Alejandro Mayorkas: Springfield Has ‘Blossomed’ with Migrants
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
President Joe Biden’s pro-migration border chief suggested Monday that Springfield, Ohio, “has blossomed by reason of the infusion of individuals from another country.”
Alejandro Mayorkas, the Cuban-born secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, chose not to name the city, nor the resulting blight that many Americans face amid lower wages, higher rents, civic chaos, and minimal support or respect from local politicians.
Mayorkas, a careful lawyer, also chose to bury the memory of two Springfielders killed during the claimed blossoming.
One of the dead was Aiden Clark, an 11-year-old on his first day back to school. The other victim of the blossoming was Kathy Heaton, a grandmother who was putting trash out for pickup.
The blossoming “has been great for the Big Box retailers, the absentee landlords, the staffing companies, but it’s been terrible for regular people here,” Springfield resident William Monaghan told Breitbart News. “A handful of people are getting fabulously wealthy on it, but it is destroying the local community,” he added.
Mayorkas’ “blossomed” claim displays his “underlying assumption that these American towns [and] the people who live in them were defective and needed this immigration to live a full life,” responded Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies.
“That’s just incredibly patronizing,” he told Breitbart News.
The future of a town is “something for the people who live there to decide, not for some bureaucrat in Washington to decide,” Krikorian said, adding:
This [“blossom”] is like talking about all the ethnic restaurants that immigration brings. It’s that kind of a superficial take. The fact is the people who live in these towns — whether it’s Springfield, Ohio, or Charleroi, Pennsylvania, or Whitewater, Wisconsin — don’t think [blossoming] is so great … [because] if you live in these cities, it doesn’t look like blossoming.
“Their government’s responsibility is to serve their interests, not some abstract goal of making these cities cosmopolitan,” he said, adding:
You hear this kind of [blossoming] rhetoric from people who live hundreds of miles away in neighborhoods that are much more stable and safe.
Since 2021, Mayorkas has consistently favored migrants over Americans in his turbo-charged migration policy to blossom American communities with roughly 10 million legal, illegal, quasi-legal, and temporary migrants from many other nations.
Mayorkas provided his callous “blossomed” comment during a September 30 talk with pro-migration leaders at Georgetown University.
He argued that the federal government should have a process for delivering migrants to the Americans’ towns and cities where they want jobs, and slammed Texas Governor Greg Abbott for sending migrants directly to New York and other cities:
I think it would be ideal if we could have a system where we are coordinating with the [migrant] individuals themselves, as well as the receiving communities, to ensure a seamless and supportive process for the [migrant] individuals and the communities, I think what Governor [Greg] Abbott did … is unconscionable … As a matter of fact, one city that has been the subject of tremendous trauma by reason of pernicious rhetoric [Springfield, OH] is actually a city that has blossomed by reason of the infusion of individuals from another country [Haiti].
Mayorkas also chose to ignore the growing blight in Haiti worsened by his policy of transplanting political leaders, college graduates, policemen, and workers from the fragile country. That Extraction Migration policy helped U.S. employers profit by creating low-wage jobs at low-tech workplaces around the United States.
Also, many Haitians have died from Mayorkas’s offer to graft them onto Springfield and other U.S. cities.
During his talk at Georgetown, Cuba-born Mayorkas called for greater migration from South America via lawyer-expanded loopholes in Congress’s 1990 immigration law:
The building of lawful pathways, I think, is a very important foundation of managing migration in the future. And by building lawful pathways. I mean, not only the [family] reunification programs, the parole processes, I think the expansion of refugee processing in our hemisphere is very significant. I have always felt that our hemisphere has been the subject of insufficient focus from a refugee processing perspective.
Mayorkas praised the Senate leadership’s giveaway immigration bill that was voted down by both Republicans and Democrats, and he also called for more amnesties of illegal migrants. “I think the bipartisan Senate bill was an important step … it is certainly not where I would end — I would like to see paths to citizenship legislated,” he said, without mentioning his central role in drafting the bill behind closed doors.
He also praised pro-migration activists for routinely escalating their political demands, saying “The community challenges what we do, which is its responsibility.” He did not mention or praise advocates for lower migration numbers.
He complimented CBS’s pro-migration reporter at the event, Colombian-born Camilo Montoya-Galvez, explaining, “Let me just say something people should understand. First of all, Camilo is a phenomenal journalist … I see eye-to-eye with this journalist in terms of aspirations.”
Montoya-Galvez asked him if his recent reduction in border arrests confirmed GOP arguments that Mayorkas could have reduced the migrant inflow in prior years.
Mayorkas answered by saying Democratic interest groups should bite their tongues during the election season to help him achieve their nation-changing ambitions
I said something intemperate during a meeting with a number of different advocacy groups, and what I said was, ‘We don’t govern in a John Lennon song.’ It was intemperate, but pragmatism is an extraordinarily important element of advocacy and policymaking. We have to understand the fact that the American public does want, does expect, and does demand the delivery of order [at the border] …
If we do not deliver that [border] order, then some of the dreams that we want to achieve in the arenas of family reunification, humanitarian relief, economic prosperity will not be realized. There will not be any oxygen for them. I have certain ambitions that have not been realized in terms of [immigration], and that is because there hasn’t been very much oxygen in the room to achieve them.
Those goals would shift wealth and power from ordinary blue-collar and white-collar Americans toward older investors and migrants.
On the campaign trail, Kamala Harris has echoed Mayorkas’s language and goals, and her economic plan assumes Mayorkas-style immigration levels. Pro-migration investors strongly support Harris and Mayorkas, and Harris tacitly endorsed Mayorkas’s high-migration policy when she declined Joe Biden’s 2021 request that she oversee Mayorkas’s border policy.
Their collaboration suggests that Harris will keep Mayorkas as her border chief if she is inaugurated.
Mayorkas has repeatedly explained that he supports more migration because of his migrant parents, his sympathy for migrants, and his support for “equity” between Americans and foreigners. In May 2023, Mayorkas explained his pro-migration motivation during a graduation speech to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy:
My drive has been defined by a very clear purpose. My mother’s and father’s life journeys were defined by displacement. My mother was twice a refugee, first from war-torn Europe and, 19 years later, with my father, my sister, and me from the communist takeover of Cuba … In Cuba, my father lost the business he had started, as well as the chance to be by his mother’s side when she passed. My parents were both extraordinary people – principled and kind beyond measure. They instilled in me the values by which they lived unflinchingly … They are the primary engine of my drive, and the primary reason why I work so hard, my purpose.
He also justifies his welcome for migrants by saying his priorities are above the law, claiming that the “needs” of U.S. business are paramount — regardless of the cost to ordinary Americans, the impact on U.S. children, or Americans’ rational opposition.
Source link