Category: Migration, Refugees, and Asylum

Should my friend apply to a Massachusetts town for permission to turn his house into a for-profit migrant shelter?

by philg

A friend owns a 6,000-square-foot house in our former suburb of Lincoln, Maskachusetts. Loyal readers might remember the 2019 post Harvard graduate discovers that the suburbs are packed with narrow-minded white heterosexuals:

The old white guy who led the First Parish church in our suburban town, a union of Congregational and Unitarian, retired. The Millionaires for Obama on the church hiring committee found Manish Mishra-Marzetti, a young Indian-American (Indian from India, not Indian like Elizabeth Warren) to become the new minister (in 2015). He, his husband, and their two adopted kids (characterized as “African American” in the video link below) moved into our midst.

On paper, at least, this guy is exactly the kind of person that the residents say that they want to assist and/or get to know better. He’s the child of immigrants. His skin is nearly as dark as a Virginia Democrat headed out for a party. He identifies as LGBTQIA. He organized trips to our southern border to assist migrants. He sermonized against the evils of Trump and Trump supporters.

I don’t think that I’ve written about it here, but some years ago there was a non-profit org that applied for zoning permission to turn a house in the town into a halfway house for, I think, mentally disabled adults. The halfway house would receive massive amounts of state funding for each person served. Democrats on the town discussion list went nuts. Each email started with praise for the idea of this kind of taxpayer-funded service and ended with the thought that it would make a lot more sense to operate such a house in some other town or city within Maskachusetts. If memory serves, the righteous managed to kill the proposal despite some sort of state law that ostensibly neuters local opposition.

My friend has a love of irony and he’ll soon be moving out of this house and into a tax-free Deplorable-rich state. Before he goes, though, I suggested that he have some fun by applying for zoning permission to operate a state-funded for-profit migrant shelter. His house would become home to four families of enrichers. As there is just one kitchen, the migrants would receive professionally cooked meals prepared in the central kitchen by paid staff. The migrants are undocumented and may not be able to get driver’s licenses and the town isn’t walkable. Thus, transportation would be provided by volunteers and also a paid service. Residents of Lincoln claim that they love Black people (cue the BLM signs on nearly every lawn that lasted at least until progressives transitioned to Queers for Palestine). Telegraph that the residents will be exclusively Haitian by including Haitian Creole-speaking wellness coaches and yoga instructors in the budget and asking the town for permission to have a 2’x4′ English/Haitian Creole sign in front.

Readers: What else could be added to this proposal to make it more expensive to taxpayers (yet still plausible and in line with what Maskachusetts taxpayers are currently paying for sheltered migrants) and more objectionable to the townsfolk who are the first to say that they love and support migrants and People of Color?

Based on “Massachusetts spending over $15k per month per family on migrant housing and transportation” (Fall River Reporter), my friend’s Lincoln Migrant Shelter would enjoy revenue of $60,000 per month ($720,000/year). Let’s assume that property tax is $30,000/year and two full-time people can do driving, shopping, cooking, and cleaning ($200,000/year). USDA says that the monthly cost of food on a “liberal plan” is about $400 per person so that’s another $60,000ish for the groceries (assume four “families” = 12 people). If we figure $40,000/year for maintenance and insurance, that’s about $400,000/year in gross profit for the enterprise. That’s a 20 percent return on investment if the house is worth $2 million.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Why doesn’t the U.S. try to buy migrants from Europe?

by philg

We are informed that low-skill migrants make the native-born richer and that, therefore, a country’s borders should be mostly open (albeit never described as “open borders” because that is hate speech/conspiracy theory). We also informed that Europeans don’t want to be rich… ”Europe Grasps for Ways to Stop the Migrant Surge” (WSJ):

The biggest swing in sentiment has been in Germany, long a proponent of generous policies toward refugees. Pressure has been building in recent years as the nation absorbed millions of immigrants, weighing on the welfare system and municipal services. Migration was a key theme in Sunday’s closely watched regional election in Brandenburg, where the governing Social Democrats narrowly beat the far-right Alternative for Germany party, or AfD.

