The Times Rants against ‘Xenophobes’

Some more twisted commentary from the NYT:

More than two dozen Republican governors were in a virtual stampede last fall to be first to bar the resettlement of federally approved refugees in their states. . . . A federal district judge in Indianapolis punctured this fiction last week in blocking the attempt by Gov. Mike Pearce of Indiana to cutoff federal resettlement funds to Syrian refugees. . . . The ruling delivered a jolt of reality to the xenophobic politics now inflaming the presidential primary campaign. . . . resettlement decisions are made by mainstream social agencies like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. – Editorial, A Judge’s Message to the Xenophobes, The New York Times, 3/5/16.

Fact Check: This editorial is typical of what immigration enthusiasts write. In their dogmatic outlook, there can be no reasonable or decent opposition to any aspect of mass immigration. Anyone who objects for whatever reason is either ignorant or evil, in this case a xenophobe—someone with an irrational fear and hatred of foreigners. Another assault word these purveyors of “tolerance” like to use is bigot, which ironically means, according to Webster’s, someone “who holds blindly or intolerantly to a particular . . . opinion.”

The concern of the Republican governors was not unreasonable. The refugees were “federally approved,” but as the director of the FBI conceded in testimony before Congress it is impossible to get adequate background checks on them. This could pose problems, including dangers, to communities where they settle.

One thing most disturbing about the Times editorial is its presumption that unelected judges and “social agencies” should have the primary say-so over refugee resettlement, rather than elected American officials. Significantly, today refugee policy is arbitrary, elitist, and in significant ways corrupt.

In many instances, so-called refugees don’t meet the classic definition of a refugee, i.e., someone fleeing for fear of personal safety. Often they are people in groups which may face a general discrimination, but no personal danger. Refugee advocates are trying to expand the classification to include people who mainly want to upgrade their economic circumstances.

The activities of religious groups like Catholic Charities are highly disreputable. Their “charity” consists of receiving huge amounts taxpayers’ dollars to conduct resettlement of refugees—a clear violation of the separation of church and state. These agencies typically select communities for resettlement with little consultation with local authorities. After a short internal after resettlement, the agencies are free of obligations to the refugees—and the communities are left with the tab for refugees’ social services.

What’s a name for media people who seem to have little interest in the interests of America and her citizens? One possibility might be “Ameriphobes.”

 

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here