The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
“The only constituency helped by Trump’s latest cruelty are the bigots and knee-jerk nationalists crafting his policies. . . .
“The United States has taken in those huddled masses yearning to breathe free because, first and foremost, doing so reflects American values. We like to consider our nation a city upon a hill for those fleeing religious persecution, political violence, genocide, tyranny; Americans are a people blessed and generous enough to offer refuge to some of the world’s most vulnerable. Just what this country offered so many generations of immigrants before, including many of our own ancestors.” — Trump’s Refugee Ceiling Is Bad for Everyone But Bigots, Washington Post, Catherine Ramnpell, 10/1/20 [Link]
Fact Check of Quote Above: Immigration advocates commonly offer insults against their opponents, rather than reasoned argument. One of those they often use insults is “bigot.” Others include “racist, hater, and xenophobe.” Their underlying assumption is that no decent person can believe in immigration restriction. Therefore any person who does must be morally defective in some way.
According to Webster’s New World Dictionary a bigot is one “who holds blindly and intolerantly to a particular creed, opinion, etc.” This definition most definitely applies to the bigotry displayed by knee-jerk immigration advocates.
There are plenty good reasons to limit refugee resettlement in the U.S. One is that many of the people who claim to be refugees don’t fit the traditional understanding of a refugee, i.e., one who faces personal danger because of beliefs or ethnicity. Many so-called refugees today are people who may face some kind of discrimination, but no personal danger. Also, the trend now is to classify people as refugees who are simply unhappy with life in their homelands.
The United States is not a “city on the hill” which can play the savior to all mankind. We have limits on how much we can offer the world. Immigration advocates try to deflect attention from the reality of these limits with gaseous platitudes about “huddled masses” and a “nation of immigrants.” These platitudes, however, give us no guidance as to how many refugees and other immigrants we can admit before we jeopardize our national unity, the wellbeing of our working people, and the health of our environment. It certainly isn’t bigotry to raise the reasonable questions.
Another reason to limit the flow of genuine refugees is that it is better to resettle them in lands near to their homelands than to bring them to the United States. Nearby resettlement makes it more likely that refugees can live in a culture similar to their own, and then return home when conditions in their homelands improve. Also, it is usually much more cost-effective to provide for refugees abroad than bring them to the U.S.
The promoters of resettlement in the United States aren’t always the disinterested humanitarians they claim to be. Their agencies get government money for each refugee resettled. The communities selected for resettlement typically have little say-so about that selection, but when the agencies leave, the communities have to pick up the tab for social services used by the refugees. When people practice “charity” with other people’s money, it isn’t bigotry to question their motives and agendas.
Contrary to this article, “American values” do not require us to ignore our national interest for the benefit of pious and impractical sentiments about immigration. Values that weaken our country are not American.