Last week, the coalition government in Berlin reintroduced limited border checks to all neighboring countries, after a knife attack in late August by a failed asylum seeker killed three people in the city of Solingen during a festival to celebrate its 650th anniversary. The attacker was a 26-year-old Syrian with links to Islamic State who had evaded deportation for more than a year after losing his asylum case.

Since the pandemic ended, governments across the continent have struggled to cope with rising numbers of asylum seekers and are grasping for ways to stem the flow, from curbing taxpayer-funded benefits to asylum seekers to striking deals with non-EU countries to temporarily or permanently house would-be refugees.

Last year, a near-record 1.14 million people filed asylum claims in Europe, the highest number since the height of the 2015 migration crisis in Europe, when more than a million Syrians fleeing that country’s civil war entered the bloc.

An extra 1.14 million/ asylum seekers per year would moderately enrich the United States, both culturally and economically. In the pre-Biden years, we were enriched by approximately 22 million undocumented immigrants (Yale 2018) and at least another 10 million have come across the border during the Dr. Jill Biden-Kamala Harris administration.

For nearly everything else that has value in this world there is some kind of market. There is “a bid”, in other words, as the Wall Streeters say. Why hasn’t the U.S. bid to take all of the migrants that Europeans don’t want? We are told that migrants are precious. Why aren’t we offering, for example, to pay Germany $100,000 per migrant and also to pay each migrant $100,000 as a “welcome to America bonus” (on top of the means-tested public housing, means-tested health insurance, SNAP/EBT (“food stamps”), and Obamaphone to which migrants will be entitled)? And if we did offer $200,000 (total) per migrant, wouldn’t we expect to face competition from other countries that seek to be enriched?

Separately, here’s a Reuters story on a beachhead in Africa that Spain continues to hold (why?). My favorite line is “Moroccan nationals detained during the crossings are immediately sent back to Morocco unless they are underage or seeking asylum, [Cristina Perez, the Spanish government’s representative in Ceuta] said.” Unless the migrants are remarkably unintelligent, why wouldn’t they all claim to fall into one of these categories? Like the U.S. system, the European immigration system seems to be premised on the assumption that humans never lie.

Full post, including comments

New York Times: After welcoming 50 million non-European migrants, Europe is poor and needs more government spending

by philg

“Europe’s ‘Reason for Being’ at Risk as Competitiveness Wanes, Report Warns” (New York Times, 9/9/2024):

Europe must increase public investment by nearly $900 billion a year in sectors like technology and defense, according to a long-awaited report published Monday in response to growing anxieties about the continent’s economy lagging behind that of the United States and China.

Mr. Draghi said that the European Union needed additional annual investment of up to 800 billion euros ($884 billion) to meet the objectives he laid out in his report. That is equivalent to about 4.5 percent of the European Union’s gross domestic product last year. By comparison, investment under the Marshall Plan from 1948 to 1951 was equivalent to about 1.5 percent of Europe’s economic output.

Conditions that contributed to the continent’s prosperity have changed substantially since the coronavirus pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Cheap Russian gas is no longer available, and energy prices have soared. Those prices have come off their peak, but European companies still pay two to three times more for electricity than U.S. companies, the report found.

We are informed that low-skill migrants make developed countries rich. Europe has welcomed nearly 50 million non-European migrants (source through 2020).

Why does Europe need more government spending, as a percentage of GDP, to become rich if it was already enriched by low-skill migrants?

Related:

  • “Our giant welfare state” (Washington Post, 2014), in which we learn that only the French spend a larger percentage of their GDP on government hand-outs
  • Heritage Foundation on Germany, finding that it spends 50 percent of GDP on government (higher than the U.S., but the U.S. percentage is distorted because we don’t include nominally “private” spending on health care (which is so regulated and mandated by the government that I think it should be included))
  • Heritage on France (60 percent of GDP spent by the government)
  • Heritage on Poland (45 percent of GDP spent by the government)
  • Heritage on Taiwan (18 percent of GDP spent by the government (and 82 percent by TSMC?))
  • Heritage on South Korea (26 percent of GDP spent by the government)
Full post, including comments

Will the U.S. have to give up the First Amendment as a result of open borders?

by philg

A few months ago I wondered if the Second Amendment right to bear arms was compatible with mass immigration: How can a country have a right to bear arms and also an open border? (people with violent criminal histories can walk into the U.S. become citizens since we don’t have access to databases in all of the countries that are enriching us)

The U.K. doesn’t have a constitution, but the peasants there thought that they had a right to free speech until recently when they learned that opinions regarding mass immigration needed to be expressed within strict limits (example). This post is about whether the U.S. will need to formally repeal both the First and Second Amendments in order to create greater harmony in a country that is more densely packed with humans who have nothing in common other than not liking where they used to live.

We’ve already had to restrict the right to express disagreement with the state religion. See, for example, Adolfo Martinez’s 16-year prison sentence for taking a sacred Rainbow Flag off an Iowa church and burning it in the middle of the street (Reason describes it as a 15-year sentence, but maybe that is because of a confusion about credit for time served? Interestingly, the pastor of the purportedly “turn the other cheek” church was delighted with the heretic’s sentence, about what Attempted Murder might have gotten).

Elites and peasants have completely opposite financial interests when it comes to low-skill immigration (see the Harvard analysis in “Yes, Immigration Hurts American Workers” finding a $500 billion/year transfer from the working class to the elite at pre-Biden/Harris levels of immigration and in pre-Biden/Harris dollars). This division has been explicit in the U.K. where the peasants voted, via Brexit, to reduce low-skill immigration and the elites simply ignored them. From The Telegraph, August 22, 2024:

For nearly 30 years the public have voted for lower immigration, only for politicians of all stripes to raise it. Even after Brexit, when we finally regained control of our borders, the public were betrayed. Decisions taken in 2019 relaxed controls and sent net migration spiralling to historically unprecedented levels. Freedom of movement with Europe was replaced with a system so liberal it effectively amounted to freedom of movement with the rest of the world.

In the first quarter of this year, the government issued more family visas to the dependants and relatives of Somali nationals (269) than it did work visas to physicists, chemists and biologists from all other countries put together (198).

Despite the increase in spousal visas, Labour have already scrapped the plan to raise the minimum income requirement for family visas from £29,000 to £38,700. It’s a return to the type of low-skilled immigration that has burdened, not boosted, our economy.

I was chatting recently with a friend who Zooms it into a $500,000/year job from a multi-acre property in the Boston suburbs. She said, “I’m going to vote for Harris because we need more immigration. It is too difficult to find people to work on the house and yard at a reasonable price.” (She’s registered to vote in Maskachusetts so, of course, her vote won’t matter, but I found her reasoning interesting.) This explicit wish for lower market-clearing wages seems like the kind of expression that will need to be suppressed because it would inevitably lead to disharmony. On the other side, we would need to suppress “dangerous and false narratives” (MSNBC) that open borders are conducive to crime and drugs. If a narrative is “dangerous” then shouldn’t we want to prevent people from providing that narrative? I hope that we can all agree that danger is bad and safety is good. See also “Politicians’ talk of a border ‘invasion’ is speech that experts say has gotten people killed” (Ohio Capital Journal, April 2024). We don’t want people being killed merely because we can’t get rid of an outdated part of the Constitution that might have made sense when the U.S. was young, small, and socially cohesive.

From the United Nations:

“We all have to remember that hate crimes are preceded by hate speech.” This is how Adama Dieng, UN’s Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, starts the Stopping Hate Speech video. “We have to bear in mind that words kill. Words kill as bullets”, he continued.

If we want to prevent violence among the disparate groups that now reside in the U.S., won’t we need to prevent unauthorized speech?

Here are some folks who could use a cooling off in prison, for example:

(“Deport All Illegals” doesn’t make sense given our asylum laws that nobody proposes changing. As soon as a person says “I felt unsafe back home” he/she/ze/they is a legal asylum-seeker. The “Assimilate” sign also makes no sense. If we are offering immigration on the basis of a lack of safety in some other country there is no reason to believe that someone here to take us up on our offer of asylum has any affinity for what used to be considered American culture.)

