A recent Harvard-Harris survey shows bleeding hearts pushing RAISE face-first into the dirt. Queried respondents were more likely to say “facing a physical threat in their home country” (49%) and “facing persecution on the basis of ethnicity or religion in their home country” (47%) should be factors in determining whether or not an aspiring immigrant receives legal status than the “ability to speak English” (40%) should be, let alone their “education level” (29%), “their health” (27%), or their “income level” (15%). Respondents could choose multiple factors or none at all.
That a majority does not think English language fluency should be taken into consideration when deciding whether or not to grant a prospective immigrant legal residency reveals that the American idea of assimilation is dead. The ability to communicate is a necessity for the most basic level of assimilation to occur. We’re living in an empire, not a republic–an empire we’re welcoming as we destroy its republican remnants.
Our collective willingness to magnanimously transfer our neighbor’s income to a refugee resettlement racket tasked with settling Somalis three states over has its limits, though. The most encouraging result is in how few people–just 7%–say no evaluating factors should be applied at all. Even among Democrats the figure is only 11%. Open borders are unpopular.
To dispel the misogynistic notion that women are driving Western countries away from formulating immigration policy based on sober cost-benefit calculations and towards schmaltzy sentimentality, the following graph shows whether, and by how much, men (blue) or women (pink) put greater emphasis on each of the factors under consideration: