The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Reform of the Future: Immigration Insurance
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

This is obviously a smart reform, but what we really need is mandatory immigration insurance. Just as you’re not allowed to drive without auto insurance, you shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate without obtaining, say, $5 million in coverage for all the ways you can harm Americans.

Back in 2015, iSteve commenter Pittsburgh Thatcherite noted:

Some immigrants inflict large costs on a nation by heavily utilizing government services such as unemployment benefits, prisons, hospitals and schools. These dysfunctional immigrants reduce the quality of life in a nation by increasing crime and raising taxes. How can a nation protect itself from these costs?


Each immigrant should be required to purchase insurance from an insurer before they enter a nation.

Think of immigration as being like driving. If you are going to go hurtling about the landscape in a multiton projectile, it’s only fair to others that you demonstrate that you are able to pay for any damage you might do. Thus, practically every state requires car owners to have driver’s insurance or otherwise post bond in some kind of quasi-insurance system. (Similarly, Mexico famously forces American tourists to buy car insurance from a Mexican firm when driving across the border, with harsh penalties if this law is flouted.)

For driving, we’ve come up with a system that, while hardly perfect, at least compensates victims by financially penalizing (and thus deterring) bad driving. It’s a win-win solution.

And you can’t get affordable insurance if you are likely to maim somebody, so the system encourages the riskiest drivers to take the bus. (One of the more heartening conversations I’ve overheard recently was between two tattooed service workers taking a break to smoke out in front of a big-box store: The smarter-looking one was explaining to his lower-brow colleague that a single DUI would cost him $10,000 when he adds in the higher auto-insurance premiums.)

Similarly, immigration exposes Americans to all sorts of potential harms. It’s only reasonable that those who are more likely to injure Americans, whether directly or indirectly, should be charged higher premiums. As Pittsburgh Thatcherite explained:

Obviously, insurance would be more expensive for immigrants who are likely to be unemployed, commit crime, suffer from disease, and produce many children. Therefore, requiring that immigrants purchase insurance would ensure that immigrants are employed, law-abiding, healthy, and produce few children.

I’ve been looking for in-depth analyses of this notion, but I can’t find any discussion of the idea anywhere.

Compulsory car insurance didn’t always strike Americans as obvious either. Massachusetts was the first state to mandate it in 1927, but the Bay State’s politicians made such a hash of it for decades that nobody imitated it until New York came up with an improved version around 1957, after which the idea spread nationwide.

Hide 64 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Trump will not get reelected by acting the snob. Besides this strategy would only generate providers of fake insurance. Immigrants with more money don’t necessarily have good character either. That Trump has an affinity for wealthy grifter would-be immigrants comes as no surprise.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  2. Bernie Sanders will just call for single-payer immigration insurance, which takes us back to square one.

  3. Anonymous[309] • Disclaimer says:

    In other news, Britain’s Labour Party passed resolutions the other week binding a future Labour government to ‘extending free movement’ to the entire world, giving the ‘unconditional right’ to ‘family reunification’, allowing immigrants to the UK to vote in British political elections from the moment they set foot on British soil and free and full access to the UK’s extensive welfare state – including free accommodation and first class health care.

    And, oh, by the way, if you dare raise a squeak of objection on the grounds of ‘infeasibility’ you are automatically branded a ‘racist’.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    , @El Dato
  4. so the solution is for the Left to lobby for more government grants,and then turn around and offer a health insurance to every illegal alien.

    • Replies: @bomag
    , @Olorin
  5. Neoconned says:

    OT: Steve thought you might like this….lots of graphs.and data.

    Anyway I love your old suggestion here. Of course every identity politics group in the country will scream bloody murder over it…

  6. Anonymous[309] • Disclaimer says:

    With the possible exception of the manifesto offered up by the German National Socialist Party in 1933, these policy positions of the British Labour Party *must surely* be the the *most extremist policies ever* in political history offered up to the electorate by a major political party in a western democracy.
    Nothing but nothing even comes close to it. Even wholesale ‘nationalization’ of industry and commerce is but a mere triviality in comparison.

    Basically it’s a manifesto of the liquidation of the British people.

  7. bomag says:
    @houston 1992

    more government grants


    The various “migrant” programs are already funded by multiple billions; this would be another turn of the spigot. Insurance companies approve.

  8. Not the worst idea, but probably not passable. “Like the Good Conduct Bonds required of African Americans!”, etc..

  9. Anon[324] • Disclaimer says:

    I didn’t read the whole article, but I think this is not what it appears. Terminology counts, and the Times is being sloppy I think. This is not about immigrants. It’s about non-immigrants, those applying for a non-immigrant visa, like tourist, student, journalist, musician, diplomat, spouse or fiance, H1 and H2, and all the other non-immigrant visa statuses listed at

    Non-immigrants have to show that they will not become a burden and will eventually leave, which means a return ticket, proof of savings, and so on. Sometimes a guarantor. It sounds like they are just tightening this existing set of regulations up. A good move, but nothing for anyone on either side of the immigration debate to get too excited about. It’s a simple regulatory refinement.

    One of my pet peeves is referring to illegal aliens as immigrants. An immigrant is someone with an immigrant visa, like a green card. To call illegal aliens immigrants when they don’t even qualify as “non-immigrants” is beyond confusing.

    (I understand that Steve is just using this as a hook for more riffing on his evolving NTSA for immigrants proposal.)

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @notsaying
  10. The disparate impact would be too blatant. Plus, with citizenship being meaningless, they would demand all people get such insurance.

    Or, maybe they could grandfather in the already born and just require it for new babies. That would play well with the Thunbergian faction.

    Republicans would view it as a great compromise vs. eating the babies and pat themselves on the back.

  11. People used to only be able to immigrate if a responsible party was guaranteeing them, or sponsoring them. That party would have to pay for the immigrant’s expenses and take responsibility. I think it’s a sensible reform. The insurance idea is another way to do that.

    There is the Affidavit of Support still:

    this is exactly the idea. But make it super enforceable.

  12. European police need their own respective “National Immigration Safety Board(s)”—it seems that working at police headquarters is real dangerous:

    Paris police bloodbath WAS a terrorist attack, anti-terror cops believe: Knifeman who slaughtered four police colleagues has links to radical Islamist terrorist organisation, search of his computer and phone records reveals

    Two cops are shot dead inside Italian police station ‘after robbery suspect stole one of their guns and opened fire’ before being tackled

    Pierluigi Rotta, 34, and Matteo De Menego, 31, had taken two brothers of Dominican origin

    Probably not Dominican Friars …

    – who were suspects in a theft – in to the Trieste Police Headquarters before they were both shot dead, according to Italian newspaper Corriere della Serra.

    The younger of the brothers, aged 29 and 32, who is thought to have psychiatric problems, asked to go to the toilet before attacking his accompanying officer, according to the newspaper.

  13. You’ve brought this up a few times and I really don’t think it’s going to fly. Even as a meme.

  14. MLK says:

    I always thought your idea of an NTSB regulatory scheme for immigration was brilliant. But it’s too limited — not scalable to the U.S., with its mass immigration. Not even close. Switzerland, perhaps. Indeed, I’d bet a close review of what the Swiss do with prove analogous.

    So, while your idea would be an essential component for immigrats admitted “for reasons of state.” And then really to determine and effect sufficient monitoring of these admittees and FISA-type (yes, I know!) review of the justification.

    I think a more helpful analogy of mass immigration is to our use of fossil fuels. Many Americans cannot imagine us existing without it. It’s our energy and vitality! At the same time, an increasingly large number of Americans are alarmed by the outdated laissez-faire regulatory scheme.

    After all, any sensible person recognizes that gasoline (especially) is dangerous. We long ago insisted that Cracking to the gas station pump it was to be highly regulated.

    We immigration restrictions — at least a goodly number of us — are akin to those who made mass consumer use of fossil fuels safer throughout our daily lives, and in comparison to the myriad ways they were not previously.

    Mass immigration enthusiasts, to say nothing of open borders wackos, hold what is a self-defeating libertarian position whether they’re consciously Libertarians or not. Without exception, this great country has responded with a collective “Uh huh,” and then gone about the business of intelligent regulation in the public interest.

  15. There ought to be mandatory insurance for gun owners, too.

    I don’t see why immigrants arriving in the US should not be able to sign up for Medicaid at the welcome desk at the airport or frontier, if they cannot yet afford Obamacare.

    Or maybe the solution to immigrants costing the country so much for healthcare is to reform the way that health care is paid for. Now there is a great idea.

    In a new interview with the New York Times, Trump defended his knowledge of health care and the Senate’s chaotic attempts to pass a Republican health care bill to repeal (and, perhaps, replace) Obamacare. (On that front, the situation has been changing almost hourly over the past three days, but GOP leaders reportedly plan to hold a vote on some version of the bill next Tuesday. A Congressional Budget Office score of a new version of the Better Care Reconciliation Act was just released Thursday, projecting that 15 million more people would be uninsured next year compared with Obamacare and 22 million more would lack coverage in 2026.)

    But in one eyebrow-raising moment, Trump told the Times that health insurance costs about $1 per month when you’re young. “Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan,” he said.

    “[Y]ou know, a lot of the papers were saying—actually, these [Senators] couldn’t believe it, how much I know about it. I know a lot about health care,” Trump told the Times.

    6 promises Trump has made about health care

    “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said in an interview with The Washington Post. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.”

  16. mmack says:

    If everybody had car insurance MY car insurance wouldn’t need Uninsured Motorist coverage. 😉 So there’s a wee bit of a flaw in the proof of insurance to immigrate plan.

  17. DaKine says:

    The hated libertarians have proposed this and detailed it out. That is the better ones, not the Reason crowd. Hans Herman Hoppe has plenty of work on it.

  18. white goy progressivism really seems to be a mental illness. During the election we heard about how immigrants are NOT charity cases and CANT use welfare etc. Now we are hearing how evil it is to deny immigrants their rightful gibsmedat.

    I think there is a window into how progressives reason here: immigration is just axiomatically good and that’s all that matters. The argument for why/how it is good is just made up on the spot and doesn’t matter. Its a moving target so debunking it is useless.

  19. El Dato says:

    Apparently they now also want to kill private schools dead for no good reason.

    Tilting at windmills: Corbyn’s dangerous plan to abolish independent schools

    Everyone under the big State Umbrella.

    The Fabian collectivist dream of 1884 is coming true. The original logo was the wolf in sheep’s clothing; quite appropriate.

    Next there will be a Ministry of Love.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  20. Anon7 says:

    Also health insurance. Some of my friends’ children have done three month visits to Mexico and Israel, and both were required to purchase health insurance before being permitted to enter the country. Why not immigration insurance?

    Unfortunately, a longer term bond is also needed, for absimilation insurance. In the interests of fairness, money will be returned in the event that the immigre’s descendants turn out to be contributors to America, rather than a burden.

  21. SFG says:

    With all due respect, this sounds like one of those libertarian market-based ideas nobody is going to go for.

    The left wants more immigration, so they’ll be against it. Anything market-based would smell bad anyway.

    The elitist/globalist/business right won’t want to pay, and anyway for them immigration is a net financial positive–drives wages down, what’s not to like?

    The populist/nationalist right won’t want to let them in just because they can pay. Most countries have some sort of ‘buy your way into citizenship’ option to attract rich people anyway(we have investor visas if you invest half a million), but the cost is usually high enough most people can’t make it in–which is the point of course.

    If this is a way to make some kind of a deal with Jewish immigration enthusiasts (who alone among lefty groups would have enough money to pay for their relatives to escape from the fall of Israel or the Islamic takeover of France), I think sadly this would have been a great idea 20 years ago when Ellis Island worship was more of a thing. Now it’s all about destroying the ciswhiteChristoheteropatriarchy. The dissidents are Orthodox Jews and the small fragment of Stephen Miller types, most of whom are against unrestricted immigration anyway.

    If you want to create a neocon-like defection on immigration the way it happened on Communism (which carries its own risks 40 years down the line as before), I think Hazony’s movement is probably your best option.

    All IMHO of course.

  22. KunioKun says:

    While we are fantasizing…

    How about having a sponsor to stay here. If the immigrant screws up the sponsor gets the same punishment including fines, prison, and execution but not expulsion. The sponsor has to be a real human being, not a corporation. A person can only sponsor one immigrant at a time. Felons and other unsavory types cannot be sponsors. New Americans cannot be sponsors. All those JudeoChristians can put their flesh on the line.

