Give us your tired, poor, hungry… Ah, the hell with that. How about Give us everybody you don’t want? Mr. Obama wants the United States to accept 110,000 “refugees” in 2017. That doesn’t seem like a lot of people when you view it in the context of the current United States population of 320 million or so. But it’s a deceptive number, because each one of those refugees can be used as a wedge to bring in more family members and/or close associates.
A better way to look at it: Immigrants and their first-generation children account for more than 81 million people in the United States. One out of four Americans is either an immigrant or the “anchor baby” of an immigrant. They come from every corner of the world — well, that’s not correct, strictly speaking. If you’re European, Japanese, or even Canadian, immigration is a stone-cold bitch. The USA has an immigration policy virtually the opposite of the Swiss one: only low-skills people, or people who will assist in keeping wages low, need apply.
This policy is largely set by people who only experience immigration as a labor source or a source of political power. My modest proposal, the Refugee Resettlement Act of 2017, would change all that.
The Refugee Resettlement Act has several core components. The first one is this, which should make advocates of increased Muslim immigration happy: There shall be no upper limit to the influx of refugees or economic migrants. Very Ellis-Island-esque, if you ask me.
The second component: Refugee resettlement shall be limited to counties with the top quartile of average income. This ensures that refugees have a chance to interact with successful, high-net-worth Americans, instead of being forced to form “ghettos” in Minnesota and elsewhere across the Midwest.
The third component: Refugees shall be permitted at a fixed ratio of 33% men, 33% women, and 34% children under the age of twelve, divided equally by sex. Right now, the refugee population is astoundingly, overwhelmingly male and prone to lying about its age. One wonders why, exactly, all these young men are abandoning their wives, mothers, and daughters to oppressive and deadly conditions back home. They’re all basically George Costanza, I guess.
No more of that. It’s male privilege, it’s mansplaining, it’s cis-het male patriarchy oppression. From now on, we will have proper gender balance. That’s a bummer for all the male refugees who have been promised sex with light-skinned women but it’s only fair.
The last component: Each refugee must be sponsored by, live with, and be the financial responsibility of a host with primary residence in one of the top-quartile counties. That host must commit to covering the financial and medical needs of that refugee for ten years. They must have liability insurance to cover the actions of their refugee; alternately, they could post a $100,000 bond. At the end of the ten-year period, the refugee will be free to leave and seek their own fortune without further involvement from the host.
This last condition seems restrictive but it’s not. There are more than 10.3 million households in the United States with a net worth over $1 million. And of those, a full 1.2 million are worth between $5m and $25m. The vast majority of these people live in wealthy coastal communities. Each of them could easily commit to several refugees. After all, isn’t that the American dream? Isn’t more immigration the solution to all of America’s problems? Don’t we need more diversity in this country, particularly more Islamic diversity?
This is how we’ll do it. If just one out of ten super-high-net-worth households agreed to host refugees in 2017, that would actually exceed Mr. Obama’s plans for refugee resettlement. And it would be voluntary. Fashionable, even. Pretty soon, everybody in Hollywood would have Syrians or Burmese or Afghanis living with them. Think of the positive economic impact we’d see from another 100,000-plus well-financed people spending money at Starbucks!
This is really the only fair way to offer a helping hand to the victims of, uh, whatever they say they’re the victims of. And it’s consistent with progressive logic. Those of us who are anti-abortion are often told that we need to pay for the lives of the “children” we don’t want to see “killed” with a “pair of forceps” that “scramble” the “brains” of the “child” in the “clinic”. Why shouldn’t the pro-refugee blue-state Ubermensch among us bear the costs of the refugee policy they want?
Not that anything like this will ever happen. Instead, refugees will be continue to be brought in at public expense then settled in the red states where some percentage of them will engage in organized crime, human trafficking, murder, and, you know, the occasional drivin’-and-stabbin’ campus incident. Anybody who complains will be called a racist. Anybody who dares suggest a different approach will be called a Nazi. Without local resources to support, educate, and sponsor them, most refugees will stay on public assistance. They’ll be a reliable dark-blue voting bloc, as will their children, but most of them will never get a real look at the American Dream. So they will always look at this country as an unholy wasteland of infidel behavior, rather than as a home. And that’s a shame for all of us, no matter who you are, or what you believe.