Category: Migration, Refugees, and Asylum

How was the immigration of Mohamed Sabry Soliman supposed to benefit Americans?

by philg

Egyptian enricher Mohamed Sabry Soliman recently attacked some Jews in Boulder, Colorado who were out of step with the Free Palestine portion of the Progressive dogma.

Colorado Public Radio (1% taxpayer funded and also at risk of extinction if taxpayer funds are cut off):

Federal agents said Mohamed Sabry Soliman told police after his arrest in a Boulder firebombing that he planned his attack for a year, would do it again if he could and “wished they all were dead.”

According to a federal criminal complaint filed Monday morning, Soliman, 45, threw two lit Molotov cocktails at the gathering near the Boulder courthouse, yelling “Free Palestine!”

Soliman was born in Egypt and applied for U.S. asylum in September 2022, after arriving on a tourist visa according to federal authorities. He previously spent 17 years in Kuwait before moving to Colorado Springs three years ago, according to the state arrest paperwork.

According to Assistant Secretary Dept. of Homeland Security Tricia Mclaughlin, Soliman entered the country in August 2022 on a B2 tourism visa in California that expired in February 2023. He filed for asylum in September 2022.

Question for today: If Mohamed Sabry Soliman had committed no crimes of any kind how would his presence in the United States have made native-born Americans better off? What was the best case scenario and, therefore, the rationale for our policy? (Or maybe the answer is that we have intentionally set up an immigration policy to make ourselves worse off?)

Separately, the asylum claim is kind of interesting. Some U.S. bureaucrats apparently believed Mohamed Sabry Soliman’s assertion that Egypt was too dangerous for a human to inhabit. At the same time, the country that is too dangerous for humans to inhabit now has roughly 4X as many humans as it did in 1960.

Related:

Full post, including comments

What would it cost to deport undocumented migrants with due process?

by philg

Happy National Immigrant Heritage Month to those who celebrate.

My lawyer friends are generally in favor of anything that leads to more fees for lawyers. They all support gay marriage, for example, because no attorney can collect $1000/hr to handle a gay divorce unless there has first been a gay marriage (see “I Got Gay Married. I Got Gay Divorced. I Regret Both.” (NYT) for how attorneys mined out the life savings of two women, something that wouldn’t previously have been possible).

Recently, the more deplorable of these lawyers have been saying “I want all undocumented migrants deported, but only with due process.” By “due process” they mean the kind of full-scale trial that we would normally hold for someone accused of a crime (in most cases, though, neither the government nor the defendant can afford to go to trial so the result is plea bargaining). Democrat lawyers agree. They want a trial for each migrant, but with the outcome being that the precious migrant can stay in the U.S. forever.

Let’s see how much work would be generated for attorneys if we subscribed to this plan.

There won’t be any plea bargaining because there is no possibility of compromise in the binary decision of citizenship/expulsion. Every case will, therefore, go to trial. Every case will involve complicated facts, typically requiring travel to a foreign country to investigate, e.g., what was happening circa 2010 with the pupusa stand that purportedly resulted in Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia being targeted for death by Salvadoran gangs (CNN). So let’s assume 1,000 hours of attorney time for the prosecution and the same 1,000 hours for the defense all the way through trial. The additional lawyers who must be paid include the judges and their clerks (another 300 hours per case, perhaps). The costs of running the courthouse, the admin staff, the security guards, and the court reporters will be folded into an hourly fee, as will the costs of running the prosecution and defense law firms. Let’s assume $300 per attorney-hour as the full cost including all of these admin and support expenses. Each undocumented migrant who goes through the due process that my attorney friends envision will thus consume 2300*$300 = $690,000 in fees. That’s a lot less than the cost of handling a federal criminal court charge (I learned in 2013 that it would cost $1.5 million in 2013 dollars for a proper defense; adjusted for Bidenflation that would be $2.5 million? Then the prosecution would spent money and also the court itself, so perhaps $4 million total?) so it seems like this is the smallest conceivable number.

How many undocumented migrants are there in the U.S. today? For about 30 years we’ve been hearing “11 million”. Yale found 22 million in 2016:

Given the open border of the Biden-Harris years, therefore, there should be at least 30 million (undocumented migrant) candidates for due process. Multiplying out 30 million times $690,000 results in a total cost to U.S. taxpayers of $20 trillion. For reference, the current national debt is about $37 trillion (source), though that understates our indebtedness because it doesn’t count state and local pension obligations, forecast future Medicare and Social Security costs, etc. The current annual US GDP is about $28 trillion.