  23. Tiny Duck says:

    This is vile. It really is. European Americans arrived by boat without any paperwork or documentation and that includes the President’s ancestors. This is just blatant racism at this point. I don’t see how any compassionate American can support Trump at this point.

  24. nebulafox says:
    @miss marple

    It’s very simple: the more Trump does the polar opposite of whatever Mitch McConnell advocates socioeconomically, the better chance he has of getting reelected.

    Yeah, fat chance. Like Dubya and Obama before him, The Donald’s real hope next year lies in his enemies.

    • Replies: @Steve in Greensboro
  25. @Jonathan Mason

    If you have homeowner’s or renter’s insurance, you’re already covered for negligent discharge of a firearm, which includes errors in judgment over self-defense. Intentional wrongdoing is uninsurable.

  26. Alfa158 says:

    I don’t know why they’re wasting their breath on such a non starter. How is this going to change the reality on the ground: one hundred thousand people a month stroll across the border, say insurance? FU, we’re here, we’re staying and there’s nothing you cornudos are actually going to do about it.
    This proposal is just delusional. It’s equivalent to the Polish deciding the way to stop the Wehrmacht was to pass a law requiring the Germans to fill out tourist visa forms and buy mandatory auto insurance for their tanks.

  27. Whiskey says: • Website

    The way to kill immigration is to make it threatening to the ruling class. Have immigrant demand a rightful share all of it of Google and Apple and all gov’t and media position.

    Instead we have the Zman coined White Scare. Most of the elites are planning to gulag White men. All of us. Chen and Rajeedh and Mohammed can replace us.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  28. Whiskey says: • Website

    The ruling class is your enemy and wants you dead. Plan accordingly. See if you can pass for non White.

  29. @Jonathan Mason

    “There ought to be mandatory insurance for gun owners, too.”

    Great! Can you imagine the rate for Black People living in Chicago?

    Traffic stop in Illinois: “Your Driver License & Proof of Insurance, Firearm Owner’s ID card, Mandatory Gun Owners Insurance papers, Citizen!”

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  30. nymom says:

    Its just another weak attempt to stop the hordes of immigrants from the rest of the world coming into and slowly dismantling Western Civilization…country by country.

    Sadly the only thing that has worked in the past will probably be needed once again and it won’t be asking for proof of insurance.

  31. Every country I have lived in over the past several decades required me to demonstrate I have adequate healthcare coverage out of my own means as a condition of granting me a visa or leave to remain; all also required me to demonstrate the means to support myself and barred me from recourse to public funds, i.e. welfare. What Trump is proposing is hardly Earth-shaking in the rest of the world. That it bothers so many Americans shows that Americans are the biggest suckers on the planet when it comes to the claims and aims of their own Criminal Elite.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  32. @Jonathan Mason

    There ought to be mandatory insurance for gun owners, too.

    No, but if you want to be fully-prepared to defend yourself or loved ones, you should buy your own insurance, because it is available:

    This chart was last updated on August 27th, 2019:

    One of the most unjust things that can happen to a Citizen is for him to be indicted when all he did was exercise his Constitutional right to defense-by-firearm.

    Get yourself insured.

  33. @Joe Stalin

    Traffic stop in Illinois: “Your Driver License & Proof of Insurance, Firearm Owner’s ID card, Mandatory Gun Owners Insurance papers, Citizen!”

    Better yet, voter registration in Illinois. Requiring an FOID to vote– you wouldn’t need to own any guns, just qualify to– would go a long way in cleaning up Illinois politics.

  34. @Whiskey

    Most of the elites are planning to gulag White men. All of us.

    Most of the “élites” are white men.

  35. @The Alarmist

    We should phrase it this way. An Israeli wall. A Schengen-zone visa insurance requirement. A Schwangerschaftskonfliktberatung for abortions.

    Progressives think these countries are better run. Hold their talons feet to the fire.

  36. Ed Powell says:

    As far as I can tell this idea of immigration insurance dates to the 2001 book by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “Democracy—The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order,” Chapters 7 and 8.

  37. @Tiny Duck

    This is just blatant racism at this point. I don’t see how any compassionate American can support Trump at this point.

    I don’t see how you don’t suck at this point.

