Tuesday, 23 May 2006

Solving 'illegal immigration'

The case of Hirsi Ali highlights again the great immigration debate, and on that subject Harry Binswanger cuts to the chase once again. You want a solution to the 'problem of illegal immigration? Here it is:
The problem of "illegal" immigration can be solved at the stroke of a pen: legalize immigration. Screen all you want (though I want damn little), but remove the quotas. Phase them out over a 5- or 10-year period. Grant immediate, unconditional amnesty to all "illegal" immigrants.
As America considers the 'problem' of illegal immigration, there's no better time for the US to have offered a safe haven to Hirsi Ali -- America once again performs the role for which it was born: as a safe haven from oppression; and Europe once again performs the role it has chosen for itself: bureaucratic bungling. Ali's bureucratic ejection from the Netherlands has at a stroke make her a poster woman for open immigration, just as she was before the poster woman huighlighting Muslim oppression of women

LINKS: The solution to 'illegal immigration' - Harry Binswanger 
Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration - Harry Binswanger
  Castaway - Cox & Forkum  

TAGS: Immigration, Politics-US, Politics-Europe


  1. Again, Ali is not being "ejected from the Netherlands". She has chosen to leave. She had her Dutch citizenship taken off her. I agree with you that the reasons for this appear to be wrong, but she still has permanent residency.

    I am a permanent resident of NZ, but I am not a NZ citizen. I have the same rights as any New Zealander, with a few exceptions. I can't join the armed forces, I can't represent NZ in sport, and I can't legally stand for parliament.

    I am not disputing the wrongs in the Ali case, but she still has the same rights as all Dutch citizens, with a few exceptions. More importantly, she is not being thrown out of the country. She has opted out. There is a difference.

  2. Your response is spin, Andrew. This is clearly the last straw for Ali -- and why the hell wouldn't it be when you've been treated as shamefully as Holland has treated her. Locked up, threatened with murder, sued and evicted by her neighbours just for living next to them, and now stripped of her citizenship by a cowardly, lowlife bloody flunky -- you think she's getting the message, Andrew? Do you?

    She's been stripped of her Dutch passport because she "lied on her citizenship application" by using a false name to protect herself. As Larry Salzman says, "She lied because she feared that her family would find her in the Netherlands after her escape and altered her last name on her citizenship application so it could not be easily searched by those who would harm her. See her statement on the affair here. Perhaps most bewildering, the decision to revoke her citizenship was not mandated by the law but was a discretionary act of a "hardline" enforcer of immigration policy. This article in today's Spiegel Online (English edition) details this action."

    The whole reason for stripping her of her citizenship is just bogus and another calculated insult -- it's appeasement pure and simple; appeasement to the butchers from whom she ran, and to the butchers she's been running from since the murder of her colleague Theo van Gogh. And in response to that, the government that should have been protecting her rights is doing them over instead. They are a bloody disgrace, as are their apologists.

  3. And the hardline enforcer was at that moment embroiled in a leadership battle for her party...

  4. Firstly, I agree that the way Ali was treated is not the way I would want to be treated. However, Holland didn’t threaten her with murder and Holland is not throwing her out of the country. I find it strange and am surprised that the Verdonk has taken the stance she has. It may be appeasement, as you suggest, but I find that hard to believe. As for Ali’s neighbours, it is possible that they are actually fearful of their lives, because an attack on her house is entirely plausible – not by the Dutch mind you, but by Islamists. You can call them cowards, but there is no need to be a hero for someone else’s cause! Comparing their actions to the people hiding Jews during WWII (one of your earlier posts) – ridiculous. When Dutch people hid Jewish people, the Jews kept a low profile. If instead they went around kicking up a great big stink – whether you agree with their stink or not – the hiders might not have been so keen to help out. And that brings me to the crux…

    Ali apparently lied so her family wouldn’t be able to track her down. I have no issue with that. However (and this is the very strange part) she then promptly became a high-profile public figure. I find this odd, given that she was so keen on keeping her whereabouts a secret. It is inconsistent and does not add up. See, I think there is more going on here than you could possibly know about, sitting in Epsom.

    If my response is spin then pots and kettles to you. I also find it strange that you want Ahmed Zaoui, a refugee who spent a LONG time locked up in NZ, to leave NZ and yet you find it disgraceful when Ali, also a refugee who has been treated MUCH better by the Dutch than Zaoui was treated here, had her citizenship revoked. Of course I don’t know what I’m talking about, so tell me how wrong I am.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.