Full post, including comments

How many migrants will the Catholic Church settle on its 177 million acres?

by philg

The Catholic Church has selected a new pope, a man who fled the violence and dysfunction of his native Chicago to live in comparatively peaceful/safe Peru and, more recently, in the migrant-free environment of Vatican City:

New York Times:

Taking the name Pope Leo XIV, he shares Francis’ commitment to helping the poor and migrants.

The Catholic Church owns 177 million acres of land worldwide (source). The Church does make changes to its real estate portfolio periodically. For example, in 2024 it sold a church in the Northeast:

Father Larochelle said Muhammad Quandil and Sadaf Ali of North Attleboro purchased St. Augustine Church for $675,000 on Aug. 23. The sale included the church with an attached parish center, a separate rectory building and a parking lot.

Father Larochelle said the buyers plan to use buildings for functions and events for the religious community at the mosque they belong to in North Smithfield, Rhode Island, about 10 minutes away. The mosque, a place of worship for Muslims, has no room to expand on site in Rhode Island because of wetlands, Father Larochelle said.

(No matter how many churches are turned into mosques we should remember that in no way are Christians in the U.S. being “replaced” by Muslims. That’s a discredited conspiracy theory.)

The question for today: of the 1,400+ parishes that the Catholic Church has shut down in the U.S. during this most recent immigration wave (not a “replacement”), how many were turned into migrant housing? California, New York, and Maskachusetts are packed with rich Catholics, for example. Where are the Catholic-funded apartments or houses for migrants in California, New York, and Maskachusetts? We can find articles about Church property becoming mosques. Who can find an article about Church property becoming a permanent home for enrichers?

Also, in September the new pope will be 70 years old. Wouldn’t it make more sense for a younger executive to assume this role? Pope John Paul II started the job at age 58.

Here’s what ChatGPT 4o thinks Vatican City would look like if some apartment towers for migrants were added:

This is the best that ChatGPT could do for a church-to-migrant-housing transformation:

Loosely related…

Speaking of Illinois, should we give the new pope credit for having escaped the violence, dysfunction, and high taxes of his native Chicago in favor of the relative safety, order, and efficiency of Peru? (He was there 2014-2023.)

Full post, including comments

Should El Salvador sell tours at CECOT prison?

by philg

El Salvador is one of the world’s safest countries, according to one part of the U.S. government (State Department, which says it is safer than France or Sweden). The murder rate is less than 1/30th what Americans risk in what we’re told are our greatest cities. El Salvador is also one of the most dangerous countries on Earth, according to a different part. In fact, it is too dangerous for anyone to live in and that’s why any Salvadoran here in the U.S. is immune from deportation (“Temporary Protected Status” that is permanently extended).

I’m wondering if the El Salvador government should operate tours at its Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT). This should appeal equally to Democrats and Republicans. To Democrats, the tour can be marketed as “Visit the folks who formerly embodied all that is best about the United States” (extra $5,000 fee to drink margaritas with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the most precious and important human ever to reside in Maryland). For Republicans, it can be marketed as a Fantasy Law & Order experience with an extra $5,000 fee to attend a morning briefing with CECOT guards, do physical training, and then practice on the rifle and pistol ranges.

What else is there to do? TripAdvisor:

Full post, including comments

If Congress repealed the Refugee Act of 1980 would the fight over migrants between the Trump administration and the court system end?

by philg

The court system has been obstructing the Trump administration’s attempts to deport various classes of undocumented migrants who are here in the U.S. One might imagine that making a deportation decision would be a simple process. A migrant who lacks either a visa or a green card is ineligible for U.S. residence and, therefore, he/she/ze/they can be deported. Because, however, any migrant is entitled to make an asylum claim, e.g., as Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia did in 2019 (eight years after illegally entering the U.S.). At that point, some folks reasonably argue that “due process” requires U.S. government workers to determine whether the tale told by the asylum-seeker is true (see Federal government weighs in on a 15-year-old pupusa dispute (Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia)). It’s unclear why anyone thinks truth determination is possible. Only one side of the story is available, i.e., from the migrant who stands to gain four generations of a work-optional lifestyle (entitlement to public housing, Medicaid, SNAP/EBT, and Obamaphone). It’s an absurd farce in which the winners are those with the best acting skills, but it’s guaranteed to be an expensive farce with hundreds or thousands of hours invested by lawyers on all sides (government, migrant, judges) for each migrant whose status is determined. Other than high fees, the one thing all of these lawyers will have in common: none will have any clue about what actually happened on the other side of the world 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.

(Another farcical element is that nothing stops a Salvadoran from claiming that El Salvador, 20X safer than Baltimore or Washington, D.C., is too dangerous and that therefore he needs to live right here in the country where most of the most violent Salvadorans now reside.)

How did we get to the point that every migrant who strolls across the border can impose a $1 million cost in legal fees on the U.S. taxpayer? Professor of Constitutional Law Dr. ChatGPT, JD, PhD explains that we can thank the noblest of all U.S. Presidents, Jimmy Carter:

The premise of the asylum framework seems to be that Earth is generally too dangerous to be occupied by humans with the exception of the United States, which is the only safe place. World population in 1950 was about 2.5 billion people and 4.4 billion in 1980. Today, despite the fact that almost every country is officially deemed too dangerous to inhabit, the human population is somewhere between 8 and 10 billion (nobody knows).

Republicans have control of Congress right now. Instead of these constant fights with the courts regarding whether anyone can be deported, wouldn’t it make more sense for Trump to ask Congress to repeal the Refugee Act of 1980 and pass a new law that says “The United States does not offer temporary or permanent residence on the basis of an asylum claim and, in fact, does not offer asylum. It is a shame that various countries at various times have problems, but Americans hope that people who live in those countries will cooperate to work out their problems.” Asylum-seekers wouldn’t be disadvantaged by such a change because anyone who wants to seek asylum can do so in Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, etc.

Loosely related… (source)

Full post, including comments

Where will Palestinian and other migrants who’ve settled in Vatican City move now that Pope Francis has died?

by philg

Pope Francis was celebrated by U.S. media primarily for two positions:

  • it is immoral for a country to refuse to accept welfare-dependent migrants
  • the fighting in Gaza is the only war to which anyone need pay attention and Israel is the evil aggressor behind the fighting (although any Pope is infallible, Israelis would probably take issue with this and point out that Arabs started the overall war in 1948 and the Gazans started the most recent battles by invading Israel and taking civilians hostage on October 7, 2023)

Presumably the Vatican, therefore, under Pope Francis’s direction, took in at least thousands of migrants with a special emphasis on Palestinians (built up with Chinese-style apartment blocks, Vatican City’s 121 acres should be able to hold at least 50,000 cherished migrants). Where will these folks go now that Pope Francis is gone and his replacement might not share Francis’s love for the Islamic Resistance Movement (“Hamas”), UNRWA, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad?

The Catholic Church did not take sides in World War II (i.e., it was neutral regarding the policies and actions of Nazi Germany), but Pope Francis was quick to weigh in the Hamas side of the recent fighting in Gaza. Example from state-sponsored NPR:

See also this January 2025 Catholic World Report:

In a decree issued last month by the Holy See, the monetary sanctions and prison sentences for those who violate the strict security regulations of Vatican City have been considerably increased.

The document, signed by Cardinal Fernando Vérguez Alzaga, president of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City State, provides for monetary fines ranging from 10,000 to 25,000 euros (about $10,200 to $25,700) and prison sentences ranging from one to four years.

These fines will apply especially to those who enter by means of violence, threats, or deception, bypassing border controls or security systems. In addition, those who enter with expired permits or do not meet the established requirements will receive administrative sanctions ranging from 2,000 to 5,000 euros (about $2,060 to $5,145).

Full post, including comments

Is the government keeping Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s pupusa recipe secret?

by philg

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the noblest, most valuable, and most important resident of Maryland, made a pupusa-based asylum claim in 2019 (AP):

Abrego Garcia grew up in El Salvador’s capital city, San Salvador, according to court documents filed in U.S. immigration court in 2019. His father was a former police officer. His mother, Cecilia, sold pupusas, the nation’s signature dish of flat tortilla pouches that hold steaming blends of cheese, beans or pork.

The entire family, including his two sisters and brother, ran the business from home, court records state. Abrego Garcia’s job was buying ingredients and making deliveries with his older brother, Cesar.

“Everyone in the town knew to get their pupusas from ‘Pupuseria Cecilia,’” his lawyers wrote.

A local gang, Barrio 18, began extorting the family for “rent money” and threatened to kill Cesar — or force him into their gang — if they weren’t paid, court documents state. The family complied but eventually sent Cesar to the U.S.

The vast U.S. immigration bureaucracy found the pupusa story credible. The home-based business made such great pupusas that it was ripe for extortion by a powerful gang. Presumably, no judge would have made this finding without having seen the recipe for the Abrego Garcia pupusas. Yet, as with the JFK assassination investigation files, there has been a massive coverup and the pupusa recipe hasn’t been released. Why not a Freedom of Information Act request to ICE to get the recipe so that every American who is passionate about due process can make pupusas every night until Mr. Abrego Garcia is free.

