“Immigration Is Immoral”

I subscribe to the newsletter from The Center for Immigration Studies; their website is here.

C.I.S. covers all aspects of immigration, including legislation, short- and long-term effects of both illegal and sanctioned immigration, plus some of the phenomena arising from those events — e.g., sanctuary cities on the one hand, and on the other, what the Office of Refugee Resettlement calls people like you and me — “pockets of resistance”. That’s their pursed-lips designation for those of us who think mass immigration is bad for everyone.

I think of CIS as Ann Corcoran writ large. They’re in Washington, which enables them to do the tedious lobbying required to make our displeasure known while Ann Corcoran is a one-person dynamo, a fount of information with little funding. [See an excerpt of their “about” page after these two snips from their blog pages.]

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

First, from CIS’ director, Mark Krikorian, is the whole of his brief essay, “Refugee Resettlement is Immoral”.

It can’t be more plainly said than that. The long-term push for ever-increasing numbers of “refugees” (not to mention the soi-disant “faith-based” helpers who herd those groups into our country while being paid handsomely for their immoral pandering) is plainly and simply, WRONG. It deserves to be exposed [the emphases below are mine-D]:

The cascade of governors (over two dozen now) demanding that the State Department not send them any more Syrian refugees didn’t just happen in a vacuum. Local and state dissatisfaction with Washington’s dumping of refugees has been building for years. These communities were dubbed “pockets of resistance” by the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement a couple of years ago, a moniker they [the resisters, that is — D] have embraced. The Paris atrocities merely turned the dial up to 11.

What’s driven much of this local resentment has not been security concerns so much as cost ones — concerns that apply to all refugees, not merely those from Syria or even the Islamic world generally. The paid agents of the State Department — the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (52 percent taxpayer-funded), Church World Service (57 percent taxpayer-funded), World Relief (70 percent taxpayer-funded), Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services (92 percent taxpayer-funded), and others — decide on their own, in secret, where they will send the refugees they’re paid to “sponsor,” whether the local schools and other institutions can handle them or not. I use scare quotes because sponsoring a refugee does not mean what you think it does — it consists of little more than signing the refugees up for welfare and then moving on to the next revenue-generating warm body (the agencies are paid by the head).

For states and localities, refugee resettlement can be is a huge unfunded mandate. This heavy use of state and local welfare and other services, combined with the imperious attitude of the State Department and its minions, has generated resistance across the country, from Idaho to South Carolina and many places in between. They’ve gotten nowhere in pointing to the law’s all-but-meaningless requirement for consultation with state and local governments. Tennessee even passed a law in 2011 to try to force the State Department to consult with local communities — to little effect.

Faced with this week’s high-profile rebellion in the wake of the Paris atrocities, maybe things will change. But don’t count on it; the refugee resettlement industry is a committed, relentless lobby and will protect its access to taxpayer funds as tenaciously as Planned Parenthood or the sugar lobby.

Those few paragraphs sum up the evils of hundreds of “sponsored” groups of “immigrants” these NGOs have foisted off on unsuspecting communities for years. His final words inform us clearly about the difficulties that we’ll meet as we attempt to push back. But we have to start somewhere: Cut and paste that statement into an email to your senator(s) and congressman. Send it to your favorite presidential candidate. If you listen to radio talk shows, send the information and link to their correspondence people.

Three hundred and fifty words to spread wherever you can. Remember the value of relentless repetition.

Second, by the CIS contributor Jerry Kammer, this except from his essay titled “Syrian Refugees and the Wisdom of Michael Oakeshott”:

Those of us who push back against the effort to label all concerns about immigration as a mask for bigotry and irrationality can be grateful for the widespread criticism of those trying to apply a similar smear to those who oppose President Obama’s plan to welcome tens of thousands of Syrian refugees.

Even Kevin Drum, a writer at Mother Jones magazine, which has a claim to being the mother of all liberal magazines, has pushed back. While disputing worries about possible terrorist infiltration of the refugee stream, Drum advised that the concern seems so common-sensical to many Americans that, “Mocking it is the worst thing we could do. It validates all the worst stereotypes about liberals that we put political correctness ahead of national security.”

It also illustrates a failure that is widespread among liberal intellectuals: a smug intolerance for those who don’t share their post-national enthusiasm for tearing down borders and abolishing the nation state. Such liberals have no appreciation for the observation of British political philosopher Michael Oakeshott that:

to be conservative…is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

Here’s why I think the current debate is so difficult. It brings two fundamental values into conflict.

First is the value of national self-protection against an enemy eager to radicalize young Muslim refugees struggling for a sense of identity in the United States. It is a value rooted in a commitment to defending our national community by guarding against disruptive intrusion.

Second is what I think of as our country’s cultural secret sauce. It is our belief that newcomers should be encouraged to identify as Americans by adopting our fundamental belief in democracy and equal opportunity. We want them to be part of our national project, not estranged from it…


It is to respond to the fears of Americans at a time of international turmoil without engaging in the fear-mongering that creates allies for the vicious thugs who prefer mayhem to anything we hold dear.

