It ought to be evident that one need not come down on any of the multi-sided immigration “debates” to acknowledge that it is immoral and unethical to take money from some people in order to facilitate the preferred move and resettlement of another.
The taking is the wrong, regardless of whether some politician says the intent is noble, and regardless of whether the recipient is a “citizen” or an “undocumented migrant.”
Which makes this news from the east coast that much more immediate and essential.
On the heels of California Governor Gavin Newsom getting enough pushback from Californians and people around the nation that he just vetoed the state legislation handing tax-backed home loans of up to $150,000 to “undocumented migrants,” New York City Mayor Eric Adams has been revealed to be running a money-shift scheme that since December has handed migrants at least $600,000 to locate to new digs.
That’s Eric Adams, who, as we reported in July, once proudly talked about New York being a “sanctuary” for migrants, then complained about the expenses of said “sanctuary” status, demanded more federal (meaning OUR) tax cash, AND simultaneously, expanded a cash-debit-card system for the ever-growing number of migrants flowing into the Big Apple. That's Adams who has already admitted the city will spend at least $10 billion in tax cash between 2022 and 2025 to deal with the Biden administration's border policies dumping thousands of migrants into its streets.
So if you’d hate to be a waiter asking him what he wants for dinner, and realizing he’ll say virtually anything as he demands someone else pay for it, you might be on the right emotional track.
Of course, this is much larger, it’s real, and it’s ongoing.
Joshua Q. Nelson reports for Fox News:
“New York City launched a pilot program to help migrants transition out of city shelters by providing them with $4000 for permanent housing, a city official confirmed to Fox News Digital on Friday.
The NYC Department of Homeless Services (DHS) offered 150 families cash assistance through the Asylee Moveout Assistance (AMA), a pilot created in December last year to help find permanent housing for asylum seekers. The pilot was launched in partnership with some city shelters providing services for asylum seekers.”
The term “partnership” often gets an unwarranted pass in contemporary political discourse.
In society, separate from government, a partnership is voluntary. When political forces employ the term, it’s not a “partnership” between just the state power and the “shelters,” because taxpayers are roped into it.
That’s called fascism. It’s the combination of government and private interests, at the expense – in cash, opportunity, and freedom -- of taxpaying civilians.
Adds Nelson:
“DHS officials in December started dispensing $4,000 to 150 households who live in the city’s emergency DHS shelters.”
That’s $600,000 in 10 months. But, in fact, it’s been less time than that, because, according to the NYC Department of Social Services (DSS) bureaucracy, the system only got functioning seven months ago.
"’150 households have benefitted from this pilot over the last seven months, and we look forward to supporting more households as we assess the success of the pilot and feasibility of scaling up and expanding access to this form of assistance,’ the statement from DSS reads further.
Eligibility for the $4000 grant is solely limited to asylum-seeking families and pregnant women who are residing in select DHS emergency shelters and have already identified permanent housing.
There is no city funding allocated for this program, the DSS spokesperson told Fox News Digital. DHS is using money from existing funds within the agency, the DSS spokesperson added.”
Which brings up a few questions. Apart from the acronym DHS in NYC being the same as the unconstitutional, Teutonic Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on the federal level, and separate from the unctuous demands for more of our cash that Adams has made of the federal tax-money shifters, how is it possible that the city can shell out this money when Adams already has acknowledged that New York doesn’t have enough to handle its current expenses?
It’s almost as if Adams operates in a fantasy world – at civilian expense.
Nelson reports:
“The $4,000 would be used to cover security deposits, moving expenses, first and last month rent and any household necessities. Migrant families who receive the grant are required to document their expenses.”
When did YOU get your living expenses covered in such a way? Do you think you have a right to demand that others cover your security deposits, moving expenses, first and last month rent and “household necessities”?
Related: Pelosi Invokes Reagan In Support of CA Giving Home Loans To Illegal Immigrants
Likely, hopefully, you do not think so.
But Adams seems to think that opposing such parasitism is the immoral position. He favors the graft and redistribution of wealth. In fact, Nelson also notes:
“Additionally, families can receive up to $1,000 in gift cards for household necessities and moving expenses.”
And, as a final reminder, she observes:
“NYC is projected to have spent more than $5 billion over the last two years on the migrant crisis and the expense is estimated to double by 2025, the New York Post reported. Such spending of taxpayer money includes the cost of shelter, food, healthcare, and education.”
As I have noted for MRCTV, this is a problem that should have nothing to do with any people other than those who want to move, be they from outside the U.S. or native residents/citizens. And it is imperative that Americans understand that there is no constitutionally enumerated so-called “power” that allows New York to suck like a leech off people in other states in order to facilitate arriving refugees or migrants.
As I’ve written and explained to students, immigration is not a federal issue. Naturalization, or how people become citizens, is in the Constitution, but the word “immigration” doesn’t even appear in the document. Just last week, covering the California housing loan issue, I wrote:
“Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both noted in 1798 that it was a state purview. Texas had a ‘Bureau of Immigration’ in its state constitution when approved in 1869, and it was only with an errant and disastrous 1875 Supreme Court ruling in the case called ‘Chy Lung v Freeman’ that the justices invented the ‘federal control’ over immigration.”
Only when the blinders regarding these constitutional matters and these matters of immoral redistribution of wealth are considered will more people see the corruption and favoritism at the heart of these kinds of programs. And offering this kind of graft to citizens makes it no more acceptable.
Newsom has backed away from a form of this collectivism, likely because it was politically untenable.
Only more vocal opposition to its cousin in New York City will stop Adams.