If Christine Blasey Ford was permanently damaged by Brett Kavanaugh, what hope is there for the refugees that the U.S. admits?

Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified that she was permanently damaged by Brett Kavanaugh, suffering from reduced academic performance, an inability to tolerate airline travel (except cross the Pacific to surf destinations in French Polynesia because driving to a California beach would be even more intolerable?), and various other maladies of PTSD (transcript). As a Ph.D. psychologists, she also testified that almost anyone who suffered what she suffered would have similar lifetime damage.

Yet as a matter of policy, the U.S. seeks out immigrants from among would-be “asylees” and “refugees,” each of whom must tell a tale of far more severe assault than what Dr. Christine Blasey Ford allegedly suffered. Consider the Honduran who crosses the border illegally, is apprehended six months later, and then requests asylum. If the Honduran says “two drunk teenagers rolled on me in a bedroom and then eventually I rolled out from underneath them,” it would be “asylum denied,” right?

If Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony is correct, wouldn’t all of the folks we admit based on how badly they were assaulted or abused end up being unable to adapt to life in an advanced economy that requires education and concentration in order to flourish? Shouldn’t we expect them all to be lifetime welfare recipients in virtue of the disabilities that they’ve incurred through PTSD?

Righteous Democrats all #Believe Dr. Blasey Ford (I hope!) and support maximum immigration of refugees/asylees. But if they believe Dr. Blasey Ford what is their rationale for wanting to import millions of people who are so damaged that they can never be self-sufficient?

[What kind of experiences must a person have had in order to be admitted to the U.S. as a refugee? “Immigrants May Be Fed False Stories to Bolster Asylum Pleas” (nytimes, 2011) includes some examples: “Often, the applicant is misled by various actors with a story that is much more compelling,” said Claudia Slovinksy, a longtime immigration lawyer. “Weren’t they soldiers? Wasn’t it a gang rape?” A Santa Clara Law Review article “Telling Refugee Stories: Trauma, Credibility and the Adversarial Adjudication of Claims for Asylum,” notes that a survivor’s story of having been raped twice while in prison was insufficient. Another 2011 article, “The Asylum Seeker” (New Yorker), says that the U.S. is looking for survivors who’ve been both raped and tortured.]

 

5 Comments »

  1. Vince

    October 11, 2018 @ 2:33 pm

    1

    Yet as a matter of policy, the U.S. seeks out immigrants from among would-be “asylees” and “refugees,” each of whom must tell a tale of far more severe assault than what Dr. Christine Blasey Ford allegedly suffered. Consider the Honduran who crosses the border illegally, is apprehended six months later, and then requests asylum.

    This not accurate. The standard definition of refugee under international law is this:

    A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees#Definition_of_refugee

    Also, you needn’t worry about this:

    If Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony is correct, wouldn’t all of the folks we admit based on how badly they were assaulted or abused end up being unable to adapt to life in an advanced economy that requires education and concentration in order to flourish? Shouldn’t we expect them all to be lifetime welfare recipients in virtue of the disabilities that they’ve incurred through PTSD?

    Only around 1/5 of jobs in America requires a bachelor’s degree. If you look at the monthly jobs report that lists the kinds of jobs created during the previous month, it generally shows that the greatest number of new jobs are in what’s called “leisure and hospitality” – waitresses, bartenders, etc. There are also plenty of jobs created every month in the home health care field, taking care of our rapidly growing elderly population. You can see an analysis from last year here by Paul Craig Roberts, an economist who worked in the Reagan administration.

    https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/05/fake-news-us-media-speciality/

  2. Viking

    October 11, 2018 @ 2:39 pm

    2

    You want the left to be consistent?

    Racist!

  3. Jack

    October 11, 2018 @ 4:57 pm

    3

    I love the sourpuss “Vince” persona, Phil, always backed up by lots of “research.” Kind of like Bud Abbott and Lou Costello. Adds to the entertainment value of this blog.

  4. toucan sam

    October 11, 2018 @ 6:00 pm

    4

    I always say if you like your vince you can keep your vince.

  5. z

    October 11, 2018 @ 8:34 pm

    5

    Vince: Re: jobs

    1) You’re wildly missing (ignoring?) Phil’s point that these people could make a credible claim in our modern culture that they are unable to work ANY job.

    2) You’re quibbling with the supplementary phrase “…life in an advanced economy that requires education and concentration in order to flourish…” by ignoring the “to flourish”. Not only do a tiny fraction of no-degress jobs allow for even middle class levels of success – NONE of the ones you highlighted do.

Leave a Comment

Log in