Hmm… now who do you think could possibly be the target for his finger-shaking admonishment regarding “engage[ment] in fear mongering”? Do you think it might be the great unwashed, un-foundationed Counterjihad blogs who show so many videos reflecting the ugly realities of the “vicious thugs”?

Whatever. We plan to keep showing the reality no matter what liberals magazines such as Mother Jones say.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

This is from the about page on the Center’s website [again, emphases are mine -D]:

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization. Since our founding in 1985, we have pursued a single mission — providing immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States.

The Center is governed by a diverse board of directors that has included active and retired university professors, civil rights leaders, and former government officials…


many of us at the Center are animated by a “low-immigration, pro-immigrant” vision of an America that admits fewer immigrants but affords a warmer welcome for those who are admitted.

I hope we’ll see the “low-pro” vision realized. They’ll never admit it at CIS but among all the presidential candidates only Donald Trump gets their message.

11 thoughts on ““Immigration Is Immoral”

    • I disagree. Every organized religion eventually sprouts bureaucracies that insist on surviving past their usefulness. The people who run these things are VERY well paid. Who wants to kill a golden goose?

      • Which is not to say I don’t find religious institutions to be largely beneficial. It’s just that experience and discernment eventually teach us that everything is flawed. As the song says, “there is a crack in everything/That’s how the Light gets in…”

  1. It is also immoral on Malthusean principles (it is moral to do the greatest good for the greatest number). The vast sums spent per migrant into the US is money NOT spent where it can do most good, i.e. on helping refugees close to their country of origin, mostly in refugee camps.

    Money per individual spent there is vastly more effective in securing life and well-being, and paving the way for a return to the refugee homeland when possible.

    The UNHCR running refugee camps on the borders with Syria is desperately underfunded, as I understand it, precisely because so much money is sucked into paying for these groups among which many do not want to integrate and do not want to become decent and productive US citizens.

    In my view they also go on to threaten liberty within the USA which many of us view as the last bastion of Freedom.

    • I thought “the greatest good for the greatest number” was Jeremy Bentham and the other Utilitarians? Malthus was sure that crop yields would never be enough to feed everyone. In reality they are, but due to various state controls/tariffs they are mis-allocated. Ol’ Malthus definitely lived a life burdened by scarcity. As socialists do, when they demand that life be “fair”…

        • But the point remains: money to pay for migrants in Europe reduces money available to help refugees outside Europe.

          For instance, Denmark has both reduced its Foreign Aid budget and also diverted a substantial part of what remains to pay for migrants now arriving in Denmark.

          “It is standard practice that the costs of housing and feeding refugees in Denmark for the first year be charged against foreign aid funds,” Jensen said in a statement.


          Jensen is the Danish Development Minister.

          (HIS name I got right).

  2. The nice thing about Trump and some of the other Republican candidates, such as Cruz, is not that they have all the right ideas and will lead the anti-Jihad and anti-immigration charges. The regular readers of Gates of Vienna, CIS, Vdare, Jihad Watch and others will be much more focused on the real dangers of Muslim and other immigrants than any of the candidates will ever be.

    The bright light is that with these candidates, there is actually a conversation taking place. They engage in ideas, and don’t paint opponents as the devil. Politicians such as Obama and Hilary simply don’t engage in conversation. They lie and stonewall. There is no learning or movement taking place with them.

    The Democratic leaders fit in very well with the tax-funded, pseudo-service lobby groups such as the immigration advocates listed earlier in the article. People’s own money is used against their interests, and the dynamic takes a life of its own unless the train goes off the track.

    We can’t expect dialog with leaders like Hilary and Obama to give results. These are people who do not value or understand reasoning. There is no evidence in Obama’s case that he understands anything about American history or principles.

    The trick is to elect politicians not so much because they agree with us on every issue, but because they will engage in a true discussion and will actually be familiar with American history.

    • I suspect they ( H & O) KNOW an awful lot, but they have a fixed agenda that is not negotiable, so the easiest course is therefore to deny the realists a platform, and ignore them, relying on the Fuhrer principe to attract enough support from the media sheep to drown out any arguments.

  3. The charities are making their bodies available for payment. They are Red Light charities.

  4. Trump doesn’t meet the Oakeshottian principle “to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery,” and I have yet to see the proof that Trump cared much about the immigration issue or the Islamization issue before he started campaigning for the presidency.

    Krikorian points out that state and local authorities have tried to resist refugee-dumping for years, but Trump-fans have crowed that the governors’ opposition to bringing in Syrian “refugees” is (like anything good that “politicians” now do) all down to “the Trump effect” — as though none of those governors ever did anything principled in their citizens’ interest until Trump started his campaign.

    I don’t believe that no one would be talking about the problem but for Trump, and I cannot credit the ideological integrity of someone who recently told us what a terrific president Hillary Clinton would be but now poses as her most rock-ribbed opponent.

Comments are closed.