Loosely related… Kamala Harris says that a muscular president can ban guns (or at least some types of guns) without amending the Constitution:

Full post, including comments

Is everyone in the U.K. and Bangladesh now entitled to asylum in the U.S.?

by philg

Politicians from both parties say that they want to “control” the U.S. border, but nobody ever proposes changing U.S. law to eliminate the right to claim asylum. There are minor differences between politicians, e.g., “Biden administration reverses Trump-era asylum policies” (Politico, 2021), in which Joe Biden opened the door to people who claimed to have been a victim of domestic violence 10,000 miles away (good luck disproving one of those contentions!). But nobody has been willing to say “The world is too big, too crowded, and too connected for us to continue to offer this” or “We are shutting down asylum because it is impossible to build a cohesive society among people who have nothing in common other than they didn’t like where they used to live.”

Given the recent unrest in the U.K. and Bangladesh, I’m wondering if 100 percent of those countries’ populations could show up in the U.S. and claim asylum. Their fear of violence would certainly seem credible based on video clips. For example, “UK riots live: arrests pass 400 as police prepare for further riots; man in serious condition after suspected hate crime” (Guardian):

Wes Streeting told PA he condemned the “mindless thuggery” seen in the rioting and said that the government “will not tolerate” the continuation of violence that has spread through towns and cities across England over the last week.

Kenya and the United Arab Emirates have also warned their citizens in the UK to steer clear of the violent protests in England.

In an advisory issued on Tuesday, Kenya’s high commission in London said it was closely monitoring the unrest which it said was “primarily driven by far right and anti immigrant groups”

It added: “The violence has flared up across various towns and cities in the United Kingdom. Kenyans residing in or travelling to the United Kingdom are urged to stay away from the protest areas and should remain vigilant.

“Furthermore, the [UAE ministry of foreign affairs] warns UAE nationals against visiting areas witnessing riots and protests and to avoid crowded areas. UAE citizens must adhere to the warnings issued by the UAE Embassy in London and comply with all safety instructions.

The U.K. is now considered too violent by Nigerian, Malaysian, Indonesian, Indian, and Australian standards (CNBC). Why aren’t these determinations sufficient to support an asylum claim here in the U.S.?

(What I find most surprising about the U.K. discord is the arrogance of the London-based elites. A typical outcome of a multi-ethic multi-religious society is civil war. Recent examples include Lebanon, Rwanda, Sudan, and various Eastern European countries. Why did the folks who set up the current UK imagine that it would be different if they set up a multi-ethnic multi-religious society in the British Isles?)

From the Daily Mail, for example:

The U.K. Prime Minister has threatened to imprison anyone who expresses ideas contrary to the government’s point of view on the merits of low-skill immigration (Independent; “Anyone who stokes this violence, whether on the internet or in person, can be prosecuted and face prison.” (“stokes this violence” to be interpreted by the government, of course!)). The civil unrest is geographically widespread within the U.K. (NYT):

Bangladesh, 2021: “Bangladesh’s Hindus living in fear following mob attacks” (BBC). If their fear was “credible” (and the BBC certainly seemed to think so) then perhaps Bangladeshi Hindus were entitled to US/UK asylum no later than 2021. The U.S. government now says that Bangladesh is too dangerous for anyone, regardless of religious affiliation: “US urges its citizens not to travel to Bangladesh” (Deccan Herald, August 6, 2024).

Bangladesh has a population of 175 million. The U.K. has a population of around 70 million, so that’s roughly 245 million people who gained the right (under our asylum laws) to become U.S. residents/citizens in just the past week.

Full post, including comments

How can a country have a right to bear arms and also an open border?

by philg

“5,000 Miles, 8 Countries: The Path to the U.S. Through One Family’s Eyes” (New York Times, July 8, 2024) gives readers some details on the process by which the U.S. is enriched culturally and economically:

Mr. Aguilar embodied that paradox. He set off for the United States with a turbulent past as a soldier, police officer and bodyguard in Venezuela, and after a prison stint that could derail his chances of securing asylum.

Using a mobile app that the Biden administration has relied on to curb illegal crossings, the family had secured a coveted appointment to enter the United States legally the next day — the first step for many migrants seeking asylum.

The undocumented turn out to have…. documents:

After entering so many countries illegally, the family’s final border crossing was to be entirely lawful. But that did little to ease their nerves as federal officers began to check their passports, take fingerprints and photographs, and swab their cheeks for DNA.