  38. no post from Steve about how Bernie Sanders has zero interest in the socialized medical system he wants to force on the rest of us?

    did Bernie go to Russia for surgery? Sweden? Venezuela? Great Britain? even Canada?

    did Bernie get on a waiting list for heart surgery?

    does any leftist ever do what they want to force on the rest of us?

    please let Trump use this against the democrats over, and over, and over.

  39. Regret says:
    @Tiny Duck

    European Americans arrived by boat without any paperwork or documentation and that includes the President’s ancestors


    Yeah. How’d that work out for the people who were already here when the Europeans started showing up again?

    • Replies: @nymom
  40. Anonymous[232] • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato

    Corbyn’s ‘Number 2’ – in more ways than one(!) – Diane Abbott, affectionately known as the ‘Hackney Hippo’, ( ‘Hackney’ is an ancient borough of old London town which Ms. Abbott ‘represents’ in Parliament), rather unsportingly for a Marxist sent her very own precious sprog to an exclusive fee-paying private school.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  41. istevefan says:
    @Tiny Duck

    European Americans arrived by boat without any paperwork

    They also arrived in a wilderness and created a civilization out of it. Even the later pioneers who came after the Civil War forged new cities and towns out on the frontier.

    Today’s immigrants come into a turnkey society with an already established first world infrastructure, educational system, health care system as well as subsidized housing and food if needed.

    If you want today’s immigrants to get the same treatment as yesteryear’s, then let’s drop them off in the middle of some unsettled swath of government land in the west and let them create their own cities, homes, jobs, schools, etc. After all we did not move into the existing villages of the existing tribes. Why should these immigrants move into ours?

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @nebulafox
  42. nymom says:

    But when they arrived by boat they weren’t allowed to just disembark willy nilly and start running all over the country. They were sent to Ellis Island, given a medical checkup which if they didn’t pass they were sent back.

    Additionally there were no benefits available, no food stamps, no rent subsidies, no free medical, etc., so you were expected to find a job and begin working immediately to support yourself and any family that came with you…

    That’s the missing piece here that is never mentioned. Of course, offering free stuff to the poorest people of every country is going to attract them here and the countries they come from are glad to send them…it removes any burden from them of having to take care of their own poor people…

    You know there are hundreds of thousand of elderly here from China and yes even Russia who never paid anything into our system yet at 65 are automatically eligible for Medicare and SSI…I saw one of them on TV saying she didn’t want to be a burden on her children; but, yet somehow she doesn’t mind being a burden on everybody’s else children here in the USA…

    We simply cannot afford it…

  43. @nebulafox

    I’d say it’s both.

    Doing the “polar opposite of what McConnell wants” means continuing to attack and undermine the Deep State (the tool of the Ruling Class) will create and reinforce support from most Americans. No new wars, continuing to progress (painfully slowly) on immigration, no new Federal gun laws, deconstructing the traitorous Department of Justice and CIA all help American think that Trump in on their side.

    Plus Trump’s enemies are so despicable they make him look like George Washington by comparison. Good God, look at the Star Wars bar scene that are the Dem presidential candidates. They have a lizard creature in Julian Castro. Smokin’ Joe Biden is so stupid as to brag about a shake down in a public forum on video tape. Elizabeth Warren, the likely nominee, will cause black voters to stay home in droves.

    But leftists needn’t worry. There’s the Mitt Romney primary run and Hillary is likely to ride to the Dems rescue in a contested Dem convention.

  44. J.Ross says:

    Standards and practices, line eight, between words precious and to, this is a word that has gotten an otherwise inoffensive comment of mine eaten. Let’s remember what the Satanic Bible says about children.

  45. nebulafox says:

    Among other things, 120 years ago:

    1) The USA didn’t have a welfare state.

    2) Or a globalized and increasingly automated economy.

    These two factors alone make the same kind of open immigration fiscally untenable in the 21st Century, completely agnostic of racial and cultural arguments. I’m sure you wouldn’t see the same kind of opposition to immigration here-or pro-immigration fanaticism from the Left, conversely-if we were looking at a massive influx of, say, Russians rather than South Asians and Central Americans, but that wouldn’t change this basic reality. Unless the US has a massive human catastrophe and desperately needs a fresh influx of people like Constantinople did after the final breakout of bubonic plague under Constantine V, it wouldn’t.

