Jason Dzubow is an immigration lawyer and blogger—The Asylumist. I read his blog from time to time and he is not a complete open borders NUT! I especially like the fact that he talks so openly about asylum fraud. But here I suggest his idea of changing the definition of what constitutes a “refugee” (making it easier to enter and stay in the US for broad safety reasons) and then taking away the carrots (freedom to roam about and get social services) by keeping all of the illegals in refugee camps, to be off-the-charts crazy!
I, of course, would have no objection to creating refugee camps at the US southern border to hold law-breakers until we could make travel arrangements for their return home, but his idea of creating camps (with only the bare basic necessities) for all of the aliens getting in until they could be processed as successful asylum seekers (refugees) or sent home (terrorists and criminals presumably would be found out and sent home) a non-starter.
Because the Hard Left would have a major coronary and not one of the chickens in Washington would have the testicular fortitude to stand up against them. Does Mr. Dzubow know what they do to the likes of Sheriff Arpaio for his camp-like jails and in his case his “campers” are definitely law breakers?
In fact, open-borders activist groups in Washington, like Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, have a campaign to do away with ALL detention for anyone getting into the US illegally, imagine what they would do if we set up camps like those in the Middle East, Turkey and Africa!
Should Dzubow’s proposal to change the definition of “refugee” pass Congress, without the stick (removing the pull factor) also passing Congress, it would be all over for America (but it probably is already).
Here is my simple plan: Just completely militarize the border and send the thousands of “kids” home right now and that will end the “pull factor” pronto!
As our country struggles to respond to the influx, I wonder whether we need a new definition of “refugee.”
Under current U.S. law, if a person is physically present in the country and meets the legal definition of refugee, he will receive asylum. This is quite a nice benefit to receive. People who get asylum are able to remain here permanently. They can eventually become residents and later citizens. They can travel, work, and attend school. They can sponsor certain family members to join them in the United States. They are sometimes eligible for government assistance. These generous benefits are a “pull” factor because they encourage refugees to seek asylum here (as opposed to staying put or seeking asylum somewhere else). The benefits also create an incentive for people to file fraudulent asylum claims.
We could simply categorize as a “refugee” anyone who says that they are afraid to return home. In other words, if someone requests asylum in the United States, they would automatically be granted asylum. This sounds like a stupid plan, you say? Everyone and their brother would seek asylum here, including terrorists and criminals. Worse, it would put asylum lawyers out of business. Maybe so, but indulge me for a moment.
O.K. we will indulge, but after the carrot is granted, this stick won’t work!
The main question is how to deal with the likely increased demand under this new system? The easiest way to reduce the “pull” of asylum would be to reduce the benefits of asylum. Basic economic theory suggests that if it is easier to obtain asylum, more people will come here, but if the benefits are reduced, less people will come here [that part is exactly right!—ed]. So in order to offset the increased number of asylum seekers caused by reducing the barriers to asylum, we would need a corresponding reduction in benefits. How much of a reduction will provide this balance, I don’t know. But let’s say we reduce the benefits to the bare minimum: People who come here for asylum will be placed in a refugee camp indefinitely, they will receive only the supplies they need to survive, and they can leave only to return to their home country or to resettle in a third country. [What third country would take them? Every relatively affluent country is trying to reduce its own invaders! They aren’t going to take ours!—ed]
Read it all, it is worth it especially as he discusses the definition of refugee and how it is being misunderstood (is that on purpose?).
The problem with Mr. Dzubow’s plan (besides the obvious) is that he is making a fatal error in judgement. He is trying to think of logical ways to solve the crisis while these people—the Obamas, the Soroses, the Munozes of the no-borders pushers— are NOT trying to solve the crisis! They want the borders gone altogether!
Compounding the problems with his logic is the FACT that our elected officials in DC, those who might like to find a solution, are apparently impotent against those forces working day and night to “change” America.