A recent Norwegian study shows how difficult it is for migrants to find a sustainable source of income:
The main message coming out of our longitudinal analyses is that the labor market integration of immigrants from low‐income countries tends to lose steam after just a few years in Norway, and that the integration process then goes into reverse. After five to ten years of residence, virtually all immigrant groups from low‐income countries – regardless of gender and admission class – experience declining employment rates and increasing social insurance dependency rates relative to natives with shared characteristics.
Interesting as it is, let us draw that other conclusion that the authors, as usual, simply turn a blind eye to:
Whites are much more likely to integrate than non-whites.
As the following table shows, migrants from Bosnia and Kosovo are clearly better able to keep jobs and avoid welfare than migrants from Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, and Somalia (Afghan males are more likely to keep jobs and less dependent on welfare than male Bosnians and Kosovars, but the pattern is reversed for Afghan females):
Just as obvious, all the countries in the list are predominantly Muslim. This is consistent with the fact that Muslim migrants tend to become more radicalized over time, and seems to support the notion that other things being equal, whiteness is a strong determinant of ease of integration among migrants.
José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch’s America division, is outraged at President Donald Trump’s reaction to U.S. District Judge James Robart’s blocking his executive order temporarily halting travel from seven terrorist-mass-producing countries:
Obviously, like most liberal pundits and wonks as of late, Vivanco fails to grasp that the one recklessly exceeding his lawful duties is Judge Robart.
President Trump acted well within his constitutional and statutory authority to issue his executive order. “The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty,” the Supreme Court concluded in a 1950 case. “The right to do so stems not alone from legislative power, but is inherent in the executive power to control the foreign affairs of the nation. When Congress prescribes a procedure concerning the admissibility of aliens, it is not dealing alone with a legislative power. It is implementing an inherent executive power.”
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
Furthermore, in 1952, Congress enacted the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), clearly reaffirming the president’s power to exclude aliens that he might consider detrimental to the national interest:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” (8 U.S.C. § 1182(f)).”
Nevertheless, Robart simply decided to substitute his judgement for Trump’s.
Specifically, during oral argument, Robart said to the Department of Justice attorney,
“You’re here arguing on behalf of someone who says we have to protect the US from these individuals coming from these countries, and there’s no support for that.”
Of course, Robart is simply not in a position to make a rational assessment of the threat these individuals might represent.
He simply lacks access to the kind of classified information on threats to national security that the president of the United States has at his disposal.
Robart also overlooked the fact that the countries were selected based on a list of “countries of concern” compiled by the Obama administration.
These countries have been proven unable to control both terrorism within their border and/or the export of terrorism.
Robart’s decision was based on preposterous claims by the states of Washington and Minnesota, according to which the temporary suspension of aliens from the seven countries considered in the Executive Order “adversely affects” their own “States’ residents in areas of employment, education, business, family relations, and freedom to travel.”
This overlooks the fact that the individuals affected by the executive order are obviously not residents of these states, and therefore not entitled to the states’ protection.
Robart also stated that the executive order somehow would inflict damage on the states’ operations, tax base and public education system.
Under this theory, individual states would have the right to challenge any federal policy decision on the basis of virtually any claim of possible harm to their states’ more parochial interests. The result would be to upend the relationship between the federal and state governments under our constitutional system.
So instead of going off on a knee-jerk reaction, freaking out on Trump’s harsh words about a federal judge’s decision, Vivanco should have at least done his research and looked hard into the facts of the matter.
Checks and balances cut both ways
Perhaps he would have then realized that in a clear case of judicial overreach, the president’s remarks are not out of place at all.
Like Dinesh D’Souza recently pointed out, in a world of runaway judges, “check and balances” cut both ways:
“Typical Latin American authoritarian language”
The clearest evidence that Vivanco is completely out of touch with the reality of this case comes from his characterization of Trump’s tweet as typical Latin American politicking.
Because a quick Google search shows that, in any case, Robart is the only one to blame for Latin-Americanish behavior.
Last year, while presiding over a case regarding the implementation of new police practices in Seattle, Robart became the first federal judge to officially support the vile race-baiting activist group Black Lives Matter from the bench:
As if Robart hadn’t made his anti-police bias clear enough, he proceeded to regurgitate one of the American left’s favorite fallacies:
Black people are being shot at disproportionate numbers compared to the rest of the population. Ergo, cops are racist.
Of course, when the situation is seen in its appropriate context, it’s easy to realize black people are more likely to get shot by police simply because they are more likely to try killing a cop.
Actually, a recent Harvard study shows that police officers are less likely to shoot a black suspect than a white suspect when the context of the shooting is prperly factored in.
Overlooking a key feature of looney, lefty Latin American politics
Vivanco should know better, but anti-police bias is one of the very defining features of looney, lefty Latin American politics.
As usual, Venezuela is perhaps the clearest example of this.
A key element contributing to the country’s becoming one of the most violent places on Earth, was Hugo Chávez’s systematic demonization of police as a tool of capitalist oppression.
As criminologist Roberto Briceno-Leon, director of the Venezuelan Observatory on Violence, told a Los Angeles Times reporter in 2012,
“Chavez has promoted the idea that violence forms part of the class struggle against the rich and the landowners, and so it’s not so bad,” Briceno-Leon said. “He has always rationalized high crime by saying the problem exists on every country on Earth, and that it’s the fault of poverty and capitalism. He won’t hire more police because he sees it as a right-wing policy.”
“The moral force that police should have in a society has been lost in Venezuela. It wasn’t so great before Chavez arrived, but it’s gotten worse. Chavez himself has referred to police as mafiosi. His interior minister has said police are responsible for 20% of the crimes in Venezuela,” Briceno-Leon said.
Bolivarian Circles, US edition
Vivanco should also be aware that today, people in Venezuela are not only at the mercy of common criminals.
They are also systematically terrorized by the nefarious Bolivarian Circles, a network of armed, far-left chavista groups that operate as a paramilitary arm of the government.
The Bolivarian Circles are a clear example of how easily far-left activist groups turn to violence, especially when empowered by government.
Is it so hard for Vivanco to see what Black Lives Matter might end up turning into? Especially when lefty presidential candidates, government officials, and judges like Robart pander to them?