Here’s the core of the story for today’s question:

Mr. Aguilar was part of a SWAT-like unit that specialized in taking down organized crime when, as a 21-year-old police officer, he was arrested and charged in 2010 with abusing his authority.

Venezuelan prosecutors accused him of participating in an armed shakedown of someone who owed his friend money. The friend and Mr. Aguilar, said to be carrying another officer’s gun, were accused of holding several people at gunpoint and stealing money and bottles of whiskey. Mr. Aguilar was charged with aggravated robbery, extortion and embezzlement, according to the few court documents available online.

Mr. Aguilar says Venezuelan prosecutors distorted the charges and that he and his friend weren’t violent [other than holding people at gunpoint?]. In court documents, he portrayed himself as accompanying his friend for backup. He eventually served two years in prison, he said.

At the U.S. border, background checks did not appear to turn up Mr. Aguilar’s criminal past. The family was released on parole — a status that allows migrants without visas to live and work in the country as their asylum cases wind through the courts.

Mr. Aguilar’s first court appearance before an immigration judge is scheduled for April 2025. He doesn’t know how he intends to deal with his past: The government can bar asylum for people convicted of serious crimes, and Mr. Aguilar would have to disclose his record on his asylum application.

The U.S. doesn’t have electronic access to records of criminal convictions in countries around the world. Thus, there is no way for the U.S. to exclude convicted criminals from the open border/asylum system. The NYT describes a New American (“Bidenmerican”?) who probably shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun, having previously been convicted of a “gun crime”, and for whom there will be no practical obstacle to legal gun ownership (except maybe the US immigration bureaucrats will read the New York Times and learn about Mr. Aguilar’s colorful past?).

That’s the big question for today, especially for the gun nut readers (you know who you are!). How can the Second Amendment survive the importation of over 100 million who’ve been selected for nothing other than a willingness to walk over the southern border (59 million arrived between 1965 and 2015 (Pew))? Reasonable people won’t want immigrants with criminal backgrounds owning guns. Democrats, at least, won’t want immigrants treated differently than native-born Americans. Why wouldn’t a majority of Americans come to agree that, therefore, no private citizen should be allowed to own a gun?

The article has some other interesting items:

Mr. Aguilar left Venezuela about six years ago, part of a flight of more than seven million people who have escaped a once-wealthy country where the economy collapsed and crime skyrocketed under President Nicolás Maduro.

Three years later, Mr. Aguilar found himself in Chile, where he sparked a romance with Ms. Ortega, who is also Venezuelan, and they blended their families. Ms. Ortega left behind a 13-year-old daughter in Ecuador because she was too sick to travel.

Both of the adults whom Joe Biden invited in have a history of splitting up with their co-parents. I wonder if Ms. Ortega’s former co-parent would have predicted this continuation of Venezuela’s rich baseball tradition…

But the parents were still stressing about their future, and their relationship continued to fray. One night in mid-April, Ms. Ortega grabbed a baseball bat and swung at Mr. Aguilar, hitting his hands. She said it happened in the heat of the moment. Mr. Aguilar was not injured and did not hit back.

She was arrested on a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct, and a protective order was issued to keep Ms. Ortega away from Mr. Aguilar. He lost his carpentry job, and the family was forced from the [free nonprofit-provided] house. Mr. Aguilar was placed in a shelter for domestic violence victims with his children, Samuel and Hayli; Ms. Ortega was set up elsewhere with Josué, her son.

Now the U.S. taxpayer was supporting two households.

In early March, the family received more welcome news: Ms. Ortega was pregnant.

In 18 years, therefore, both parents will be entitled to green cards and, eventually, citizenship. (Today’s anchor baby, on turning 18, has the right to obtain permanent residence for his/her/zir/their parents.)

Related…

Full post, including comments

Europe is rich in migrants, so why isn’t it rich?

by philg

“Europe Has Fallen Behind the U.S. and China. Can It Catch Up?” (New York Times, June 5):

Europe’s share of the global economy is shrinking, and fears are deepening that the continent can no longer keep up with the United States and China. … Beijing and Washington are funneling hundreds of billions of dollars into expanding their own semiconductor, alternative energy and electric car industries, and upending the world’s free trade regime

The secret to wealth is government spending and European governments aren’t big enough.

