The proponents of allowing Haitian refugees into America are stopping at nothing to convince those of us opposed that it would be good for America. Even former members of the George W. Bush administration are going so far as to suggest that it would be cheaper and more effective for America to accept more Haitian immigrants than to provide more aid to Haiti:
Still, Elliott Abrams, a deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush who is now at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that if the United States doubled for the next five years the 25,000 Haitians who have been coming to the United States annually, it would substantially increase the remittances sent back, providing critical help as the nation tries to rebuild. Such help streaming home to families is more reliable and more likely to be spent efficiently than the ebb and flow of foreign aid, he said.
Why is it unsurprising that a former Bush administration official supports this idea?
There are two big assumptions in Mr. Abrams’ plan: That the immigrants would be able to secure jobs; and that they would actually send the money back to Haiti.
My argument to this plan is similar to mine against accepting Haitian refugees: We already have a 10% unemployment rate in this country. That means that 10% of those who are willing and able to work can’t find jobs. Given that information, it’s foolish to assume that these new Haitian immigrants would show up and find jobs. Absent jobs, they can’t send money home to Haiti; absent jobs, they end up on welfare. Net result result for America? More immigrants we can’t afford.
Mark Krikorian at the Center for Immigration Studies echoes my argument:
“poverty and underdevelopment can’t be criteria we use to pick immigrants. There are too many of them.” And he said that Haitian earthquake victims could consume U.S. social services and displace American workers — without generating enough income to send back to Haiti “to make a difference” there.
The Washington Times, reporting on this story, quotes an hysterical woman pleading for her family to be allowed into America. Read this attempted play on our emotions:
In Little Haiti, the first stirrings are already visible. “How can anyone watch someone who has . . . no food, and they’re just lying in the street covering themselves with a box, and then say, ‘No more immigration’? How is that humane?” said Tchelsie Lafond, 20, whose uncle crawled out of the rubble of the bank in which he worked and, with his wife, now wants to come to the United States.
- We aren’t just “watching” the situation in Haiti. We’ve sent troops and $115 million in aid. Nice try.
- Is it humane to stack corpses at the end of roads, creating an impediment for the very aid you solicit? Is it humane for your fellow Haitians to loot and rob?
Don’t you dare lecture America on what is humane or inhumane. Direct that lecture towards your own people.
The Haitian’s contempt for America is astounding.