Where American Immigration Policy Went Wrong

Immigration is currently one of the most contentious issues in American politics. To Jeff Jacoby, our present woes can be traced back to the Immigration Act of 1924, which had significant, and doleful, consequences for Jewish history:

It was a terrible law, steeped in racism and the quack science of eugenics. Its quotas were heavily tilted in favor of immigrants from Great Britain, Ireland, and Northern Europe. By contrast, immigrants from Asia were almost wholly barred, while Russians, Poles, Italians, Jews, and Greeks—deemed by progressive elites of the day to be genetically inferior and incapable of assimilating with Anglo-Saxons—were reduced to a trickle.

There is a popular misconception that the 1924 law was undone by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. In reality, as the Cato Institute’s David J. Bier has written, every essential feature of our current system dates back to 1924. . . . Above all, the system established in 1924, by making it impossible for most would-be immigrants to enter the United States legally, guaranteed a steady stream of illegal immigration.

With a larger population, America would have a larger, richer, and more productive economy.

Jacoby adds, in a follow-up post, that this last assertion generated more negative responses from readers than any other in the original column. At the heart of his critics’ thinking is the flawed assumption that it’s better to have too few people than too many. That’s the same assumption, Jacoby notes, shared by those who think people should be having fewer children, not more.

Read more at Pundicity

More about: Fertility, Immigration

 

Expand Gaza into Sinai

Feb. 11 2025

Calling the proposal to depopulate Gaza completely (if temporarily) “unworkable,” Peter Berkowitz makes the case for a similar, but more feasible, plan:

The United States along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE should persuade Egypt by means of generous financial inducements to open the sparsely populated ten-to-fifteen miles of Sinai adjacent to Gaza to Palestinians seeking a fresh start and better life. Egypt would not absorb Gazans and make them citizens but rather move Gaza’s border . . . westward into Sinai. Fences would be erected along the new border. The Israel Defense Force would maintain border security on the Gaza-extension side, Egyptian forces on the other. Egypt might lease the land to the Palestinians for 75 years.

The Sinai option does not involve forced transfer of civilian populations, which the international laws of war bar. As the United States, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other partners build temporary dwellings and then apartment buildings and towns, they would provide bus service to the Gaza-extension. Palestinian families that choose to make the short trip would receive a key to a new residence and, say, $10,000.

The Sinai option is flawed. . . . Then again, all conventional options for rehabilitating and governing Gaza are terrible.

Read more at RealClear Politics

More about: Donald Trump, Egypt, Gaza Strip, Sinai Peninsula