If any of you are Libertarians and think the CATO Institute is the last word on libertarian good sense, you may not know that crazy CATO is for a free flow of immigrants around the world. Here Alex Nowrasteh, CATO immigration specialist, makes an emotional pitch to bring in Syrian refugees, but remembering that he is a Libertarian, near the end of his Op-ED in The Hill, says, but of course no welfare for them.
The Hill gave him space to say that we should open our borders to Syrians. He threw out some tired old bromides and the usual Leftist guilt-tripping about previous refugees (he must be reading the Left’s open borders screeds).
Then finally he suggests it will be fine, bring them in, but don’t let them get welfare (when pigs fly!). Where has he been?
The whole refugee resettlement apparatus in the US right now is built around our ever-expanding welfare system. Indeed the primary job of federal refugee resettlement contractors is to get refugees firmly attached to the federal welfare teat! From cash assistance, to food stamps, to subsidized housing and Medicaid, the non-profit government contractor’s job is to get them their “services” within the first three months of their arrival.
Clearly Mr. Nowrasteh doesn’t have a clue about the intricate web of interdependency between refugees, their contractors and government agencies and programs and the political power behind the refugee program. Maybe he should read RRW occasionally.
Twenty paragraphs in to a twenty-two paragraph Op-Ed he says something we could support.
Why didn’t he say it earlier? It is almost as if he says, ‘Oopsy’ I’m a libertarian, I better say something libertarian-like!
Most readers won’t even get this far! In fact, most readers will be left (dabbing their eyes with tissues) after his emotional appeals of the first three-quarters of his piece. I didn’t know libertarians are into emotional appeals and sob-stories!
Most on the Hill will say, Yes! CATO supports the Syrian resettlement.
Maybe the headline in the The Hill should have been something like this: ‘Welfare should be disallowed for refugees, then we can talk about bringing in Syrians.‘ I would have disagreed with that too (about bringing in the Syrians), but at least it would have been an intellectually honest libertarian thing to say.
So, I think they call this burying the lead! As almost an afterthought, Nowrasteh finally says in paragraph twenty:
Americans shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill! Churches and charities should do it!
American taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to foot the bill. Refugees have access to some means-tested welfare benefits before other immigrants do; that should end. Churches, charities and mutual aid associations should fulfill that responsibility.
Is CATO on the Hill actively lobbying for refugees to be disallowed welfare, or like way too many Washington ‘think tank’ experts are they just running their mouths while collecting big salaries for being supposedly ‘smart’ people?
Point me to a bill that CATO supports to disallow refugees to access welfare and I will apologize for calling them crazy!