On February 7, 2018, the New York Times’ editorial board published one of its usual doses of pro-illegal-immigration pablum. There is plenty there to refute and not enough time to refute it, but the one point I want to dwell on is the utter bad faith they display when framing their arguments.
When attempting to justify the proposition that the “United States ought to admit more skilled immigrants” and that the debate should center around “what criteria it uses to screen applications,” the New York Times quotes an opinion polling statistic: “A Gallup poll last June found 62 percent of Americans support maintaining current levels of immigration or even increasing them.”
Well, 62 percent. That’s a clear majority of Americans. What kind of evil anti-American are you, Mr. Trump, if you are not willing to listen to the will of the people and flood the land with immigrants?
But the New York Times is lying with statistics, of course.
The mainstream press has gone in for another round of illegal immigrant sob-stories, now that DACA reforms are prominently on the table and immigration is once again a topic of national conversation. The Washington Post just published a piece about an illegal alien who was finally forced to leave the country, a *mere* nine years after receiving a removal order from an immigration court in 2009.
Clearly, the piece was meant to evoke sympathy for poor old lawbreaking Jorge Garcia:
Shockingly, The Atlantic, of all outlets, gives a relatively factual and unemotional account of the facts:
Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Tuesday that the administration will end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children from deportation, with a six-month delay.
The administration’s decision to end DACA means that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services won’t consider new applications, but will allow anyone who has a DACA permit expiring between now and March 5, 2018, to apply for a two-year renewal by October 5. Thousands have already applied for renewals. Between August and December 2017, 201,678 recipients are set to have DACA expire. Of those, 55,258 have pending requests for renewal, according to DHS officials. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will continue to operations per usual, assessing DACA recipients as has been done in the past.
On Monday, Sessions sent a letter to Duke with his legal determination. He cited previous legal challenges, noting that because DACA “has the same legal and constitutional defects that the courts recognized as to DAPA, it is likely that potentially imminent litigation would yield similar results with respect to DACA.”
The administration’s decision now puts the onus on Congress to find a legislative solution. “Congress should carefully and thoughtfully pursue the types of reforms that are right for the American people,” Sessions said Tuesday. Earlier in the day, Trump tweeted, “Congress, get ready to do your job—DACA!”
I congratulate President Trump for doing the right thing.
DACA was a legally unsound executive overreach on the part of President Obama from Day 1. Yes, setting enforcement priorities is the prerogative of the executive. At most, that justifies a memo to the immigration authorities saying: “I don’t want to hear of a single non-criminal childhood arrivee being deported until you tell me that each and every criminal alien has already been deported.” It never justified the creation of a whole new federal bureaucracy to hand out work permits that were not authorized by statute and which, in fact, contravene the law establishing which people do and don’t have work rights in the United States.
Thank you, President Trump, for doing a good and humane thing.
For posterity, I post here the statement released by President Trump explaining the decision to grant this pardon. Reading through it, I’m forced to the realization that Joe Arpaio was probably one of the most upstanding citizens ever to find himself in need of a presidential pardon. Certainly more deserving than pretty much any of those hardened death row cases that the Looney Left loves to fawn over.
On August 17, 2017, a suspected “Irish drunk driver”rammed a van into a crowd of tourists on a major shopping street in Barcelona, Spain. Thirteen people were killed and at least 50 were wounded. I pause for my usual statement: May God have mercy on the souls of the dead, bring healing to the injured and comfort to the bereaved.
This is just another in a seemingly endless list of such attacks, so there is very little I feel like adding to the main topic at hand; that is, to the unusually strong propensity for people from certain religious and ethnic backgrounds to run around murdering their fellow townsmen seemingly at random. Anyone who hasn’t by now concluded that the incremental risk posed by such populations is hardly worth the virtue-signalling benefits of encouraging more such people to move to town will never learn. A Goodwhite of that purity will go to his dying day wishing for more — whether that dying day is peaceful, in bed at a ripe old age, or whether it is untimely and violent, met on the streets or in a theater or cafe, and at the point of a jihadi’s knife, or under the wheels of his van, tasting hot lead from his semiautomatic rifle, or blasted with shrapnel from his suicide bomb vest. Some people will never learn. But the rational among us have concluded: Stop inviting more in. Kick out the ones who may legally be kicked out. And try really hard both to assimilate and police those who remain. There’s little else that a sane man can do.
This incident brings us back to reality. It reminds us what real terrorism is. After the unfortunate ramming incident in Charlottesville less than a week ago, where a disaffected participant in the right-wing protest apparently rammed his car into a crowd of left-wing anti-protesters, killing one and injuring 19, there were howls from the idiot leftist press to hold this incident up as “Radical White Terrorism.” This was a silly label to whip out so quickly and gleefully, and President Trump was right to avoid it.
As I’ve said many times, I believe we reached the Onion Singularity years ago. The Onion singularity is kind of like the Turing Test — it’s when the average reader can no longer reliability differentiate between “serious journalism” and satire.
This week brought yet another example of it.
Back in the 1970s, this (see below) was considered fun, family-friendly slapstick humor:
Over the past month, numerous Jewish Community Centers (“JCCs”) across America received hoax bomb threats. These frequently triggered building evacuations, police responses, security sweeps and a whole lot of general consternation. A number of Hebrew graves in St. Louis were also vandalized at the time, which was viewed as somehow probably linked to the bomb threats.
Our hysterical friends in the mainstream press, who still fixate daily on Adolf Hitler, lost no time rushing to insinuate that these anti-Jewish incidents were the fault of some very-bad no-good right-wing Trump-supporting cisgendered heteropatriarchical White Men, and that our sitting President bore responsibility for unleashing these menaces on an unsuspecting population. For instance, the Washington Post wrote, on February 21:
The remarks by Trump [denouncing the JCC bomb threats] also appear aimed at easing pressure on his administration, which faces claims from opponents that it has failed to distance itself from extremist ideology and has emboldened right-wing groups through its populist, America-first themes.
Got that? According to conventional wisdom, the chain of causation is:
Election of Trump –> fails to distance himself from “extremist ideology” (note the use of the same phrase typically reserved for guys like Jihadi John) –> Emboldened right-wing groups –> White guys intimidating Jews.
You know the guys that the Washington Post has in mind. They’re thinking of the guys in this photo, when they get a little too boozed up: