NYT Learned Its Lesson About Insufficiently Woked Headlines, or: Stephen Miller, Immigrant Killer
An actual NYT headline that I'm not even making up:
A year or so ago, calling people who want to enforce immigration laws "anti-immigration" became passe and insufficiently woke/inaccurate. Calling them "anti-immigrant" became the new hotness. They'll keep flailing around for something worse..."hostile toward" "the foreign-born" just doesn't have the right PC ring to it. I'm sure it's also "white supremacy" and some *phobia or other, and probably toxic somethingulinity and probably some other stuff too.
I didn't read the story. (For some reason I can't get around the paywall this morning--and I would no longer even consider subscribing.) Trump is not "anti-immigrant," and he has no "anti-immigrant agenda." Is Miller the immigration Sauron? Well, I know that the contemporary left doesn't argue anymore, but merely accuses their opponents of racism* (i.e. racism or some moral equivalent) basically immediately. I know they're full of shit about Trump being "anti-immigration"...and even more wrong about him being "anti-immigrant." Furthermore, I don't see that Trump's position is all that different than my own: we should enforce immigration laws. Also: legal immigration numbers should be on the table. Maybe they should go down. Maybe they should go up. Maybe they should stay the same. Progressives have done their ordinary thing by making only one side in the discussion politically correct: you can argue for not enforcing immigration laws, but you can't argue for enforcing them. If you do: RACIST! You can argue legal immigration should go up (or maybe stay the same), but you can't argue it should go down. If you do: RACIST! The progressive rules of public discussion absolutely guarantee that we will do something stupid--lots of somethings, actually. Because: only one side, one opinion is permissible. You're only permitted to go left guarantees you'll--later or sooner--go off the cliff.
The point being: I conclude via induction over just about everything the left has said and done over the last 5-6 years that the NYT is full of shit about Miller. If not--if he genuinely does hate people who weren't born in the U.S--something I find pretty implausible as I've never met anyone who actually thinks that way--well, he's an asshole and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near immigration policy. I'll look into it some day. But the NYT asserting that it's so carries exactly no weight at all with me anymore. We know that there will be accusations of every heinous thing against everyone on the non-left. Such accusations simply carry no weight anymore.
Arguing with our newly anti-liberal left is like arguing with children. Scratch that--it's like arguing with teenagers. In fact, it largely probably is arguing with teenagers... They know little, but they have wildly passionate opinions about it all. In actual fact--and adult conversations--there are arguments on both sides. There are arguments for increasing immigration at least in the short-to-medium run. In particular: retirement of the Boomers. There are other economic arguments as well. And demographic ones, too. There are also arguments for decreasing immigration--maybe sooner, maybe later. We take in massive numbers of legal immigrants (I think we have the highest immigration rate in the world)--making assimilation more difficult. And the left is now pushing multiculturalist arguments against assimilation. And we don't know what will happen under such circumstances. That's an argument for caution--at least until we do know what will happen. Which is an argument in favor of throttling back at least a bit, at least temporarily. See: Amy Wax on "low and slow" immigration. There's absolutely nothing "anti-immigration" nor "anti-immigrant" about facing those facts. There are also environmental arguments: we're not sure what our population ought to be, nor what our carrying-capacity actually is. Again, that's a reason to consider slowing down at least until we do know.
Furthermore, of course: the left has an obvious political motive for arguing in favor of higher immigration rates: they think they can install a permanent progressive majority by importing voters likely to vote their way. That should, IMO, concern everyone. That's more insidious that the mythical Russian hacking that so exercises them...
If we're erring, we're probably erring by taking in too many immigrants too fast. Except for Boomer retirement, I don't buy any of the arguments for increasing immigration.
The main point is: as always, the left is trying to quash discussion with false, knee-jerk decrees that to disagree with them is to be a racist*. This general strategy has to be driven out of our public discussions if we're to avoid guaranteed disaster. They know they can't win in open debate on most of their issues--so they opt to put their efforts into a general strategy of false accusations of prejudice against their opponents. And that's insidious and wrong.
