by Ex-Leftist 7/3/2016
Fluff and garbage belong in trash bins, not in opinion pages.
If one wishes to attack a political candidate, at least be honest about it.
NY Times contributor Timothy Egan has decided to follow an all too predictable path distort history to attack Donald Trump with a silly article about Trump’s immigration policy titled, “We’re Better Than That.”
Egan’s article distorts Trump’s immigration policy by framing it mostly in racial terms when it’s not about race at all, but about national identity and much more so the harm mass immigration (legal and otherwise) is doing to working Americans, especially blue collar ones.
What this does is create the impression in the mind of the reader that racism and backwardness are behind Trump’s policy and that racism is the only reason to support restrictive immigration policies, so let’s not vote Trump in 2016 and stay stuck in a time machine.
Egan describes modern mass immigration following the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act “an American ideal,” as if somehow we as Americans should all conform without question to a piece of legislation brokered behind closed doors and which was very unpopular with the public and that we are apparently slaves to “the new global economy” and are compelled to obey because the global market is apparently a sucking monster that requires a total loss of national identity and sovereignty with the destruction of local national cultures by endless stampedes of people from failed nations.
Egan also presents Trump’s border wall in a false dichotomy as to make it appear at odds with Lady Liberty. According to this then, the US was an un-free country before the enlightenment of 1965 immigration changes came along. So since we currently have a partially-completed border wall and fence system in place, does that mean the US is currently partly un-free, partly xenophobic, partly stuck in the 1950s?
Then to double down on the silliness, Egan suggests Trump advocates “a trade war” via the wall which will cost us countless jobs. How are trade agreements that are fairer to the American worker which will export fewer high-paying jobs tantamount to a trade war? That, in context, is what Trump has argued for. So respond accordingly, rather than distort Trump’s words by spinning them.
Can you do that, Mr. Egan?
And Egan remains continuously confused, equating legal immigrants with swarms of millions of illegal aliens crossing the border without our blessing, using services without paying for them, bringing drug gangs with them, and displacing millions of American workers out of jobs in favor of cheaper throngs of foreign labor, which even the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform admitted was damaging to the country:
“The Commission finds no national interest in continuing to import lesser skilled and unskilled workers to compete in the most vulnerable parts of our labor force. Many American workers do not have adequate job prospects. We should make their task easier to find employment, not harder.”
The Commission also stated that,
“An effectively regulated immigration policy establishes limits on the number of immigrants that are consistent with the goals of the various categories under which immigrants enter. Moreover, these limits must be enforceable and enforced. We underscore our commitment to curtailing illegal immigration as embodied in our 1994 recommendations. We will continue to monitor progress toward their implementation until the expiration of our mandate in September 1997.”
The Commission in part concluded that,
“The Commission proposes a core immigration admissions level of 550,000 per year, to be divided as follows : Nuclear family immigration 400,000. Skill-based immigration 100,000. Refugee resettlement 50,000.”
We’re currently giving 1,000,000 Green Cards annually, not counting general legal and immigration admittance overall.
Both Clintons publicly supported implementing the Commission’s findings in the 1990s but now, 20 years later, to want to implement the Commission’s findings is hate, fascism, xenophobia, hiding from the world, backwardness, and *gasp!* Trumpism.
Egan states that Pittsburgh is banking on (mostly illegal by his reference to Hispanic) labor. Well, isn’t everyone that seeks to profit from low-wage labor? Does this justify the practice or is it inappropriate even if it satisfies Wall Street? The Antebellum South banked on a heavily slave labor-based economy. And??!
Is the United States a sovereign nation or a slave to the whims of markets?
A recession from removing illegal labor from jobs? Probably, but we always recover from recessions and in this case, American workers as a whole would benefit from it as would the taxpayer in general no longer having to subsidize incarceration of illegal aliens, unpaid medical bills, higher rents from crowded housing, and on and on, which Egan doesn’t recognize exists. Plus we’d have all those job openings Americans and legal immigrants could eagerly fill.
Crying recession isn’t a compelling reason to keep American workers stepped on and disadvantaged unless you don’t care about our national cultural identity and traditions and if you’ve never experienced being a low-skill laborer and are instead worried about having to pay an American more than a pittance for lawn care, sparkling toilets, or changed diapers – which I imagine is pretty common in socially isolated, more affluent metropolitan areas such as Seattle where Mr. Egan is from and resides.
Mr. Egan has probably never been in a position to where he’s had educated immigrants displacing him in industries such as information technology and engineering, either.
Well, lucky him.
Egan’s only concern is for the markets – which he mistakenly describes as “free markets.” (The EU is not a free market but is continental-wide protectionist racket.) He doesn’t give us anything of the sort of an argument for how open borders outweighs the negative downward pressure on wages, job availability, the cost of living, the cost of medical care and housing that are left in the wake of masses of mostly very uneducated, unskilled bodies crossing borders, straining services and tax bases by leaving mountains of unpaid bills behind them… And getting on welfare and food stamps via their US-born offspring.
That America is losing its culture and identity isn’t remotely of concern to Egan or the countless others in the media and political establishments that by their omission set the tone of discussion for everyone. The truth is that culture and national identity should be the top priority in the discussion of immigration policy. After all, do we want to live in a country or do we want to live in a marketplace? Do we want this country to turn into Mexico? This country only lost its way after the 1965 immigration act which we are told to bow down to unquestionably and serve like some kind of idol.
In erecting the false dichotomy of hope vs hate regarding immigration policy, Egan is smearing the Founding Fathers and over 200 years of American patriots as backward and evil, without exception.
Even while chastising anyone that favors restricting immigration, Egan indirectly admits that “Islamic fanatics” should be “rooted out” and “kept away from assault rifles.” Setting aside that semiautomatic rifles aren’t assault rifles, Egan is admitting immigration laws as they currently are bring in militant Muslims ready to kill. The question here is why Egan excludes restricting Muslim immigration as a means of controlling the problem with Islamic terrorism. Instead, he wants us to play a hopeless game of whack-a-mole with them. It’s apparently more important to look progressive and avoid being called racist than it is to take reasonable measures for national security.
So you, average American, need to have to have your 2nd Amendment rights restricted because we can’t hurt the feelings of would-be migrants. Here, Egan is indirectly advocating an unconstitutional “no-buy list” to avoid hurting feelings. He doesn’t address how we should deal with militants like Najibullah Zazi, Faisal Shahzad, and Richard Reid who built homemade bombs with common chemicals and never bought a firearm.
Sorry, Mr. Egan, but terrorists actually do use more than just scary-looking rifles and your solution isn’t one.
After WWII, the US refused immigration to Nazis and Communists due to national security interests. Now to avoid being called racist, apparently, we’re recklessly taking in all comers and reaping the rewards again and again with piles of bodies. A religious test upon entry? No – forbid immigration from Muslim countries in toto. Islam is a religion that teaches its adherents violence against non-believers, and as such, its followers should be barred from migration to the US, not kowtowed to.
To elevate dumb to dumber, Egan takes a swipe at Brexit, accusing Britain of “hiding from the world” and “dark-skinned hordes” because the country rejected losing its national sovereignty to a cabal of un-elected legislators in the European Commission that author legislative dictates for everyone to conform to without bothering to seek democratic input or participation, which has caused such problems as the decimation of the British fishing industry.
How could anyone in their right mind reject European Union membership? Egan asks.
And at the end of course, Egan closes out by pulling out the “hate” card, because only “haters” would disagree with his distorted, glossy-eyed, blinded, greed-driven appeals for loose border control because in the end we should just shut up and conform and slavishly serve the greedy whims of international marketeers.
If we do that, we’re true Americans!