Professor Jan Ting: Defending his countrymen
Jan Ting is an interesting man. The son of Chinese immigrants and a law professor at Philadelphia’s Temple University, he was the Republican candidate for Senate in Delaware in 2006. According to his Wikipedia entry he was subsequently forced out of the party in 2008 for supporting Obama over McCain. He
“…cited his concerns about John McCain`s immigration policy and support for the Iraq War”
He first appeared on VDARE.com when Paul Nachman wrote in 2006 Jan Ting: A U.S. Senate Candidate Who Doesn`t Need Enlightenment on Immigration during the campaign about a luncheon conversation with him
Learning that Professor Ting had been Assistant Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) from 1990 - 1993, under the first President Bush, I immediately asked him, "Is it true that 90 percent of refugee and asylum applications are fraudulent?"
"95 percent," he replied.
Earlier this year I applauded his work: Fine Anti Amnesty Op-Ed Allowed By MSM !!!! (In Waxahachie, Texas) This discussed the 1986 Amnesty experience.
Professor Ting has now returned to this topic in a fluent essay Immigration reform’s flaws revealed in the 1986 amnesty WHYYY November 3 2013
The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) signed into law by President Reagan is often described as a three-legged stool. The three main components were a big amnesty...strengthened border controls to keep more aliens from entering the U.S., and sanctions on employers to prevent the future employment of illegal aliens....
It didn`t work...
I`ve always said that the 1986 Act had a fourth leg to its stool which was wishful thinking. And that pattern of a four-legged stool was copied in the failed attempts to enact a second and bigger general amnesty for illegal aliens in 2006, 2007, and in the current year 2013.
Ting acknowledges that a major driving these failures is that
...some U.S. employers...continue to have as their business model hiring the cheapest labor they can find regardless of immigration status.
but argues that the key dynamic is sentimentalism
...the biggest problem in enforcing a numerical immigration limit is the inherent corollary that we say no to millions of would-be immigrants who remind us of our ancestors.
Personally I think this is better stated that too many see native born Americans as their ancestors’ rivals and enemies.But it is a valuable essay and has attracted some intelligent comments:‘Sherice Thomas’:
The `sense of entitlement` prevalent amongst this new breed of illegal alien is dumbfounding!! It is our allowing them to stress and overburden our good nature politics an leniency in adhering to strict immigration laws already on the books that has created this `monster` of arrogance amongst this group! They truly believe that laws do not apply to them...
Unfortunately the elites of this country have had their way on immigration and they don`t want the laws to be effectively enforced, and the government has acceded to their wish. The news media that serves the elites has decided that there should be no real debate that might threaten their agenda...
There`s a reason why censorship has long been a tool of those it power: it works.