After Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) introduced a merit-based immigration bill, the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act, President Donald Trump stated at an Ohio rally that such efforts will “protect our workers” and “our economy.”
In a joint USA Today article, Cotton and Perdue explain, “First, attract the young and highly skilled, since they provide the biggest boost to our economy. Second, seek out people who can integrate into American society most effectively. Third, give priority to uniting immediate families, since it’s better to give precious green cards to parents and their minor children rather than to fill out someone’s family tree with grown siblings and cousins.”
The points system, like those used in Canada and Australia seeks to achieve both the first and second objective. It attracts the young and highly skilled (i.e. English-speaking professionals who can integrate into the American workforce and culture).
The third priority of uniting immediate family members rather than “filling out the family tree” refers to eliminating “chain migration,” which allows an immigrant to petition for the immigration of their adult siblings and their adult children. The RAISE Act also eliminates the “diversity visa lottery” a fraud-laden system that randomly distributes green cards without assessment of skills. The bill also caps the number of refugees to 50,000 per year.
While these proposed changes seem reasonable, opponents of the RAISE Act have called it “racist” and “bigoted,” the natural insult to anyone with whom they disagree. But is it, in fact, racist to implement laws commonly used by industrial countries around the world?
Only if you are the United States.
The issue at stake here is sovereignty. Does the United States have the right to make its own decisions? The Regressives say no. In fact, they resist any immigration law other than open borders and amnesty. Why? They build their opinions upon two concepts: globalism and diversity. Globalists believe that all humans are “world citizens” whose loyalty should be toward the “global good.” To pledge loyalty to a specific country or to require fluency in a national language means, to a globalist, that you believe your country and language to be superior. While national loyalty and a national language exist as normal elements of countries around the globe, with the U.S. it qualifies, in their view, as racist.
The second concept, diversity, views any attempt to assimilate an immigrant into the U.S. as an oppressive attack on the immigrant’s native customs and attempt to micro-aggress his or her former cultural norms.
Ironically, globalism and diversity, the two foundations of Regressive opinions on immigration, diametrically oppose one another. Globalism says, “We are all the same,” while diversity says, “We are all different.” Globalism seeks to bring people into thought conformity, while diversity seeks to separate people into identity groups. Both ultimately cause division.
For example, globalism separates those who support local government and those who support global government. Diversity separates people into identity groups such as male, female, transgender, homosexual, heterosexual, black, white, Latino, Asian, Indian, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Baby Boomer, Millennial, Generation Z and so on. After dividing people into these groups, the diversity specialists “define” what it means. Some diversity axioms are “Millennials are socialists,” “Women support abortion,” “Blacks vote Democrat,” or “Latinos support amnesty,” or “Good people are for open borders.” To say anything against these axioms is to question the globalist/diversity hierarchy. To disagree is to not “conform.” And to not conform is to be punished with words like bigot, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, white supremacist or neo-Nazi.
In this way, globalists and diversity proponents control the narrative through their axioms, claiming that those who oppose are “judging,” while simultaneously judging those who disagree with them. For example, if an immigration bill like the RAISE Act comes up, it will be immediately labeled as racist (i.e. not globalist) and discriminatory (i.e. not diverse). Sandbox politics apparently still exist with grown-ups who resort to name-calling to shame and neutralize their opponents.
Thus, the opposition to the RAISE Act has little to do with whether it will help the economy or the American worker. Rather, driven by globalism, diversity and identity politics, instead of common sense, sovereignty or the precedent of other countries, the immigration debate has fallen victim to the coercive name-calling nature of globalists and diversity proponents. However, if we realize these baseless verbal attacks for the nonsense that they are, we can resist the absurdity and allow logic and reason to triumph, not only in the immigration debate, but in all debates.