    It’s really that simple. That the American government does plenty of other things that are also fiscally untenable-deeply irresponsible tax cuts for billionaires, increasing administrative state bloat at a time where healthcare costs in particular are spiking, stupid losing wars of choice, military spending in general, gimmedats to countries most Americans can’t even point to on a map-independently of immigration does not somehow make this invalid, or somehow suspend basic laws of economics.

    But we have national newspapers that seem to believe that the law of supply and demand is valid in Mexico but not within the United States. Should it really be shocking that they also advocate we base policy off of poetry?

    • Replies: @Peterike
  46. J.Ross says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    America, as a proposition state with the Second Amendment, is as a matter of definition a place where people have a right and implied duty to familiarity with firearms (which familiarity necessitates ownership), so attaching a fee to that would legally be like charging journalists to be journalists or charging Jews a Jew Fee (over any taxes or tithing) to live in Israel. Pretty sure attaching fees and obstacles to foundational rights was looked at harshly in that whole “IQ test to vote” thing, even though it would be self-explanatorily great to require an IQ test to vote, because it’s completely indefensible in principle and because it is screamingly obviously purest discrimination.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  47. Cortes says:

    Insurance is a good option.

    Modern firefighting began with insurance:

    Organised locally.

    • Replies: @Olorin
  48. njguy73 says:
    @Tiny Duck

    European Americans arrived by boat without any paperwork or documentation and that includes the President’s ancestors.

    They did have paperwork, numbnuts.

    It was a called a ship manifest. It was drafted at your ship’s launching point. You had a show it to the Ellis Island officials. The officials were instructed to copy the names as they appeared on the manifest. They couldn’t just make up names for immigrants. I have a copy of my grandfather’s.

    Were you born this stupid or did you practice really hard at it?

  49. Peterike says:

    “Among other things, 120 years ago:

    1) The USA didn’t have a welfare state.

    2) Or a globalized and increasingly automated economy.”

    Yeah but Bubbe and Zayde came over at that time and their children went to Harvard! So everyone in Africa should be allowed the same. Who are we to say no?

  50. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    We could have a civics test and a requirement for a certain basic literacy in American English as a requirement to vote. We could also disenfranchise chronic welfare recipients.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  51. J.Ross says:

    We should do something like that, but it’d be possible only given other changes first, and it will not be possible once Trump’s “more immigration than ever” is in place.

  52. TGGP says: • Website

    As I’ve mentioned before, Robin Hanson has proposed requiring such insurance, but for everybody. There wouldn’t need to be a separate kind of insurance for gun-owners in that situation either:

  53. Olorin says:
    @houston 1992

    Bada-bing bada-boom.

    The human trafficking/money laundering nexus hiding behind the “humanitarian” and “philanthropic” mask of “immigration”/”refugee services” has been laid out deftly–and with reference to recent events–over the past 9 weeks by John Q. Publius at The Anatomically Correct Banana.

    He is focusing particularly on Portland, Maine, and its lucrative invasion/population war…but also digs into the public/tax, private, “philanthropic,” and political networks behind it.

    And, yeah, there are already financial services companies in the mix…whom I’d imagine would be thrilled to invent a new insurance product. Particularly as you note if the Left would lay the premiums on white taxpayers’ backs.

    I hope that our host will indulge me including links to the entire series below.

    From volume #3, “With Palms Outstretched”:

    There is an extensive network of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and various other religious and secular groups masquerading as charities that are part of a vast global matrix dedicated to importing as many Third World peoples into the West as is humanly possible.

    Many of them operate in the shadows with questionable practices and sources of funding, others in the open under false pretenses, and still others are merely extensions of the government, “washing” taxpayer dollars in fraudulent humanitarianism, essentially acting as loopholes to bring in more people above and beyond legal proscriptions.

