Does the Chronicle Believe in Immigration Laws?

More Misinformation from the Media:

When it comes to immigration and border security, the Nativist-in-Chief in the White House is committed, it seems, to a strategy that relies on spreading chaos, fear and debilitating apprehension throughout immigrant communities. His immigration and border security agencies feel unleased. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in particular seem to be taking a perverse pride in the fact that the acronym ICE on the back of their navy-blue uniforms has come to symbolize bullying law-enforcement tactics we more commonly associate with authoritarian regimes in other countries. . . .

Here in Houston, the latest outrage involved two doctors from India who were informed by immigration officials last week they had 24 hours to leave the United States. Never mind that both were legally working in Houston. . . . Immigration Reality, Houston Chronicle, 4/6/17. Link: here.

Fact Check:  “Nativist” is a slur word that immigration advocates commonly hurl at anyone who suggests that we should abide by the rule of law and enforce immigration law, or that we might reduce our current level of legal immigration, at the highest sustained level in our history, to a more reasonable level. The implication of the word is that the mere natives of a country, also known as citizens, have no primary right to determine what kind of society they will have.

And if foreigners are residing illegally in our country, then why shouldn’t they fear the force of our law? Basically all Trump has done is step up immigration law enforcement—largely abandoned under the Obama Administration—with a focus on deporting dangerous criminals. The Trump Administration also has proposed to cut federal funds to jurisdictions which violate federal law with sanctuary policies, and it has proposed to delay refugees from terrorist-sponsoring countries so that they can be properly vetted.

If these minimal steps generate such outrage from the Chronicle, one might reasonably ask if the editorialists of that newspaper believe in any kind of immigration law enforcement. Their writing provides clues that they don’t. One example is their reference to “immigrant communities.” The word immigrant generally refers to someone who comes here legally, but the Chronicle’s usage reference clearly includes illegal aliens as well. By conflating the two, the Chronicle implies that the law that distinguishing between the two really doesn’t matter.

Another clue is the harsh and unbalanced condemnation of ICE. As the Chronicle tells it, ICE is not a duly appointed agency enforcing legitimate laws—it’s simply acting as a gang of bullies, scarcely different from storm troopers. Yes, it appears that ICE made a mistake with the two doctors, but one it corrected. To err is human, and a mistake by law enforcement doesn’t invalidate law enforcement—unless you believe that the laws it upholds are invalid.

If the Chronicle, and other mass immigration advocates, truly believe that immigration laws are improper, it would be nice if they would openly say so and remove all doubt. But they won’t because that would be an admission that they don’t believe in America as a sovereign nation where citizens rule. That would be bad for newspaper readership. For journalists with an open-borders globalist perspective, it is far more expedient to imply your agenda rather than state it.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here