WSJ wants "amnesty" for Haitian illegal aliens; misleads; shows how can't be trusted (TPS)
The Wall Street Journal offers the brief editorial "Haitian Amnesty/A humane decision for temporary refuge in America" (link). They show how the establishment is lying when it refers to Temporary Protected Status; the establishment has little intention of "temporary" being accurate:
You might even call [the decision to extend TPS to Haitian illegal aliens] amnesty of a sort, if we can use that politically taboo word. But we hope even the most restrictionist voices on the right and in the labor movement will understand the humanitarian imperative. The suffering and chaos since the earthquake should make it obvious that Haiti is no place to return people whose only crime was coming to America to escape the island's poverty and ill-governance.
They're offering a false choice: deportations could have been halted in various ways short of offering TPS. And, as previously discussed, what the WSJ wants will make Haiti's and the U.S.'s situation worse not better.
For that matter, we don't mind if they stay here permanently. Haitian immigrants as a group are among America's most successful, which demonstrates that Haiti's woes owe more to corruption, disdain for property rights and lack of public safety than to any flaw in its people. Their remittances to Haiti also help to sustain the impoverished population. Haitians received some $1.65 billion from overseas in 2006, according to the Inter-American Development Bank.
1. The WSJ is basically admitting that the "temporary" part of TPS is just a trick.
2. Either the WSJ can't figure things out or they think their readers can't figure things out. Those Haitians in the U.S. are probably more industrious on average than those who stayed behind, or have more education or more money. Just because some Haitians succeed in the U.S. doesn't mean that would be true of all or most.
3. The 2005 Congressional Budget Office found (www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6366) that remittances to Haiti were 100 times larger than Foreign Direct Investment. And, remittances were 156% of exports. Both of those are very strong indicators of pernicious problems, ones that the WSJ would make even worse.
We can argue later about whether to make this temporary amnesty permanent, but for now the U.S. decision to let the Haitians stay is evidence of the generosity that Americans typically show in a crisis.
The WSJ has no intention of having an open debate about this issue, because they'd lose. The establishment is going to try to make "temporary" status permanent, and the WSJ's opponents aren't going to be effective against it because they either don't know, don't care, or don't do things the right way. See the question authority summary for the right way to discredit the WSJ and reduce their ability to fool people and promote highly flawed policies.