    Whether for ideological purposes, as a money-making scheme, or both, virtually none of these organizations is actually predicated on altruism or anything of the sort. As Ann Corcoran explicates:

    [The UN High Commissioner of Refugees] “virtually calls the shots” for the US Refugee Admission Program (RAP)… The U.S. State Department brings in the refugees that the U.N. has largely chosen for us, and Homeland Security are supposed to screen them. I mean, how do you screen somebody from a failed state when you don’t even know who they are? Then, these are divvied up, literally, between nine major contractors that include groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, World Lutheran Service and Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society. There are six of them that are supposedly religious charities…funded by the U.S. taxpayer. They then divide up their allotment of refugees among 350 subcontractors in 190 U.S. cities. They literally compete with each other for these refugees, because money comes along with each refugee.[1]

    The Way Life Should Be? series
    by John Q. Publius

    Vol. I: From Parts Unknown to Streets Paved with Gold

    Vol. II: Do Not Pass NGO, Do Not Collect $200

    Vol. III: With Palms Outstretched

    Vol. IV: Bête Noir

    Vol. V: Bad Blood

    Vol. VI: The Way Life Should Be Critiqued

    Vol. VII: Welcome to Paradise

    Vol. VIII: In Case the Cleaning Lady Has Found My Head

    Vol. IX: Cheap Labor is the Opiate of Dying Nations

    Vol X: A Bridge Too Far

    Vol. XI: It’s All Happening

    Vol. XII: LexisNestlé (Water under a Dilapidated Bridge)

    Vol. XIII: Ideological Stop-and-Frisk

  54. Olorin says:


    Coz if you want to solve problems created by the FIRE economy, pour more FIRE economy on the FIRE!

  55. anon[248] • Disclaimer says:

    The basic structure of your proposal already exists:

    “A surety bond or surety is a promise by a surety or guarantor to pay one party a certain amount if a second party fails to meet some obligation, such as fulfilling the terms of a contract. The surety bond protects the obligee against losses resulting from the principal’s failure to meet the obligation.”

    It has proven contract forms, been tested in court, has a regulator structure (state insurance departments), accounting structures, etc. Ready to be modified to as desired. Licensed companies are out there also.

    It might sound like silly, but all these things would be contentious if they didn’t exist. Introduce it gradually in some form or another. Like start with a certain class like short visits or some type of work visa.

    I would issue an iPhone with every policy. If they toss the phone, time to began enforcement. The phone thing strikes me as only fair, since it requires biometrics and is virtually mandatory for legit citizens. More velvet glove than iron fist. People would get all civil libertyish over a purpose built devise (able bracelet), but an iPhone doesn’t seem like cool hand Luke in the box.

    Combine with trip insurance to cover accidents.

  56. @nymom

    We simply cannot afford it…

    That seems to be the crux of the matter–in fact many of those of us who are US citizens cannot afford healthcare in the US either–however it is far from clear what is the hierarchy of nations in terms of not being able to economically afford to accept immigrants or refugees without diluting the quality of life of the existing population.

    A society like the UK, which offers full health care to everyone plus housing and welfare benefits may have much less capacity to accept indigent immigrants than some undeveloped but spacious country where newcomers might be offered a tent in a refugee camp plus a couple of meals a day.

    In the case of refugees, it might be cheaper for the US to pay other countries to take the US share of refugees, and a win-win situation if the US saves money and the receiving country also makes a profit out of the deal.

    There seems to be nothing wrong with requiring immigrants to have health insurance, but closing programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and subsidized Obamacare to immigrants makes it much more difficult.

    Presumably the expectation is that insurance companies will fill the void by offering affordable health care plans for new immigrants that would at least include emergency room care and surgery for life threatening conditions, maternity care, etc. without bankrupcy threatening copays and deductibles.

    Come to the think of it, the existing population would probably buy into these plans too, if they were available.

    Another possibility is that overseas insurance companies would sell the policies to immigrants, like tourism health insurance.

    Or maybe the federal government should just offer its own insurance plan for immigrants and visitors. This would be much simpler, and the cost could be added onto the cost of a visa.

    • Replies: @notsaying
  57. notsaying says:

    This is about immigrants, according to what I read. We should probably make short-term visitors and students get tourist and other health care policies too but that’s an argument for another day.

    The president’s proclamation, which has been in the works for several months, is aimed primarily at immigrants seeking to join their families in the United States, according to a White House official who spoke under condition of anonymity to more openly discuss the new policy. It does not affect refugees, asylum-seekers or students seeking to attend college in the United States, according to the White House.

    Health care costs are so high here vs. other countries that even small things can cost more than some people can pay. That’s especially true for the poor relatives of our poor immigrants. I agree with the Trump administration: if you or your so-called “sponsors” can’t afford a healthcare policy for while you are here and before you qualify for any government benefits, you shouldn’t be allowed to come. For green card holders, the wait for most benefits is five years. There are some exceptions to that though whereby people can qualify for benefits earlier.