Private investment lags as well. Large corporations, for example, invested 60 percent less in 2022 than their American counterparts, and grew at two-thirds the pace, according to a report by the McKinsey Global Institute. As for per-capita income, it is on average 27 percent lower than in the United States. And productivity growth is slower than other major economies, while energy prices are much higher.

The journalists ask us to contemplate an unimaginable horrible scenario:

Imagine if every state in America had national sovereignty and there were only limited federal power to raise money to fund things like the military.

In other words, imagine if the U.S. Constitution were followed and the federal government’s powers were limited to those spelled out in the document.

The news isn’t all bad:

For more than a decade, Europe has been falling behind on several measures of competitiveness, including capital investments, research and development, and productivity growth. But it is a world leader in reducing emissions, limiting income inequality and expanding social mobility, according to McKinsey.

Europe could be leading the leaders in leading even more if governments would hire leading consultants at McKinsey more frequently. Speaking of leaders, the leaders in journalism don’t ask what seems like an obvious question: Science proves that low-skill immigrants make societies rich. Europe is rich in low-skill immigrants, while China is impoverished in low-skill immigrants. “China has the smallest number of international migrants of any major country in the world. Compare its 0.1% of immigrants with near 14% in the U.S. and 18% in Germany.” (Texas A&M, which also notes that immigrants are “very productive”). Shouldn’t Europe’s economic growth be higher than in the U.S. and China?

The NYT article doesn’t mention immigration, except to point out that only a “far-right” political party could question the wisdom of open borders.

Separately, I wonder what would happen if we subtracted out NVIDIA, Facebook, Apple, Google, and Microsoft from the U.S. economy. Maybe without Big Tech, the U.S. and Europe would be roughly comparable.

Speaking of the U.S. economy, here’s a chart from zerohedge showing that the number of native-born workers in the U.S. is unchanged compared to 2018:

To find the promised economic enrichment from the presence of migrants we would have to look at the extent to which real wages for the native-born have increased. If we adjust for inflation under the old formula, real wages are likely lower than in 2018. That’s certainly true here in Palm Beach County, Florida.

Full post, including comments

Maskachusetts Democrats try to understand their new neighbors

by philg

A Massachusetts Democrat’s Facebook post earlier this month (the woman who’d repeatedly expressed alarm regarding climate change was about to board a transoceanic flight, apparently; she’d also previously posted in favor of masks and was about to share a confined space with more than 300 potentially infected humans):

Some comments from fellow Democrats:

  • Migrant crisis [it is a “crisis” when the U.S. is being enriched at a faster pace than under the hated dictator Trump]
  • More mistreatment of immigrants. … [and then after a rare hater who snuck into the exchange points out that “They came here illegally”] Artificially preventing the incorporation of this latest wave of Americans into our fully American diaspora, as is the obviously racist purpose of this outrageous policy we are here witnessing, fully ignores the hard won history of all our (?) ancestors who have, and will continue, to make this nation a better (not worse) place because of their efforts, and abilities. If that’s “mansplaining” then please understand the actual truth delivered by this enlightened man! … I am, however, most interested in the opponents of Democracy, itself, and how they must be squirming in regards to the overwhelming election of Mexico’s first female president, who also happens to be its first Jewish president
  • [response to the above] super exciting to see her elected! She is also an ecologist!! This can only be good for Mexico and the world.
  • shameful
  • Wow. I didn’t know about this. How awful for these families!

For reference, the new president of Mexico, referred to above:

Related:

  • “Worried about coronavirus while having sex? Wear a mask, says a new study” (CNN, June 2020, about a study done in Massachusetts (at Harvard Medical School!)): “…it appears that all forms of in-person sexual contact carry risk for transmission of the virus,” said Dr. Jack Turban, study lead author and resident at Harvard Medical School, where he studies the mental health of transgender youth.
Full post, including comments

Did the Taliban do anything bad to Afghans expelled by Pakistan?

by philg

“Pakistan’s Campaign To Expel Millions Of Afghan Refugees Enters Second Phase” (Radio Free Europe, March 20, 2024):

Pakistan is set to force some 850,000 documented Afghan refugees back to their country next month if they don’t leave voluntarily.

