A Modest Proposal: The Refugee Resettlement Act Of 2017

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.

45 Replies to “A Modest Proposal: The Refugee Resettlement Act Of 2017”

  1. Arbuckle

    The best solution is to become different countries protected under a common military and let the “two Americas” govern themselves.

      • Tomko

        I beg to differ.

        It is these very people who benefit most from the illegal and undocumented workers. A reverse trickle-down if you will.

        The indentured H2-B are simply a method that Congress gave the wealthy to legalize the practice.

        • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

          Benefit, yes.

          Exploit, certainly.

          And the small towns and low income areas in which the immigrants live are invisible to them.

          • ZG

            I think your last sentence there is the heart of the issue for a lot of the “turning away refugees is morally wrong” crown. If you’re a member of the east coast professional class, there no personal cost to you to accepting immigrants from poorer countries because there’s no way they can afford to live anywhere near you, and they aren’t after the same jobs you are. I think, in more charitable moments, that a lot of the people who are for increasing migration aren’t consciously hoping to exploit immigrants or low-wage Americans, they just fail to recognize that the thing that costs them nothing is actually costly for someone else.

  2. Yamahog

    I wonder what government we would have if you got 1 vote for every dollar you paid in taxes.

    Federal Votes – federal tax bill
    State votes – state tax bill
    Local votes – local tax bill

    I don’t know why apartment dwellers should get to vote on property taxes.

    • Jim

      “I don’t know why apartment dwellers should get to vote on property taxes.”

      Probably because that dweller is actually paying the property taxes for that apartment as well as potentially using every service that the property tax pays for, probably more than the actual property owner.

      • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

        This is a tricky one. Even more so in states like ohio where property taxes can be half your mortgage payment.

      • yamahog

        Buddy let me tell you about my landlord – he’s charging as much as the market will bear, not necessarily in step with what it costs him to provide an apartment.

        I can vote up every proposal for better drinking water and it will have a diluted effect on my rent – the value of my apartment is minimally affected by the cleanliness of my tap water.

  3. Hogie roll

    It’s an invasion. It hasn’t been openly identified as such because it’s leaders work for the government or politically connected banks.

  4. Dirty Dingus McGee

    I was reading thru with mounting horror that I might have to harbor one of those flea infested wannabe terrorist’s
    ( yeah I know, racist, misogynist, blah, blah). Then I hit the summary and realized I’m good; I don’t live where the rich folks do. I spend my money out in the sticks. We do however have an issue ongoing here;


    Now, around this area you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting some type of church. If I said there are 20 churches in a 5 mile radius of my “estate”, it wouldn’t be an exaggeration. And remember, this is a rural area, not an urban enviroment, or even suburban part of the county, There are none however that have a compound like these folks want. Knowing how some, lot’s, of the local rednecks, and I’m a redneck so no slur there (unless someone is suffering from SVS), feel about this, I figure there are going to be LOT of delays in construction. And I expect to hear about a lot of “lightning cause fires”, even in clear weather.

  5. jz78817

    while I’m not for the idea of “send ’em all over here” like Obama (and Clinton) seemed to be OK with, IMO with proper vetting of prospective immigrants I don’t see too much risk. Dearborn, Hamtramck, and Sterling Heights seem to get along fine with large Arab-American populations (though not all Muslim, a sizable chunk are Catholic.) A lot of this is precisely because they haven’t been shoved into a ghetto like in, say, France. It’s not really surprising that France (among other European countries) has had problems with radicalized Muslim youths when their attitudes towards them have been little more than “yes, you go live over there and make sure we don’t have to see you or hear from you ever.” Like the old axiom says, “Idle hands are the Devil’s playthings.” sticking people in the margins with no visible prospects or future is what turns people into sticks of dynamite, even if Islam is what finally lights the fuse. being part of the community, being able to get a good education, and having good jobs available are why nobody’s blowing shit up in Dearborn, Hamtramck, and Sterling Heights.

    • yamahog

      The rapefugees who have been treated rather well in Germany and Sweden are such sterling examples of people getting along just fine and working hard to integrate themselves in their new host country, right?

      Here’s the thing about mass immigration – they bring the old country with them. Some countries have built the modern world and other countries experience near perpetual starvation. Who do you want living next door?

          • lzaffuto

            Silly! They don’t throw people off the roof! They cut off their heads, put them in cages and douse them with gasoline and burn them, and rape them! And if you are really, really lucky, they’ll do it in *that* specific order!

    • jz78817

      I don’t think he ever comments here other than one time he was specifically pointed to a post, so “calling him out” here is a rather chickenshit swipe on your part.

        • VoGo

          I’m reading now. First time I’ve been here for a few months. So I don’t defend unlimited immigration. Not at all. I also don’t spend much time thinking about immigration law, because it really doesn’t impact me much.

          I would like to see a path for immigrants who have been here a long time to some sort of legal status, if not full citizenship.

          What I truly oppose is the idea of a Federal police force knocking on the doors of 11 million people in the dead of night to deport them. Not only is that ‘unAmerican’, it would kill our economy.

          • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

            “I also don’t spend much time thinking about immigration law, because it really doesn’t impact me much.”

            In that case, you should leave the immigration decisions to those of us who are affected. As an example, the H1-B program has probably cost me $750,000 in lost wages since 2001. So I have a definite opinion.

            As far as federal police rounding up immigrants… the last person who did that was Janet Reno. All that needs to happen to fix the problem: impose reasonable restrictions on the work visa programs, seal the border, deport the criminals. It really is that simple.

  6. Jeff Zekas

    We should have the same immigration policy that New Zealand has: you must have a skill that cannot be filled by a native born citizen, or you must have one million dollars to invest in the local economy.

    • mopar4wd

      That’s how most of the non refugee/immigration lottery, immigrants come to our country. Also I know a few people who migrated to New Zealand wasn’t that hard at least back in the 90’s

  7. Joe

    The video that Jack posted alluded to the fact that leaders are trying to replace or augment population and that westerners don’t have more than one or two kids, while the immigrants will have very large families, is it that the regulators and politicians are looking to increase a tax base on a much quicker level than say a native born population will give them, I don’t understand why this is important to the multiculturalists when they don’t have enough resources or jobs to keep the new population busy, In the U.S.,it’s for votes, and it’s for corporations looking for cheap labor that will use state and county monies for health and child care versus having to pay citizens a wage and benefits package, part of the untold truth of Obama care is that the corporations (corporate America) want to be rid of benefits like health care, corporations want Obamacare because it will lift the burden of healthcare off of them, the crony chamber of commerce with its rino leaders want open borders for cheap labor. It seems the elite leaders are pushing for this outcome and do not care one Witt about what the citizens that voted them in want.

    • mopar4wd

      Adding people almost always expands GDP. And almost always helps on the Macro global/ national scale. The problems as viewed by an economist would be seen as local issues. Which would be why insulated leaders of business and government like them.

  8. Ronnie Schreiber

    ” If you’re European, Japanese, or even Canadian, immigration is a stone-cold bitch.”

    While I believe it would be unAmerican to use religion as a criteria for admission to the United States, restricting people on the basis of nationality is almost foundational in U.S. immigration law. Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the U.S. after the Tehran embassy and its staff were taken hostage.

    Muslims have a concept called the Ummah, sort of analogous to Christendom. It means the worldwide Muslim community, but actually Ummah means “nation” in Arabic. If someone seeking entry to the U.S. says that they’re a part of the Ummah, they go to the back of the line. No religious test, simply a question of nationality.

  9. tifoso

    Sounds good in theory, Jack. But from what I’ve been able to glean from the observing the behaviour of progressives is that they prefer to indulge their virtue at the expense of others. You know the ones, the unwashed masses who can’t get the wisdom of enlightened policies through their thick skulls.

  10. -Nate

    I’m the end result of an Irish Lassie who came unmarried with two kids to the U.S. of A. through Ellis island long ago .

    My Family acclimated and spoke English from the jump, not Gaelic or other non American language .

    Immigrants are O.K. as long as they _assimilate_ .

    Assimilate or perish .

    My Ex Wife and mother to our Son who’s a rock solid Citizen, she made a run for the border from Guatemala and never once Welfare, Food Stamps etc.

    She knew/knows she was allowed a precious gift and is very proud to be an American Citizen .

    No one who doesn’t accept these basic concepts should be allowed here regardless of religion .

    ” Freedom is not free ” .


    • Rambo Furum

      You seem to believe in the Proposition Nation.
      “What happens to people who are born American of American parents, live in America, marry American, have American children, work for a living, obey the law, pay their taxes and mow their lawns, but decide they reject the creed? Do they suddenly become not American? What’s so tolerant, inclusive and un-mean-spirited about that? Shouldn’t there be an essential difference between a nation and a political movement?”
      Prior to the Trump election, it would be hard for me to say that I was particularly proud of being a US citizen.

      • -Nate

        ?? So being a good and productive Citizen is a bad thing is your eyes ? .
        My only proposition is : assimilate or perish .

        • Jack BaruthJack Baruth Post author

          I think he’s interpreting your statement as being similar to the belief that anybody can become an American simply by saying they want to be.

          I read your statement as saying something else entirely; that unless immigrants adopt American culture as it largely exists now, they aren’t much use to the country.

          • -Nate

            What Jack said :
            Diversity is great but this is America and you’re expected to join in and become part of it .

  11. Domestic Hearse

    Jeez, Jack. Just expand the EB-5 visa program and the immigration problem you describe has pretty much already been fixed. Immigrant? Check. Millionaire? Check. Give the government $500,000 to $1,000,000 for private or public projects to invest in approved job-creating ventures? Check. With no guarantee of return on or repayment of immigrant’s investment? Check.

    Welcome, my friend. Here is your green card. Where will you be staying? Oh, you’ve already purchased Angela and Brad’s mansion? Good, I hear the neighborhood is very nice.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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