Washington Post: Trump’s Immigration Orders Are Against American Values Or Something

26 Jan, 2017 by William Teach

Print this article Font size -16+

The Editorial Board of the Washington Post, each of whom are far removed from the problems caused by illegal immigration and loosely vetted “Syrian” refugees, living in posh homes well away from those issues, is a bit upset. What they truly mean is that Trump’s immigration is against Democratic Party values

Trump’s politicized immigration acts are at odds with American values

IN A brief appearance Wednesday at the Department of Homeland Security, President Trump went out of his way to paint illegal immigrants as dangerous predators, making no distinction between the relative few who have committed serious crimes and the vast majority of an estimated 11 million who have led peaceful and productive lives in this country, in most cases for more than 15 years. Intoning the names of family members whose loved ones were killed by undocumented immigrants, he asserted their plight had been ignored, and ordered that an office be established at DHS to help the victims of such crimes, thereby adding social services to the department’s core security mission.

First, how do we know which ones will commit crimes and which won’t? There are more than enough stories about Dreamers being part of criminal activity. It matters little whether they have committed serious crimes: they are unlawfully present in this country, many of whom intentionally overstayed their visas.

It is fantastic how, suddenly, intoning the names of family members is seemingly a Bad Thing for the WPEB. They usually love having human shields.

Mr. Trump also made clear he is willing to throw billions of dollars at a problem that has mostly been fixed, paying for ostensible solutions that won’t do much good: construction of a wall and the hiring of 5,000 new Border Patrol officers, as well as many additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials.

In fact, the nation’s southern border is already well staffed with Border Patrol agents, whose numbers have more than doubled, under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, since the Sept. 11 attacks. The number of illegal crossings is near a 40-year low. If the goal is really to make the border even more secure, better technology would be the way to go. If Congress goes along, a lot of money will be wasted, given cost estimates for the wall alone well in excess of $10 billion — but it won’t be the first time the U.S. government has managed to misspend vast sums.

Wait, I thought Democrats loved spending public money and increasing the size of government? And misspending it? It don’t remember all this caterwauling about Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus.

I will agree that there are better methods available, as the editorial says. There are certain areas that would be great for a wall, which could stop or slow down border jumpers, giving the BP time to show up. And, it’s really necessary to give illegals reasons to not come and not overstay their visas, like slamming companies with massive criminal and civil penalties, disallowing them housing, driving privileges, and other benefits. If they’re here on a visa, make companies and education centers responsible for tracking, and firing/kicking out when it expires, along with contacting ICE.

Far more damaging, to American principles and the nation’s standing in the world, would be actions outlined in a draft executive order, apparently awaiting Mr. Trump’s signature, that would drastically curtail the United States’ commitment to accept refugees from Muslim-majority countries in the Mideast, especially Syria, most of whom are fleeing terrorism. Such refugees should be subject to extensive background checks and other vetting before being granted U.S. visas — as they already are. But a blanket ban would compromise this nation’s long-standing position as a sanctuary for desperate and innocent people. As a backdoor way for Mr. Trump to partially make good on his proposed Muslim ban, it also would be an affront to this country’s status as an example of religious tolerance.

Interestingly, the vast majority of refugees brought in have been Muslim, not Christians who are being persecuted (and killed) in Muslim areas. I don’t remember the WPEB making a big deal out of Obama working hard to deport an asylum seeking German family, who were Christians and homeschooled their kids.

We’ve seen how well allowing all these refugees is working in Germany, Sweden, France, Greece, Italy, and the other EU nations, what with the rapes, sexual assaults, demeaning of women, crime, and so forth. People kicked out of their homes to accommodate the rapeugees, while women are told to not dress sexy and do not go out at night in their own neighborhoods.

As far as it goes, polls are back and forth. Some are supportive of a temporary ban, others are against. An August, 2016 poll has only 36% supporting the importation of the refugees. A Washington Post poll from June 2016 has 59% in favor, but, even the WP had to acknowledge that the phrasing of the question probably elicited higher approval than normal. Most polls run against the refugees.

Regardless, Trump won. We were told this time and again about Obama as he jammed his uber-leftist agenda. We’re more than happy to accept people who want to come to the US and be part of our great melting pot. From what we’re seeing, especially throughout Europe, is that these refugees want the Europeans to adapt to their beliefs and mores. And Europeans are starting to revolt.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.