Originally published on Patriot Post, August 17, 2017
Image credit: nmedia/Bigstock
Editor’s note: The following contains some unpleasant details in the opening definition of a barbaric practice.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) refers to the genital “circumcision” performed on young girls (generally 7-9 years of age) and can include the mutilation of a girl’s clitoris or labia, and in some cases, her vagina being sewn nearly shut. FGM is illegal in 18 African Nations and 12 industrialized countries including the United Kingdom, Spain, Sweden, Australia, Canada and the United States. In spite of its being a U.S. federal crime, a 2012 Center for Disease Control (CDC) report states that in the U.S., 500,000 girls are at risk for FGM. Additionally, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) noted that since 2003, there have been 380 arrested and 785 deported for FGM and related human rights violations. This includes the recent deportation of Ethiopian national Khalid Adem, who cut his two-year-old daughter’s genitals with scissors and served 10 years in a U.S. prison before being deported by ICE in March of this year.
Some claim that FGM is merely “cultural” and was a pagan “ritual practice” that preceded both Christianity and Islam. But these claims fail to recognize that in modern times FGM is practiced most widely as a Muslim ritual, considered “obligatory” for females, and is advocated under Islamic Law known as the “Sharia.” It shows dominance of men over women and prevents the woman from bringing “dishonor” to the family through promiscuous behavior, while also proving her “purity” for a future marriage.
This surgery renders the girl to have no sexual pleasure, and makes married intercourse and childbirth both painful and dangerous. Dr. Phyllis Chesler, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, notesthat complications include “bleeding, painful urination, cysts, dangerous and recurrent bladder and urinary tract infections and the growth of scar tissue” as well as the development of fistulas and the risk of becoming both incontinent and losing bowel control. FGM is most often accomplished with razor blades and without anesthesia and has lifelong psychological and physiological side-effects.
This year, Representative Heather Sirocki of the Maine legislature proposed a bill to further criminalize the brutal FGM of minors. While FGM is a federal U.S. crime, Sirocki’s bill would have made it a state crime, allowing prosecution on a state level.
The 10,000 Somali refugees residing in Maine have transformed the state into a high-risk area for FGM. As a background, Somalia adopted Sharia law (and thus the “obligation” of female circumcision) as the “law of the land” in 2009, and the Sharia-adherent Somali refugees see FGM, though an international human rights violation, as obligatory.
However, the bill failed in June. Who could be against this and why?
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) opposed the bill, claiming that the establishment of new felony penalties to be “redundant” to the existing criminal code. Representative Sirocki disagrees. “Federal prosecutors take a very small amount of cases. The state of Maine deals with thousands of cases. … If the federal government doesn’t have enough prosecutors, [an FGM case] doesn’t get prosecuted.”
According to one source, Maine Democrats also opposed the bill because they claimed that Republicans always block their bills and they are returning the favor. One Democrat representative said she would propose the bill next year so that the Democrats could receive the credit for being protectors of children. Is partisan war necessary when the lives, safety and the psychological future of young girls are at stake?
The ACLU also claimed that the bill was an “attempt to single out behavior that is commonly attributed to certain religious and ethnic communities.” Refugee aid organizations feared that the law would “offend” the Somali population. Yet would we say that breaking up criminal communities like gangs and drug cartels “offends” them and “infringes on their culture?” If the laws of our country, rooted in human dignity and gender equity offend a people group, they are under no compulsion to stay.
The ACLU also stated support for an amended version of the bill that would “establish a community-based education and outreach program to prevent the genital mutilation of a minor,” which they claim to be part of “evidence-based solutions.” This appears to be naïve. In April of this year, two Muslim doctors and the wife of one of the doctors were arrested on three federal counts including aiding and abetting female genital mutilation. According to Newsweek, the prosecutor estimated the doctors genitally mutilated more than 100 girls. They did not perform FGM because they lacked access to “educational, evidence-based programs.” Rather, as Sharia-adherent Muslims, they served a Sharia-adherent Muslim community.
We must realize that just because certain Sharia-adherent Muslim countries permit this form of barbarous child abuse does not mean that our country should tolerate, accept or feel guilty about providing harsher punishments for it. We are a nation of laws and of human dignity. Far from being a partisan issue, or an issue of cultural “hatred,” Female Genital Mutilation is an issue of human rights. If we cannot offer greater legal protections on the state level for vulnerable little girls, or worse, it we are afraid to do so out of “partisanship,” we are to be pitied as a nation devoid of conscience.