Islamabad is calling this the second phase of its move to force more than 3 million documented and undocumented Afghans out of the country. Since October, it has expelled more than 500,000 Afghans who lacked proper documentation to stay in Pakistan.

“Most of these refugees fled Afghanistan fearing persecution of the Taliban,” she wrote on X. “Such mapping and any further decision will expose them to great risk.”

We are informed that Afghans can’t go back to Afghanistan because the Taliban will persecute them. The above article, though, says that hundreds of thousands actually did go back (albeit involuntarily) and I can’t find any news coverage of persecution by the Taliban.

Could it be that Afghanistan is actually reasonably safe, at least from fear of political persecution?

Afghans going home:

Full post, including comments

When low-skill immigration, divorce litigation, DEI, and 2SLGBTQQIA+ intersect

by philg

Today we celebrate the 20th anniversary of what used to be called “gay” or “same-sex” marriage here in the U.S., in which Maskachusetts led the way (modern-style opposite-sex marriage, in which divorce litigation may ensue, seems to go back about 4,300 years to Mesopotamia). (Joe Biden also reminds us that today is International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia, not to be confused with the Pride Month that starts in two weeks.)

Let’s check in with a formerly happy couple… “A Broken Marriage, a Big Inheritance and the Murder of an Art Kingmaker” (Wall Street Journal, May 11, 2024):

Brent had long held sway over a cerebral corner of the New York art scene, promoting women and diverse artists in the early 1990s when few galleries or museums exhibited either. … friends gravitated toward his wicked sense of humor, a zest that extended to an ebullient social life, often populated by a revolving door of lovers. “He liked younger men,” says his friend, the artist Vik Muniz.

DEI box… checked. 2SLGBTQQIA+ box… checked.

Now, landing in Rio, Brent was trying to move past a personal low point. Despite his outward success, close friends say he had been emotionally drained after nearly two years of hashing out a divorce settlement with his estranged husband, with whom he had a 13-year-old son. In Rio, he could spend a few weeks relaxing, maybe walk along Copacabana beach to meet locals or meditate.

Miracle of biology… checked. Winner-take-all divorce litigation in New York State… checked. The proud parents and future plaintiff/defendant:

What can New Yorkers do with all of the free time they have because they never have to go to Home Depot?

After work, he and Brent sought out the same nightlife, going to sex clubs and swapping ribald stories, Renaud-Clément says.

Does marriage interfere with going to the sex club?

friends of both men say the couple was known to have an open marriage

Personal background?

Daniel was born in a tiny town in the Cuban province of Camagüey. … Daniel was fleeing a troubled childhood and doing whatever he could to survive in Havana and later Madrid, including sex work, according to Daniel’s 2006 memoir.

Low-skill immigration box… checked.

Daniel got a WhatsApp message from Prevez, his former caretaker in Cuba. Prevez had since moved to São Paulo and wanted to catch up, according to his police statement. … Like Daniel, Prevez had struggled for years to scrape together a living in Cuba, repairing bicycles by day and working as a night security guard. In September 2022, he moved to Brazil in hope of a better salary. … Prevez says he took a job making deliveries for an online marketplace known as Mercado Livre in a borrowed Fiat Palio, but he wasn’t earning enough to support his own family in Cuba.

Low-skill immigration box… checked a second time. (Mr. Prevez migrated from his caretaker job to live in Brazil.)

Prevez said Daniel told him about the ongoing divorce. Then, he told police, Daniel made him an offer: $200,000 and a free place to stay in Rio in exchange for killing his ex.

According to New York law, Daniel could seek a third of Brent’s net worth as the surviving spouse—likely more than he would get in any divorce settlement. Daniel’s lawyers say they intend to claim his share as a surviving spouse.

A European friend: “Big irony is that these gay dudes fought so hard to be able to get sued for divorce.”

Related:

  • “Couple who led gay marriage fight to divorce” (NBC): Julie and Hillary Goodridge were among seven gay couples who filed a lawsuit that led to a court ruling making Massachusetts the first state to legalize same-sex marriages in 2004. The couple became the public face of the debate in the state and married the first day same-sex marriages became legal. The divorce case was filed last week in Suffolk Probate and Family Court and was not unexpected. The couple announced they were separating in 2006.
Full post, including comments