  58. notsaying says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Here’s a whole list of the immigrants and people on various short-term visas who can buy healthcare from the Obamacare exchanges. The list is long and seems to include just about every category:

  59. notsaying says:

    I recall that had an article stating that at this point 1 out of 8 new immigrants is age 55 or older. That’s not time or barely time for these people to accumulate the 10 years of Social Security quarters to get their own Social Security benefits even if they do work so most of these millions of immigrants will end up on Medicare and SSI as you describe. But it won’t just be that: since they have a green card, after they are here for 5 years they will qualify for Food Stamps, housing subsidies and every other government benefit that’s available. Some will get benefits from their states even earlier.

    It’s a lot of money to spend on people who’s contribution to the US is minimal to none — for the average person like this on SSI, Medicaid, Food Stamps and Medicare we probably spend hundreds of thousands of dollars before they die, it could get into the millions if they end up in a $100,000 a year nursing home.

    I think we should require their kids to contribute financially on a permanent basis when the parents come at the very least. Actually I question whether we should be allowing parents to come in at all.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  60. @nymom

    Chinese baby factory busted:

    Trump could end birthright citizenship tomorrow with an executive order. Yes some lib judge would issue an injunction, but then it would go to the USSC. Sadly DJT seems to like tweeting more than acting as the chief executive.

    The debate wrt the 14th amendment is clear that it was intended to benefit slaves and Indians, not some pregnant foreigners.

  61. If immigrants agree on arrival that when they reach Medicare age, they will return to their homeland in retirement, should they get a waiver from retirement social security Medicare premium deductions , and a refund of Medicare payroll tax payed when they leave, in recognition of their saving the US taxpayer money on late-life medical care? The refund of Medicare payroll tax paid will also serve as an incentive to leave the country on retirement.

  62. @notsaying

    I think we should require their kids to contribute financially on a permanent basis when the parents come at the very least.

    Don’t see why not.

    Of course the real problem is that health care is so expensive in the US that it is almost impossible to obtain it for simple cash payments, as you can elsewhere. Countries like the Dominican Republic, where some Americans retire to, do not seem to have the same problem, because overseas retirees are just expected to pay for their own health care.

    In Costa Rica private insurance plans available through INS, the government-owned insurance company, include dental work, optometry, well-visits and annual check-ups. Prescription drugs, certain medical exams, sick visits and hospitalization are covered at 80% cost, and surgeon and aesthetician costs are covered at full cost.

    Currently, private medical insurance costs about $60-$130/month per person, depending on age, gender and other factors.

    I have just come back from having some dental treatment in the Dominican Republic. A dental implant and crown costs only about 20% of the cost in the US without any insurance at all, and dentists will give you a consultation up front and tell you upfront exactly how much your course of treatment will cost, so no nasty surprises and insurance company manipulations with false pricing.

    In fact one dentist I know says on his Web site “I am an honest dentist”. Can you imagine any US dentist putting that on his Web site?

    • Replies: @notsaying
  63. FPD72 says:
    @Tiny Duck

    75% of my ancestry involves people who were not immigrants. They left under the British flag and arrived under the same flag. They moved, just like my parents moved from Oklahoma to Texas. They were settlers, not immigrants.

    But if you think we should go back to the same rules as were in effect for the Ellis Island crowd, I’m good with that. No people with communicable diseases allowed in, no government paid medical care, no Section 8, no income support, no food support, legal private sector discrimination (otherwise known as property rights and the freedom of association). If you want it like the 1880s, you can have it, good and hard.

  64. notsaying says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    I went to the link and it doesn’t make me want to retire in Costa Rica. For $60-$130 a month in premiums nobody’s going to get real coverage for serious illnesses. The insurer is giving you minimal coverage for anything like cancer or chronic conditions that require more than generic drugs, even in Costa Rica. The surgery covered is probably mostly outpatient.

    I guess the “retirees” fly back to the US and their Medicare when things really go wrong. That’s why healthcare and insurance coverage for Americans is seen as no big problem — the people with big problems return to the US or other First World countries they came from.

    You did OK with the dentistry but’s far simpler and cheaper than handling the kind of expenses of old age that keeps America spending trillions on its old people.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS