Let Ukrainian Refugees In
And don't close the door behind them.

Millions flee Ukraine.
Where will they go?
Some want to come to America. But doing that legally is hard. A complex system is supposed to determine which people deserve to get in line to get in.
"The line is broken," explains Reason magazine editor at large Matt Welch in my new video.
For example, America has a nursing shortage, but immigration authorities turn away foreign nurses. A Mexican teenager who wants to help build houses might be admitted, but he'd have to wait 100 years. No wonder people sneak across the border.
This month, President Joe Biden announced the United States would take in 100,000 refugees from Ukraine.
"He could snap his fingers and make it 250,000 if he chose," says Welch, and he should, because "we're a refugee country, and the people who come here tend to be the best."
"But they could be the worst," I point out.
Even the supposed "worst of the worst," Welch replies, made America better.
That's a reference to 1980, when Fidel Castro let 100,000 people out of jail and encouraged them to go to America. Some were his political opponents, but most were, as a Miami TV anchor put it, "bums off the streets of Havana—murderers, thieves, perverts, prostitutes."
Castro assumed they'd cause problems in America.
But "that was wrong," says Welch. Despite their past problems, "they enriched Miami. They added to the economy and didn't detract from the people who lived there." A study showed that the Cuban exodus raised wages of low-skilled Miamians.
Immigrants improved America even when we took in people who'd tried to kill us, and who we had tried to kill. Presidents Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter eagerly took in refugees from Vietnam and Cambodia. Reagan, campaigning for the presidency, said immigrants make us better. "They share the same values, the same dream."
"He was bragging on this as a conservative and American value," says Welch. "It is no longer a conservative value."
Today, conservatives are more likely to argue against letting in refugees, saying, as Ann Coulter put it, "Things can turn overnight when you're bringing in these masses of people from very, very different cultures." Then she joked, "And make it a hate crime to ask them to assimilate."
It wasn't entirely a joke. Some leftists call asking Latinos to assimilate "racist repression."
More reasonably, many Americans fear that crime will rise if we let in more immigrants. But that's unlikely.
"They commit far less crime than native-born Americans," Welch points out. He's right. Native-born Americans were 11.6 times more likely to be jailed than Afghan immigrants.
"It's hard for us to process that fact," says Welch. "It feels like it should be wrong, but it isn't. People who go to the lengths to get to this country tend to be less criminal than the native-born population."
"What if they just feed off welfare?" I ask.
"Then they would be the exception," he responds. Immigrants, overall, collect less welfare than native-born Americans.
Still, people feel threatened when large numbers of foreigners arrive. Polish people protested when Syrian refugees came to Poland.
But now Poles welcome Ukrainians.
Some call that racism.
"Maybe it is racism," Welch responds. "But maybe when someone you speak a common language with, and have a common history with…lives right next door, it's just a different story….Can we spare a moment and say, they've just assimilated an astonishing number of refugees. And they're not in tents in camps, shivering. They're staying with people in their apartments!"
That sure seems like a good thing.
Soon more refugees will come to America. Welch argues that we should let more in.
"America is an assimilation machine," he says. "It's something that we should do more of because we're really good at it!"
I agree.
As long as people are peaceful, let them come.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fiona has submitted 6 or 7 slight variations of this column by now, but it's always good to have even more. 🙂
#WarIsGoodBecauseItCreatesRefugees
#CheapLaborAboveAll
Centrist global liberals and democracy spreading neo-conservatives have teamed up again, just like Captain America and Tony Stark's Iron Man, to spread liberal democracy and regime change against evil tyrants like Putin (who would be Voldemort in this metaphor). Also, my Raytheon stock is up in value! L'Chaim!
Wouldn't it be better to stop threatening Putin with death and you know, end the war so these people can go home? I know that is crazy and talk and all but it just might work.
I easily make $22,000-$28,000 each month just by doing a simple home business. njk. This job is online and can be done very easily part-time or full-time, although no specific experience is required for this job. Anyone can join this work now and start earning like me. Follow the link.
.
>>>>>>> https://brilliantfuture01.blogspot.com/
Madeline Albright (who had some Jewish heritage btw) and left libertarians weighted the costs of war and the benefits of freedom and concluded that a half million dead Iraqi children were worth regime change in Iraq. I have the same views regarding Ukraine. I fully support Zelinskyy sending every Ukrainian man (except Jewish Ukrainians) between 16 and 60 to their death on the battlefield if it means getting Putin out of power in Russia.
Stossel is looking a little bloated and that unkempt beard makes him look like one of the derelicts attempting to win the Libertarian party nomination for president.
Hey, we could do a lot worse for our next candidate.
ok https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/pinnacle-oto-1-7-otos-links-bonuses-upsell-4u-oto/
He looks like an old Charlie Kelly now.
Which is pretty awesome really.
Regardless, I agree with John Stossel that the American government should allow Ukrainian mail order brides into the USA but first the government needs to get out of the marriage regulation business. If Svetlana wants a green card from me, she better sign the contract saying no divorce and certainly no alimony.
There should ALWAYS be an exemption for hot chicks. Gotta watch the ratio.
Unless there is some assurance that these people are going to reliably vote Democrat, they are not refugees. They are just bums looking for a hand out. Refugees are people who will vote Democrat.
Get your terms straight Reason.
first you get the money, then you get the power
Where'd you get that scar? Eating pineapple?
How many times do we have to knock down the crime trope, only to have it pop back up in reason.
The relative rate of crime ("illegal immigrants commit at a lower rate than those already here") is not important. Will there be MORE crime in America, or LESS crime, if we allow illegal immigration? Because illegal immigrants do not commit crime at a negative rate, the answer is MORE. That's an absolute.
But that true for anything: illegal immigration, legal immigration, having kids, moving to a new city. Any increase in population will *technically* cause an increase in absolute numbers of crimes committed. So as an argument against immigration it doesn't really ring sincere, you might as well complain that will be breathing up all your oxygen
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so breathing is contributing to the climate crisis emergency.
I can see it coming
Then let democrats breathe no more.
But that true for anything
Anything *except* repealing existing laws.
I am trying hard to find a non-non sequitur in your response, but can't. All non sequiturs.
I'm not sure you grasp the concepts here.
Given two types of population growth, increase in population of native born or immigration, you're saying to choose the one which results in more crime...
When you allow in immigrants with their lower crime rates they offset the crime rates your focus on 'abaplutes' has absolutely nothing to do with reality as it assumes there is no growth occuring without immigration.
Ok, so let's see if people put their money where the mouth is.
I'd like to go on CNN, one of those shows where they have like 8 pundits on at the same time (like wlection coverage) all live and on set.
I will bring them cookies, delicious cookies, and offer them up. But there's a catch: I have a batch of 20 cookies, but 1 of them is loaded with laxative that will cause whoever eats it to immediately shit their pants. The cookies are indistinguishable otherwise, and remember we're broadcasting live.
So who wants a cookie?
I am quite sure you do not understand the concepts. *Lowering the crime rate* and *lowering the amount of crime* are not the same thing. Those are concepts. I DEFINITELY want to do the latter; doing the former would be great, too, but not as important.
I am making easily every month $ 22000 to $ 28000 just by doing simple work from home. This job is online and very easy to do part-time or Full-time even no special experience required for this task. (qwe07) Anyone can now participate in this job and start earning just like me by just following link…..
>>>>>>>>>> http://CurrentJobs64.Cf
Also, the numbers are skewed, because they generally do not include the crimes related to immigrating illegally in that figure.
Sorry John, not everyone wants to move to America. It's a jingoistic idea that everyone wants to live in the US.
Ukrainian refugees want to go back home, not immigrate. Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania are beautiful countries close by with similar cultures, and, in the case of Poland and Slovakia, similar language.
If Mexico attacked the US would most American refugees like to wait out the fighting in Canada, or in South Korea?
Americans who want to help should help those countries deal with the refugees. Not import them to a foreign country half way around the world.
How are people supposed to feel smug and self important if they can't import some hapless Ukrainian into this country for his own good? Since when is doing what is best for the people involved more important than the ability of American elites to feel smug and self important?
What the hell are you? Some kind of deplorable or something?
Loved your cars...
I'm certain there is some percentage of refugees saying to themselves "Since I no longer have a home to go back to in Ukraine, I might as well move to America" I don't know how many that is, but if we allocate enough visas then those who want to come here can do so
It's exactly this, if we artificially restrict the visas then people who want to be here cannot. If we over allocate and don't use them then we at least know the answer to how many want to come with no other cost.
what if a crap ton of people want to come? What exactly is "artificial" restriction? As opposed to restriction based on logical factors that account for the cost to US citizens of accepting immigrants and refugees? Can we not just assume the number who want to come is at least the number who put their names on the list along with the number who come illegally? Which is a crap ton of people.
Lots of people want to move to the US, for the simple reason that simply being in the US is worth several tens of thousands of dollars a year in services, infrastructure, and other kinds of taxpayer funded gimmicks.
If you don't want to increase the fiscal difficulties of the US, then every new immigrant must, on average, pay as much in taxes as the US federal, state, and local governments spend per capita.
I'm certain there is some percentage of refugees saying to themselves "Since I no longer have a home to go back to in Ukraine, I might as well move to America" I don't know how many that is, but if we allocate enough visas then those who want to come here can do so
Sure, but there's also the story that Reason wrote about the dude from India that decided to illegally immigrate from Canada, on foot, in January and turned himself and his entire family into a frozen dinner for the wolves. Not to mention the waves of unaccompanied minors that the Biden Administration has been locking in cages since the Obama years. And, *still*, all the associated tax burden, public school clusterfuck, healthcare bullshit, etc.
Advertising the message of "Free Visas for everyone who decides to come." has its own downsides. I agree we could offer visas to anyone who lost a home in the Ukrainian conflict. We should still send the message of "We can only take the most devotedly American (however you define that) of you, the rest may be SOL." even if we wind up giving everyone a Visa.
Sorry John, not everyone wants to move to America. It's a jingoistic idea that everyone wants to live in the US.
And, again, not even everyone in American wants to move to other places in America. They sure as hell seem to want to flee Detroit, Baltimore, and Chicago, as well as CA and NY when their life depends on them listening to their betters sheltering in place. Not that Reason gives a shit about what people in or outside the country want, as long as they obey Reason's rosy, well-intentioned policy prescriptions.
Until 1965, there was no quota on immigrants from Mexico and yet "we" still had a "wetback problem". "How could that be?" you ask.
Well. here's how. Even with no quota, it took many months, even years for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to process an application for the Permanent Immigrant status (ie Green Card). There was some allowance for temporary work permits but demand always exceeded supply. Hence, the "wetback problem".
There have always been a certain number of people who wanted to come here to earn "big American" money for a few months (or, maybe a couple of years. None of these people wanted to stay and become citizens, none of them brought their children with them.
In general, none of them sought the benefits of the American Welfare State until activists pushed it on them. All they wanted to do was come here earn a few bucks, go home to their families or to take advantage of cheaper medical care back home and generally put together enough cash to set themselves up in Mexico where they could raise their families (Mexico is a much more genuinely family-oriented society than the USA IMO) enjoying a lower cost-of-living and a safer and more laissez-faire lifestyle (that is, until US war on drugs empowered the cartels).
LOL
It's like a daily stimulus now...
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1509206119562072068?t=QQRotfIBwiSX653DApbdkQ&s=19
JUST IN - Biden admin to provide $500 million in direct budgetary aid to Ukraine.
https://twitter.com/Backyardfarmer3/status/1509210275160940553?t=IHiH_BZupCBdjOemmhFoHg&s=19
[Meme]
It's exactly this, if we artificially restrict the visas then people who want to be here cannot. If we over allocate and don't use them then we at least know the answer to how many want to come with no other cost.
No idea why this reply landed here.
It's a refugee reply
Fleeing the helicopters full of cash the Biden Administration is dumping on the Ukraine now that they aren't investigating Hunter.
JFC, I understand the sympathy for the Ukrainian people. At the same time I don't understand the, seeming refusal to contemplate how handing them an M4, a plane ticket, and a post-it that says "Go home." also makes sense.
Straight money laundering, and the goal of turning Ukraine into Libya/Syria
that's a bingo
So what if a crap ton of people want to come? What exactly is "artificial" restriction? As opposed to restriction based on logical factors that account for the cost to US citizens of accepting immigrants and refugees? Can we not just assume the number who want to come is at least the number who put their names on the list along with the number who come illegally? Which is a crap ton of people.
All this is my long winded way of saying, your comment is nonsensical.
So what if a crap ton of people want to come? What exactly is "artificial" restriction? As opposed to restriction based on logical factors that account for the cost to US citizens of accepting immigrants and refugees?
It's a refutation of the logic from the get go. A pre-existing society or government has a tax base, explicit or otherwise. Immigrants, by definition, have not contributed to that. That base, almost certainly supports expansion but to say that any/all opposition to expansion is inherently irrelevant is to disregard preexisting social infrastructure, be that government or cultural, from the get go. The people saying "Borders are just an imaginary construct." are explicitly discounting both the government and the culture of the indigenous people. His comment is nonsensical if you assume him to be ignorant of how societies, cultures, and governments work. Otherwise, his comments are completely sensible from the perspective of someone intent on wiping out indigenous cultures around the world.
Is the deal still 10% for the big guy or does he get a bigger cut with his promotion?
Can we start sending Salvadoran refugees to Eastern Europe?
100 year wait for Mexican teenager who wants to build houses? What about the 20 to 40% unemployment rate among American black teenagers resulting from the indoctrination by the left including BLM, CRT and 1619? Don't these kids deserve a chance at a decent life too?
Where do you propose we send them?
What's blocking their immigration dreams?
surely must realize that resources are finite, and that the more people you have the thinner you must spread those resources. If we open the door to everyone the people who are already here would needlessly suffer.
But we need to increase demand for housing, because home costs and rent are at record highs!
Wait...
Where do you propose we send them?
Mexico's full and all the houses that ever will be built there have been built. It's cultural norms are fixed and idyllic. The only pursuit left for Mexicans is to bring their idyllic culture to the poor, backwards shores of the United States. They aren't coming here to graft off our broken but wealthy crony capitalist shortcomings. They're coming here to share the post-libertarian, post-communist Utopia that shines on the hill from whence they came.
One lesson I learned from the libertarians: when you have to bring in an economist to explain why something is a good idea, it probably isn't.
If you want casual sex contact in EU try to find fine ladies at Transen Anzeige in Liesing
"find fine ladies"
"Transen"
I'm not a biologist, but...
TERF!
https://twitter.com/KyleMartinsen_/status/1509206752780238851?t=-13iT8dji20ELNOs5LkO9w&s=19
1 YEAR AGO TODAY
Biden's CDC Director: "Vaccinated people do not carry the virus”
[Video]
Remember when it was miSiNForMaTion to claim otherwise?
Why doesn't Canada take in a bunch of immigrants and refugees? They have a fraction of the population of the US and all the space we have. All the folks who think we should just let who ever wants to come in without a qualm, this one is for you, sincere question. If immigration is such an unqualified good for the people already in residence, then why does ANY country restrict immigration?
why does ANY country restrict immigration?
You're the false impression that they would honestly admit to knowing this answer, or at least part of it, as opposed to dishonestly pretending that there isn't one or they can't find it.
This would stand against *r*eason considering their flip-flopping about "borders are just an imaginary construct" and "MUH Borders!" when the topic shifts from Mexican persons of undocumented status, Russian collusion, Chinese immigrants carrying wuflu around the US, American citizens carrying wuflu around the US, the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong, Kyle Rittenhouse shouldn't have been in Kenosha, Jan. 6th rioters would've been OK if they stayed behind the velvet ropes, etc., etc., etc.
*Under* the false impression that is...
"Why doesn't Canada take in a bunch of immigrants and refugees?"
We are. Zoolander opened the doors a while back. Canada used to have some of the best immigration policies in the Western world, but now it's a free for all.
We're now being culturally enriched by some of the finest narco terroristas in the world.
I responded to another commenter in a thread a few weeks ago, when I kept (and keep) asking what the method of taking in these refugees will be (and for the record, I'm not against taking in Ukrainian refugees) because it's going to be an awfully funny look to be plucking them out of the immigration systems of other countries and flying them here.
And to drive the point home, I ask one to imagine the look if Canada were plucking Latin American refugees streaming across our border while ICE officials load them onto planes bound for Toronto. I can imagine that look and I can definitely imagine the reaction from the New York Times and Reason.
John, let me introduce you to the "Law of Supply and Demand", and let me explain to you how that can be used to alleviate shortages.
And, in case you're wondering, the reason nurses are so much easier to get abroad is because the education of those nurses is much cheaper and they didn't have to pay for it. Now, it's a nice racket to have other nations pay to educate American nurses, while having US taxpayers pick up the tab for the people who can't find jobs in the US because they have to compete with foreign workers. But that's not the kind of racket a libertarian should support.
I don't have a problem with the United States sharing the burden of taking in refugees from active war zones, or from places where political persecution is taking place. But with a fairly modern western-style country like Ukraine, aren't we just doing Russia's work for them by helping them depopulate the country they are trying to dominate? It would make better sense for our efforts to involve assisting these people as they shelter closer to Ukraine (Poland, etc) and then help them return home when this is over and they are rebuilding.
Or, hear me out, we stop spending 10s of billions of dollars on fucking Ukrainians?
Ron Paul: "foreign aid is taking money from poor people of a rich country and giving it to the rich people of a poor country"
For example, America has a nursing shortage, but immigration authorities turn away foreign nurses.
We turn away domestic ones, too.
This month, President Joe Biden announced the United States would take in 100,000 refugees from Ukraine.
"He could snap his fingers and make it 250,000 if he chose," says Welch, and he should, because "we're a refugee country, and the people who come here tend to be the best."
How? Are we going to send in hot air balloons into the Ukraine and fly them direct to the US? Are we going to pluck them away from the immigration officials in the surrounding countries while those officials stand back, wiping their brow and say, "Phew, thank God they're no longer OUR problem!"
Today, conservatives are more likely to argue against letting in refugees, saying, as Ann Coulter put it, "Things can turn overnight when you're bringing in these masses of people from very, very different cultures." Then she joked, "And make it a hate crime to ask them to assimilate.
I haven't listened to really much of anything Coulter has had to say in probably 15 years, but this statement, on its own is entirely reasonable.
Also, assimilation takes a long time. Sometimes a generation or more.
To be sure, the US can absorb a lot of foreign immigrants without a huge amount of culture shock because we're such a large nation, but as we've seen in smaller countries in Europe, a sudden influx causes its problems. Because remember, assimilation includes all kinds of things... like, you know, accepting gays can exist without being executed. As Douglas Murray said on this issue, "I'm far less worried about some conservative who's uncomfortable with me getting married than I am about someone who wants to throw me off a building."
Still, people feel threatened when large numbers of foreigners arrive. Polish people protested when Syrian refugees came to Poland.
But now Poles welcome Ukrainians.
Study after study after study shows that refugees fare far better in similar cultures than they do in radically different ones.
So yes, yanking a Syrian refugee out of Jordan and placing them in East L.A. isn't really doing anyone any favors. And to make sure we're on the same page, we're talking about refugees here, not immigrants to came here "voluntarily". Refugees are in a different category than someone who spent years planning a move to a new country, who's eager to assimilate and set down roots. The latter are going to be the best of the best. The former are often just waiting it out until home gets safer, and then they'll return.
We turn away domestic ones, too.
Undocumented, unvaccinated nurses aren't people.
"They commit far less crime than native-born Americans," Welch points out. He's right. Native-born Americans were 11.6 times more likely to be jailed than Afghan immigrants.
Ask the Swedes what their crime rates are in their Syrian refugee enclaves.
It really depends on what circumstances the individuals came here, how fast they assimilate, how vastly different the cultures are etc.
Yes, Reagan signing on for amnesty for four million has done wonders for California.
Statistics prove immigrants commit less crime than the native born.
https://heyjackass.com/2022-race-of-victim-assailant/
Still, people feel threatened when large numbers of foreigners arrive. Polish people protested when Syrian refugees came to Poland.
But now Poles welcome Ukrainians.
Poles and Ukranians can argue the plusses and minuses of Taras Bulba over a glass of Wodka and a plate of porkchops.
A Syrian may take exception and run them both down with an exploding truck.
The truck need not explode.
Better yet, close the door now and have them stay where they belong to fix their latrine-like country..,
https://twitter.com/mchooyah/status/1509272685565599756?t=E9y1srexa-A8a2c39XelZg&s=19
I just saw two American Soldiers in uniform at LaGuardia. They both had Ukrainian colors on their issued bags. Can anyone tell me what’s up with this bullshit?
https://twitter.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1508999907654336515?t=sgGrqaQ_sGt2bwaxbsg5yA&s=19
This Bellingcat/WSJ poisoning story has got to be one of the biggest disinformation fails of the entire Ukraine war.
Within a few hours it was denied by the U.S., Russia, Ukraine and by the fact that Abramovich himself was fine attending the peace talks in Turkey.
The U.S.
A U.S. official told Reuters: "The intelligence highly suggests this was environmental," adding: "E.g., not poisoning."
Russia
Dmitry Peskov, Russian president Vladimir Putin’s spokesperson: “This is part of the information panic, part of the information sabotage, information war. These reports are not true.”
Ukraine
A spokesperson for Zelenskiy said: “There is a lot of speculation at the moment, and we recommend to only follow official information.”
Abramovich himself in Turkey at the peace talks, a few hours after he was reportedly poisoned, described by Reuters as showing "no signs of a reported suspected poisoning"
Frankly puzzling. Really wonder what's under this: was it a deliberate attempt to frame Russia for a nth poisoning that somehow backfired or a genuine mistake?
As often, the real story here is probably why this story becomes a story.
[Links]
That's a pretty rich assessment to take when Commie-Welfare records show ~80% of all expenses going to immigrants topped off with 80% voting for more Commie....
If 'filtering' immigration could eliminate those statistics maybe more would be on-board with taking in more immigration but at that rate this isn't immigration; this is an invasion.
https://twitter.com/TomBevanRCP/status/1509251931457433601?t=xAB9jT8n4Oz_8_HU3es86A&s=19
Not a single question in today's White House briefing about the Washington Post story authenticating Hunter Biden's laptop. Not even by the Post itself.
in reference to the statistic that native born Americans are more likely to commit crimes-has anybody broken down the demographics/ethnicity of this group of crime inclined native born American group?I am making guess as to the make-up.