The Quote Below—More Misinformation from the Media
Why? Because all of us — every human on the planet — respond to the cry of a child. It is hard-wired in us. What sound is more primal, more wrenching, more vivid, more capable of cutting through the noise to connect us to something deeper? What sound is more effective in dispelling the dangerous myth of tribalism and reminding us of the essential truth of our common humanity? . . .
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has shown no signs of backing down on its larger ambition of curbing immigration — legal and illegal alike — and dismantling America’s traditions as a refuge for the world’s tired, poor and huddled masses. . . .
What is required, then, in 2019 and beyond, is not only a reversal of an immigration agenda sharply at odds with this country’s highest ideals, or an end to the hateful and divisive rhetoric deployed on its behalf. What we need is something more: a shift in our hearts, an expansion of our capacity for moral understanding. — America’s Crisis of Conscience, The New York Times, Laurene Jobs, 12/3/18 [Link]
Fact Check of Quote: This article is a classic example of emotional manipulation to short-circuit rational discussion of immigration policy. Yes, it is disturbing to hear children cry, but it is dishonest not to consider the full context of why this happened on our border. Illegal aliens are bringing children with them, often exposing the children to great danger, because our government has sent the signal south of the border that bringing children gives you a better chance of staying in the U.S.
Thus, a good way to relieve distress of children separated from parents at the border is to remove the incentive to bring them. One means is enacting reforms to discourage illegal aliens from making bogus asylum claims.
The writer makes no constructive suggestions of this kind, perhaps because she doesn’t think that securing our border is necessary or justified. America’s mission, she suggests, is offering admission to the tired huddled masses of the globe. A reasonable person might ask if we can afford take them in without a meltdown of our Melting Pot. Such a person might also reason that if we can take everyone in, we must have some effective means to keep them out.
But practicality makes little impression on people who prefer to get high on feel-good emotionalism. This is not to say that emotion and sentiment are wrong, but the lack of balance between idealism and realism certainly is. Also wrong is emotion for only one side. Immigration enthusiasts like this writer, to cite an example, seldom show sympathy toward the pain suffered by American parents of children murdered by illegal aliens.
More broadly, these enthusiasts seem to have little compassion for the tired huddled masses of American citizens who yearn to breathe free from the burdens of mass immigration: overcrowding, stress on the environment and resources, depressed wages, divisive diversity, and multicultural confusion.
If immigration enthusiasts really want to exercise “conscience,” they should abandon their delusions of moral grandeur and practice some humility. It’s a virtue that these self-proclaimed virtuous people seldom if ever possess.