Immigration: Reasonable screening is all most Americans ask for entry

Today's JG rant

Lex was savaged by Ms. Peggy Gilbert in today’s edition of the JG.  I have issued a challenge for a duel at 20 paces on July 9^th at 6 am.  The Griffin will act as my second. Barring that, Lex responded:

Re: Ms. Peggy Gilbert’s letter “Ludicrous arguments undermine argument” of 2 July, 2018

First off, Ms. Gilbert, I don’t have to “imagine” it.  My paternal grandparents both left Europe in the early 1900s.  The way I know that is that there are records of their arrival at their legal port of entry¹ into the United States.  

The documents note names², age, marital status, occupation³, if they could they read and write⁴, country of origin, race, how much money they had⁵ and name and address of an American sponsor⁶.

NOTE¹:  Arriving at a recognized point of entry allowed US authorities to screen arrivals for administrative purposes (Criminal?  Terrorist?).  Arrivals were deloused and quarantine for a certain incubation period to ensure they were not vectors for contagious disease.  

NOTE²:  Proving bureaucrats have always been incompetent, the registered name on documents for grandpa do not match his given name or even the Americanized version of that name.

NOTE³:  I do not know for certain, but I suspect having an occupation or skill was necessary to ensure migrants could support themselves.

NOTE⁴:  Literacy was obviously and important qualifier, or why ask?  I do not know if it, by itself, was a disqualifier.  I suspect it was one of many metrics. If a guy had no occupation, no money and could not read or write he was probably rejected.  If he had money and a skill, he was probably OK.

NOTE⁵:  Having some amount of money in your pocket* was probably required to ensure the migrant could survive until they acclimated to their new surroundings.  

*NOTE to note: Amounts varied but was around $20 at the low end or about $500 in today’s cash.

NOTE⁶:  Having a sponsor was another means to ensure the migrant was not immediately going to end up on the streets.

So I challenge Ms. Gilbert to support the same standards for entry into the US as 100 years ago.  Report to recognized port of entry and submit to reasonable a screening process.  That’s all most Americans ask.

Second, no country that combines unrestricted entry with a lavish welfare system can long survive.

Ludicrous analogies undercut argument

Doug Schumick (“ 'Unchristian' policies maintain order, safety,” June 24) should try this thought experiment:

Imagine you have been agonizing for months about leaving everything you own and all that is familiar to you to escape the violence in your homeland. You finally decide this risk is worth it if you can save your children's lives.

You are not going to an amusement park for a day of cotton candy and joy rides. You are crossing the border. You are walking across a desert in grueling heat.

Imagine when you arrive that you wait for hours in line to be evaluated. You must convince the American authorities you are seeking refuge from unimaginable violence, intimidation and terror.

There is no “park store” in this place. You and your children are exhausted. Too exhausted to “insert” yourselves at the front of the line.

The presumptions Schumick makes are ludicrous. There is no religious label that deserves this analogy.

Imagine you are the father seeking refuge in this “amusement park.” Imagine those children are yours.

Peggy Gilbert

North Manchester