Perhaps President Biden was reminiscing over that old western ballad “Home on the Range” when he got the idea of housing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants in our National Parks – literally putting them where the buffalo roam. At least what is left of them – the buffalos, not the migrants.
Thinking that is a very bad idea for many reasons, congressional Republicans are proposing legislation – House Bill 5283 – that would prohibit the settling of those entering America illegally on America’s nature and vacation lands.
Assumedly, the Biden plan would require the construction of low-income housing – something more than the urban tent villages created by Democrat mayors to house the homeless. The homeless struggle for survival in tent and cardboard box housing — with little sanitation and rampant crime and drug addiction. At the same time, Biden wants the illegal aliens to have decent housing with to-die-for vistas.
Not that housing the homeless in national parks is a good idea. Hell … it is not even a good idea to house them in city parks and recreational areas. But comparing the two groups gives us an idea of which one Biden and the Democrats like best.
In fact, Biden places the illegal aliens in higher regard and favor than he does all those cattle ranchers he kicked off federal lands that they have been using for grazing since … forever. And those lands are not even national parks. Besides, grazing is good for the environment. Those wonderful bovines are incredible environmental bio-systems. They eat the grass and deposit fertilizer.
And if you want to see Biden blood pressure start up, just suggest oil exploration on federal lands that are not national parks. He wants fossil fuel as extinct as the creatures that created it.
In opposing the Bill, Biden issues this statement on November 27.
“The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 5283, which would prohibit the use of Federal funds to provide temporary shelter to certain noncitizens, including migrants seeking asylum, on Federal lands falling under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or the Forest Service. The Administration opposes this legislation because it would significantly restrict the ability of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture to make decisions regarding the appropriate uses of their lands and resources, even in emergency or other situations.”
The added highlight draws attention to the INAPPROPRIATENESS of housing masses of illegal aliens on federal preserves that were created to PREVENT such housing developments. That is why the lands were put aside – away from large scale commercial developments and resource exploration.
The Bill does nothing to prevent the Interior Department for making decisions “regarding the APPROPRIATE use of their lands and resources” because creating such housing is NOT appropriate … period. And as far as “temporary,” when does Uncle Sam create a social welfare program that is temporary.
(Hmmmm. Just noticed that Biden is referring to the national parks as “their lands” – referring to the Interior Department. I always thought of them as OUR lands. It is a small point but does show the mindset of the left in terms of government v. we the people. But I digress.)
The national parks are so sacrosanct in law and in the hearts of the American people that even President Franklin Roosevelt could not use them to confine all those Japanese Americans he forced into the unconstitutional concentration camps he erected at the onset of World War II.
It is not just a matter of housing all those people. You need infrastructure – plumbing and tertiary waste systems (unless you employ the San Francisco tradition of public pooping). If such villages are truly temporary, you still need some 50,000 port-a-potties. You need food stores and restaurants – with emphasis on taco stands. You need fire and police protection – more than you get from the Interior Department officers, who serve mostly as guides and for traffic control. You will need churches and jails for those who take different paths in life.
If you want to envision such a public housing community, think about the public housing in our major cities. You segregate and concentrate large populations of relatively impoverished minorities and you get ghettoes …. Slums. Not good for the national parks … not good for the border crossers … and not good for America. And if I am any judge of the American people … not good for Biden.
Just imagine constructing the Villages of the Illegals. Would Biden cut down the giant Sequoia trees for their lumber. Build bird-killing wind farms for electricity. There would have to be a lot of auto charging stations since I cannot image Biden would allow ownership of gas guzzling vehicles.
Perhaps Biden sees the new developments as some sort of progressive utopia. He may get fooled. Methinks a lot of the radical environmentalists in his Democrat coalition will not take kindly to the degrading of the pristine lands that their environmental ancestors worked so hard to set aside.
In his usual disregard for the long-term consequences of his policies, will Biden locate thousands of the border crossers in Yellowstone National Park? If you are not aware it is an active mega volcano zone that WILL erupt at some point – and wipe most of America off the map. Scientists say it could go off at any time. It is a bit overdue based on its 300,000-year time cycle. Others predict an eruption within the next 300,000 to 500,000 years. If we follow typical government policies, I suspect that any person assigned to Yellowstone will get a disclaimer that they and their family could get vaporized in a nanosecond.
Some may see this commentary as a bit hyperbolic because it is. But that does not diminish the notion that House Bill 5283 is a good idea because Biden wants to keep open an option for a very bad idea. It is also scary to see what is going on in Washington while the political class and the media myopically focuses on Trump.
So, there ‘tis.