Here’s a Maryland Senator, Mr. Abrego Garcia, an interpreter, I think (why bother to learn English if you’re in the U.S. for only 15 years?), and margaritas (from X):

In the meantime, we have ChatGPT:

Here’s a basic pupusa recipe — traditional Salvadoran stuffed corn cakes — with just a few ingredients:

Ingredients:

For the dough:

  • 2 cups masa harina (corn flour, such as Maseca)
  • 1½ to 2 cups warm water
  • ½ tsp salt

Common fillings:

  • 1 cup shredded mozzarella (or Salvadoran quesillo if available)
  • Optional: refried beans, cooked pork (chicharrón), or loroco (a Central American edible flower)

Instructions:

  1. Make the dough:
    • In a large bowl, mix masa harina with salt.
    • Slowly add warm water and knead until you get a soft, pliable dough that doesn’t crack or stick to your hands. Let it rest for 10 minutes.
  2. Prepare fillings:
    • Mix cheese with beans or pork if using.
    • Divide the filling into about 6–8 portions.
  3. Form the pupusas:
    • Wet your hands and divide the dough into 6–8 equal balls.
    • Flatten a ball into a 4-inch disc, place a spoonful of filling in the center, then pinch the dough closed around it.
    • Flatten it gently into a thick disc, about 4–5 inches wide.
  4. Cook:
    • Heat a lightly oiled skillet or griddle over medium heat.
    • Cook each pupusa for about 2–3 minutes per side, until golden and slightly blistered.
  5. Serve:
    • Serve hot with curtido (a lightly fermented cabbage slaw) and tomato salsa.
Full post, including comments

Federal government weighs in on a 15-year-old pupusa dispute (Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia)

by philg

Our energetic government employees have been vilified for inefficiency (most recently by the notorious DOGE), but the example of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia shows that federal workers can be very energetic indeed.

CNN:

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, entered the US illegally sometime around 2011, but an immigration judge in 2019, after reviewing evidence, withheld his removal. That meant he could not be deported to El Salvador but could be deported to another country. A gang in his native country, the immigration judge found, had been “targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family’s pupusa business.”

(“could be deported to another country” is inconsistent with what Democrats on X and Facebook are saying, i.e., that the noble Abrego Garcia had the right to permanent residence in the U.S.)

ChatGPT, regarding the value (in 2025 dollars) at stake in this deadly dispute:

​In El Salvador, pupusas are a beloved and affordable staple. Typically, a standard pupusa costs between $0.25 and $1.00 USD, depending on factors like ingredients, size, and location.

A federal employee, in other words, determined that a gang member who didn’t like a pupusa ten years earlier (maybe the gang prefers panes rellenos?) was lying in wait for Mr. Abrego Garcia to return to El Salvador so that he could be executed. Therefore, Mr. Abrego Garcia could stay safe in the U.S.

(It’s unclear to me why Mr. Abrego Garcia is safer in Maryland than in El Salvador. The murder rates in Baltimore and Washington, D.C. are more than 20X higher than in El Salvador. The border was fully open for four years and any Salvadoran, including cornmeal-hating gang members, could enter the U.S. and stay permanently temporarily (latest extension by the Biden-Harris administration, oddly in conflict with the fact that the State Department rates El Salvador as safer for American travelers than France or my beloved Sweden (see below).

Additionally, Mr. Abrego Garcia would be at risk in Maryland from his wife, with whom he apparently has a history of physical violence (ABC). Suppose that she has availed herself of her 2nd Amendment rights during Mr. Abrego Garcia’s sojourn in El Salvador? He returns to Maryland as a hero to all Democrats and is promptly filled with lead by the wife.

Surely the United States is now home to far more non-imprisoned violent Salvadorans than El Salvador itself (which successfully exported nearly all of its violent criminals to the U.S. and then imprisoned the rest).)

I’m at a loss to understand how Americans imagine that our English-speaking government workers are capable of sorting out what happened in a pupusa exchange 15 years ago.

Separately, here’s a hero of climate change alarmism:

According to Maryland Sen. Van Hollen, we’re in a “climate crisis” exacerbated by a “climate emergency.” What’s the right thing to do in that situation? Tap into a lake of Jet A and fly roundtrip to El Salvador without first making any appointments (nytimes):

It wasn’t possible to meet via Zoom or phone?

Full post, including comments

How is honor-system immigration supposed to work?

by philg

“Ex-Haitian mayor living in Mass. who lied about violent past convicted of U.S. visa fraud, feds say” (Boston 25, March 31):

A former Haitian mayor living in Massachusetts who committed “unspeakable acts of violence in Haiti” has been convicted of visa fraud for lying about his violent past to secure a green card to live in the United States, the U.S. Attorney said.

