Malmer Stenergard, a Moderate Party MP; “there is still a crisis in the municipalities. We say no to this because we need a strict refugee policy.”

    Judith Bergman, a columnist, lawyer and political analyst, is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Gatestone Institute.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.