"How Stephen Miller Seized The Moment To Battle Immigration: Behind Mr. Miller's Singular Grip On The Trump Anti-Immigrant Agenda Are Forces Far Bigger Than His Own Hostility Toward The Foreign-Born"
A year or so ago, calling people who want to enforce immigration laws "anti-immigration" became passe and insufficiently woke/inaccurate. Calling them "anti-immigrant" became the new hotness. They'll keep flailing around for something worse..."hostile toward" "the foreign-born" just doesn't have the right PC ring to it. I'm sure it's also "white supremacy" and some *phobia or other, and probably toxic somethingulinity and probably some other stuff too.
I didn't read the story. (For some reason I can't get around the paywall this morning--and I would no longer even consider subscribing.) Trump is not "anti-immigrant," and he has no "anti-immigrant agenda." Is Miller the immigration Sauron? Well, I know that the contemporary left doesn't argue anymore, but merely accuses their opponents of racism* (i.e. racism or some moral equivalent) basically immediately. I know they're full of shit about Trump being "anti-immigration"...and even more wrong about him being "anti-immigrant." Furthermore, I don't see that Trump's position is all that different than my own: we should enforce immigration laws. Also: legal immigration numbers should be on the table. Maybe they should go down. Maybe they should go up. Maybe they should stay the same. Progressives have done their ordinary thing by making only one side in the discussion politically correct: you can argue for not enforcing immigration laws, but you can't argue for enforcing them. If you do: RACIST! You can argue legal immigration should go up (or maybe stay the same), but you can't argue it should go down. If you do: RACIST! The progressive rules of public discussion absolutely guarantee that we will do something stupid--lots of somethings, actually. Because: only one side, one opinion is permissible. You're only permitted to go left guarantees you'll--later or sooner--go off the cliff.
The point being: I conclude via induction over just about everything the left has said and done over the last 5-6 years that the NYT is full of shit about Miller. If not--if he genuinely does hate people who weren't born in the U.S--something I find pretty implausible as I've never met anyone who actually thinks that way--well, he's an asshole and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near immigration policy. I'll look into it some day. But the NYT asserting that it's so carries exactly no weight at all with me anymore. We know that there will be accusations of every heinous thing against everyone on the non-left. Such accusations simply carry no weight anymore.
Arguing with our newly anti-liberal left is like arguing with children. Scratch that--it's like arguing with teenagers. In fact, it largely probably is arguing with teenagers... They know little, but they have wildly passionate opinions about it all. In actual fact--and adult conversations--there are arguments on both sides. There are arguments for increasing immigration at least in the short-to-medium run. In particular: retirement of the Boomers. There are other economic arguments as well. And demographic ones, too. There are also arguments for decreasing immigration--maybe sooner, maybe later. We take in massive numbers of legal immigrants (I think we have the highest immigration rate in the world)--making assimilation more difficult. And the left is now pushing multiculturalist arguments against assimilation. And we don't know what will happen under such circumstances. That's an argument for caution--at least until we do know what will happen. Which is an argument in favor of throttling back at least a bit, at least temporarily. See: Amy Wax on "low and slow" immigration. There's absolutely nothing "anti-immigration" nor "anti-immigrant" about facing those facts. There are also environmental arguments: we're not sure what our population ought to be, nor what our carrying-capacity actually is. Again, that's a reason to consider slowing down at least until we do know.
Furthermore, of course: the left has an obvious political motive for arguing in favor of higher immigration rates: they think they can install a permanent progressive majority by importing voters likely to vote their way. That should, IMO, concern everyone. That's more insidious that the mythical Russian hacking that so exercises them...
If we're erring, we're probably erring by taking in too many immigrants too fast. Except for Boomer retirement, I don't buy any of the arguments for increasing immigration.
The main point is: as always, the left is trying to quash discussion with false, knee-jerk decrees that to disagree with them is to be a racist*. This general strategy has to be driven out of our public discussions if we're to avoid guaranteed disaster. They know they can't win in open debate on most of their issues--so they opt to put their efforts into a general strategy of false accusations of prejudice against their opponents. And that's insidious and wrong.
posted by Winston Smith at
8:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home