Prosecutors said Viliena “ordered and carried out brutal extrajudicial and political killings against the Haitian people” in Haiti. He later lied to immigration officials in 2008 to obtain a permanent resident card in the United States.

In another civil case two years ago, another jury at the US District Court in Boston found Viliena liable and ordered him to pay $15.5 million in damages to the victims and families of political opponents he allegedly killed and tortured in Haiti, the Globe reported. He is currently appealing that decision.

Foley said on June 3, 2008, Viliena went to the U.S. Embassy Consular Office in Port au Prince, Haiti, where he submitted an Application for Immigrant Visa and Alien Registration, Form DS-230, Part II in order to gain entry to the United States.

The form specifically requires that each applicant state whether or not they are a member of any class of individuals that are excluded from admission into the United States, including those who have “ordered, carried out or materially assisted in extrajudicial and political killings and other acts of violence against the Haitian people.”

Viliena falsely responded that he was not. Viliena thereafter swore to, or affirmed, before a U.S. Consular Officer that the contents of the application were true and signed the application, Foley said.

Seventeen years and two federal court lawsuits later, justice has caught up with this enriching immigrant, a great result for attorneys who get paid to handle lawsuits, be judges, or be clerks for judges. What I find interesting is that U.S. immigration is based on the honor system. Mr. Viliena was asked “Are you guilty of extrajudicial and political killings?” and reasonably answered “No.” (It would be great to find out if in the entire history of the United States any prospective migrant has answered “Yes” to such a question!)

How did we expect this system to work and why is Mr. Viliena being prosecuted for lying? Wouldn’t it make more sense to prosecute for stupidity the Americans who set up the questionnaire?

Separately, let’s look at how Mr. Viliena enriched the United States:

Until his arrest two years ago, Viliena had been living in Malden and spent much of three years driving a school bus in the region, The Boston Globe reported.

He was one of the higher achievers in Haiti, mayor of a town of 23,000+, and here in the U.S. he was working at a job (driver) that will soon be automated at, no doubt, a salary that would have entitled him to taxpayer-subsidized housing, health care, etc. The majority of Americans seem to agree that we benefit from importing people who will be eligible for a lifetime of welfare.

Full post, including comments

Robots that exterminate immigrant plants and animals?

by philg

We’re informed by Science that immigrant humans make life better/easier for natives (the enrichers and the enriched). Science also tells us that immigrant plants and animals make life extremely difficult if not impossible for natives. Examples from the Brevard Zoo in Melbourne, Florida:

What about robots that tirelessly hunt for immigrants that Science says we don’t want and that Californians characterize as “invaders”? They could catch Burmese pythons in the Everglades, for example. Sea robots could hunt lionfish in the Caribbean and Asian carp in the Great Lakes (folks in Illinois hate Asians almost as much as Harvard does!). The idea is already out there for immigrant plants (e.g., “Seeing Beneath the Trees: Using Robots and AI to Control Understory Invasive Plants” (UConn 2021)) and “weeds”. Maybe nobody wants to think about robots, such as Elon Musk’s Optimus, having the power to trap and gather live animals (or kill them).

This is my April Fools’ Day message. It can fit the theme of the day either because (1) we are all fools for not noticing the apparent contradiction in simultaneously believing that low-skill immigrant humans are hugely valuable and animal immigrants are hugely destruction, (2) the idea of robots roaming the Everglades and gathering up baskets of pythons is foolish.

Related… “Densely packed invasive anoles outcompete natives”:

Invasive brown anoles might outcompete their native cousins in the southeastern U.S. merely by living more densely.

Brown anoles (Anolis sagrei) inadvertently came to Florida in the 1800s by tagging along on cargo shipments. Since then, the invasive species have moved steadily northward in the state, often taking over territories occupied by native green anoles (Anolis carolinensis). Researchers know that over time, the invasive Cuban anoles change the native species’ habits. After moving in, the newcomer species typically occupies the ground and lower parts of plants and trees, while the green anoles occupy an ecological niche higher up on trees and bushes. The native anoles also become less common once the brown anoles have established themselves in the new territory.

Instead, she speculated that brown anoles in the wild might be outcompeting green anoles based on sheer numbers. Brown anoles may lay eggs more often than green anoles. The Cuban newcomers also tolerate much denser living conditions, while green anoles don’t. This allows the invasive species to take over more territory.

In short, anole migrants have a higher birth rate and don’t mind living in squalid conditions that native anoles would consider intolerable…

Full post, including comments