The NYT On Illegal Immigration: Evil Immigrant-Hater Trump Considers Refusing To Let Massive Horde Illegally Cross Border At Will
They don't even try to be objective anymore. You see...:
The effort would be the starkest indication yet of Mr. Trump’s election-season push to play to his anti-immigrant base as his party fights to keep control of Congress.
Wow.
Trump's base isn't "anti-immigrant." (Though I assume some Trump supporters are.) But, then, writing 'anti-immigrant' when what's needed is 'anti-illegal-immigration' is SOP in the "MSM." Our hand is forced by the horde (or "caravan") bearing down on us. What other options does Trump reasonably have? How would he have acted differently were this to happen a month after the election?
I shouldn't have to say this, but: I don't want these people to suffer. But we can't let in everyone who wants to come here. And we can't simply let groups march across the border merely because there are a lot of them. And it's bogus "asylum-seekers" themselves who have broken the system by abusing it.
Trump is revolting as a person, but his policies are often pretty good. Focusing on the former instead of the latter seems irrational to me. I got over it; you can, too.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:00 AM
6 Comments:
Trump's "policies are often pretty good"? Really? Certainly not his policy of banning Muslim-majority countries from entering the US, his child separation policy (which he only abandoned after immense pressure), or his policy of reducing the number of refugees allowed to enter the country drastically, to historic lows. These policies are inhumane and a moral stain on this country. You can't separate this disgrace of a human being from his policies, and you're kidding yourself if you think you can. I'd add that his tax cuts and attacks on people's access to health care in this country are also terrible policies. I could go on.
Did I say that all of his policies are good? Because I'm not seeing that anywhere in the post.
You *can*, indeed, separate Trump from his policies. It's simply absurd to say that you can't. What possible grounds do you have for asserting that? Every president is separable from their policies.
The "travel ban" is "inhuman"? Really? How so? It's based on association with terrorism and failure to properly document travelers... And it's not only against Muslim-majority countries, as the list includes North Korea and Venezuela.
I'm not in favor of the policy, incidentally. But anti-Trump hyperbole doesn't make anything any better.
Child-separation was bad--but we're backed into a corner. They dropped it as soon as criticism arose. It was a bad idea...but there's nothing but bad ideas in that vicinity.
Trump ran on a promise to ban Muslims, and he has made numerous anti-Muslim statements, as everyone knows. His administration had to revise the Muslim ban policy in order to get it upheld by the courts. He made some tweaks so that it wouldn't be too obvious that the policy was based on discriminatory intent. And the courts defer greatly to the executive on immigration policy and national security, so he already had quite a bit of leeway. To ignore his campaign statements about the policy defies logic.
And I agree the NYT is not using the correct terminology. It's now a well-established fact that Trump's policies flow from animus toward non-white foreigners, and many of his supporters share that animus. "Anti-immigrant" is actually imprecise--it should be "anti- non-white immigrant" even though that's a mouthful. Trump has now spent two years cynically whipping up hysteria about Central American immigrants (and now, THE CARAVAN!!), Muslims, and people from "shit hole" countries.
"It's now a well-established fact that Trump's policies flow from animus toward non-white foreigners"
LOL you do not understand what "well-established fact" means.
If you were right, then Trump would be trying to stop immigration by all and only nonwhite foreigners. But he isn't. Because, y'know, he is not motivated by animus toward nonwhite foreigners.
And neither is the vast majority of his base. He and they oppose illegal immigration by anyone, regardless of race. And they're right to do so. But they don't oppose legal immigration by nonwhites.
He *does* think there's a link between Islam and terrorism--but, of course, he's *right* about that. I'm not exactly dancing in the streets about the ban, but given that (a) there *is* a real link between Islam and terrorism and (b) the courts approved, I'm willing to tolerate it.
I'm not happy with the ban personally. But without the link between Islam and terrorism, there'd be no ban. And there's no attempt to ban other nonwhite minorities.
I don't like Trump's attitudes. He's too indiscriminate and injudicious, and insufficiently averse to racism. Which is not to say that he's very racist personally...he just doesn't flee from any hint of it the way many of the rest of us do. So he ends up treading on thin ice a lot of the time.
I think the progressive left has become crazy over it's aversion to any hint of a distant possibility of racism...but I do wish Trump were considerably more skittish about it than he actually is.
We do have quite a bit of evidence of Trump's views on non-white foreigners. Here's just one example:
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/11/16880750/trump-immigrants-shithole-countries-norway
I could give you more, but I'm sure you've seen this and other examples because they've been well reported. This isn't really news by now. He's a bigot, and many of his supporters are too. Racism and bigotry are largely driving the immigration issue on the right, not a genuine concern about the law and policy. That's not to deny there are serious issues here. There are. But there is no rational basis for the apocalyptic rhetoric and vitriolic fury that you see on the right related to immigration.
Yeah, no.
"Shithole countries" doesn't mean *shithole people.* In fact, after his comment, you may have seen the posts here and there from people who'd immigrated here from those countries and confirmed that they're shitholes.
Not that the president should be saying such things...because he shouldn't. But they're plausibly true and not intrinsically racist.
Are Trump's supporters "largely" racist? Well...not *mostly*, certainly. But "largely"? I dunno. Does that mean...like...20% That would indeed, be a lot of racists...
Is there "apocalyptic fury" on the right? Some, obviously. But *mostly* it's concern and frustration, and most of the *anger* is directed not at illegals *per se*...but at (a) 22 million of them, and (b) the vanguard of progressivism moving closer and closer to an open borders position. There wasn't a lot of anger about illegals until we faced a flood of them, and the left began speaking as if they should basically be welcomed.
Is Trump a bigot...ehhh....that's a complicated question. He's an *asshole*... And assholes of that kind are pretty indiscriminate with their assholery. It can manifest itself as racism...because it'll go after any perceived weakness in whoever's crossed it at the moment. I think it's more like: Trump isn't a NON-racist. He's ok with a little racism here and there, y'know, *when necessary.*
That's bad, obviously. Though it hardly even counts as racism at all where I come from...which is...part of why I'm not there anymore. But he's almost certainly not the devout racist The TDS-addled left wants him to be.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home