“Go ahead, deplore Donald Trump . . . Reject his appeals to exclusion and hatred. . . . [He has] brought his party and its politics to the brink of fascism. . . . And party officials around the country, attuned to the power of fear, have developed homegrown versions of the Trump approach. . . . [and have formed] an axis of ignorance.
“Civil rights organizations—the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, and the Southern Poverty Center are defending [refugees] against blatant discrimination. . . . [The internment of Japanese-Americans in World II . . . was a dark episode in American history. . . . But there are millions of Muslims who have good reason to fear that darkness is falling again. . . . Mr. Trump [revives] . . . the old American tendency . . . toward vicious treatment of the weak and outsiders.
The racism behind the agenda of the right wing on immigrants and foreigners has long been plain as day. – The Trump Effect, and How It Spread, The Editorial Board, 12/10/15.
Fact Check: The New York Times presents itself as a pillar of American journalism and our country’s “newspaper of record.” That will prove a difficult reputation to maintain in light of the rhetorical excesses in the editorial above and similar ones the Times has published.
So just what have Donald Trump and other Republicans said to evoke such vitriol and rhetorical overkill, i.e., exclusion, hatred, fascism, darkness, vicious, racism? Basically, all Trump has done is say some unflattering things about illegal aliens who commit serious crimes against Americans, call for enforcement of our immigration laws, and suggest a ban on Muslim immigration until issues related to terrorism are resolved. Also, some Republican governors have stated opposition to resettlement of Muslim refugees in their states.
Just what is so outrageous about not liking felons and wanting laws enforced? As for the proposals pertaining to Muslims (including refugees), they are hardly beyond the pale of decency as the Times alleges. The director of the FBI concedes that it is extremely difficult to screen refugees from Syria for terrorist ties. Criminal records in that war-torn country are in disarray, and fake IDs are easy to procure. In this situation, what’s wrong with caution?
The Time’s comparison of a proposal to restrict Muslim immigration to the injustices against Japanese Americans is ludicrous. As citizens, the Japanese-Americans had constitutional rights which were violated. Foreigners wishing to come to the United States don’t have a constitutional right to do so precisely because they are not citizens. Advocates of mass immigration, like the Times, tend to blur the distinction between citizens and non-citizens. If our citizenship matters little to them, then it would seem that the U.S. as a sovereign country is not much of an issue either.
As the Times charges immigration restrictionists with “fascism,” a totalitarian ideology, it most ironically endorses the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a radical-left organization with a totalitarian bent. Hardly a civil rights advocate, the SPLC arbitrarily labels law-abiding restrictionist organizations as “hate groups,” and then sends this false and slanderous information to law enforcement agencies around the country. The obvious goal is to make these groups suspects in the eyes of police. It’s most telling that the Times endorses an organization with this gross intolerance toward free expression.
As for racism, the Times never seems to see it among Hispanic supremacists (such as those in the National Council of La Raza [the Race]) who most obviously promote illegal immigration from south of the border to build their ethnic and political power clout. Contrary to what the Times claims, much of the right-wing in the U.S. is on the side of mass immigration and open borders to provide cheap labor for business interests.
The Times’ pose for “the weak and outsiders” is most laughable when patriotic American citizens increasingly are disempowered by an economic and political elites who ignore their legitimate concerns on immigration and many other issues. The Times obediently serves those elites. But it really doesn’t serve them that well. Its frothing rhetoric is not anything a thoughtful person would take seriously.