“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius
If someone is on the losing end of an argument, it is often the case that they will resort to mockery in order to cover their conceptual inadequacy. If one has nothing left with which to defend their belief system, one has little other choice than to attempt to destroy the beliefs of their opposition through belittlement. This is a sure sign of defeat. The writers at The New York Times are pros at this type of behavior.
The editorial board at the Times recently wrote an opinion piece regarding the immigration crisis, and I’d like to dismantle it for your reading pleasure.
“John Boehner…tried on Thursday to pass a bill dealing with the crisis of migrant children at the Texas border — a harsh bill to deport the children more quickly to their violent home countries in Central America, and to add more layers of border enforcement. But it wasn’t harsh enough to suit the Tea Party, and it was pulled for lack of votes.”
The editorial board, referred to going forward as EB, begins with defamatory language right off the bat, labeling the House Republicans immigration bill as “harsh.” Right away, EB tries to get their readers on their side by referring to the home countries of illegal immigrants as “violent.” This language is simply a means through which the writers can make the opposition appear brutish, and make themselves (supporters of amnesty) seem rational.
“Tea Party members believe, delusionally, that the program, called DACA, has some connection to the recent surge of child migrants, who would never qualify for it.”
This is the best part. As noted by Breitbart, it’s highly unlikely that illegal immigrants, and those who plan on entering the United States illegally, have a comprehensive understanding of US law. They simply hear that DACA was expanded. They also see a president who is soft on illegal immigration. These two factors contributed to the massive surge in illegal immigrant teens entering the country since DACA was expanded in 2012. All one needs to do is take a look at the numbers of illegal teens entering the country prior to the expansion of DACA, then look at the numbers following its expansion. It’s staggering. According to The Christian Science Monitor:
“During the decade preceding fiscal year 2012, the federal government agency tasked with caring for unaccompanied minors who cross the border illegally dealt with an average of 7,000 to 8,000 cases a year, according to a Department of Health and Human Services fact sheet. In fiscal year 2011, the number was 6,560. The following year, however, the number jumped to 13,625. This fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, 2014, federal officials are estimating that the number could be 80,000, according to an internal memo cited by The New York Times.”
It’s clear that Obama’s expansion of DACA is at least partially responsible for the surge in border crossings. And lest you think I’m a loon, the majority of Americans believe that to be the case as well. According to a YouGov/Economist poll:
“57 percent of Americans – including 51 percent of Hispanics, 44 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of independents, and 78 percent Republicans – believe ‘the main reason’ for the increase in illegal immigrant juveniles from Central America is that they ‘believe that the US government is or will be granting amnesty to’ illegal immigrant children.”
However, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest claimed that Obama was not responsible in the slightest, saying:
“[Obama] sent a very clear, transparent, unmistakable message that parents should not put their children in the hands of criminals to transport them to the southwest border with the expectation that they’ll be welcomed into the country.”
I guess it’s a matter of do as I say, not as I enact.
“Meanwhile, the border crisis is still a crisis and people are suffering…Because House Republicans killed a comprehensive reform bill that passed the Senate more than a year ago, the larger immigration system, choked by obsolete laws, backlogs and bureaucratic breakdowns, still awaits repairs.“
EB is equating the fact that Republicans nixed last year’s immigration bill to the fact that our immigration system is still in shambles. While technically true, it’s an unjust accusation. Any time a bill is nixed, the issue it was poised to deal with will continue to be dysfunctional. That’s the nature of the legislative system. What EB fails to understand is the reasoning behind the Republicans’ decision against last year’s bill. The bill stood in contradiction to everything conservatives stand for in terms of immigration reform. Were they supposed to pass it just because? EB is assigning blame where there is none.
“Eleven million people are still living outside the law with no way to legalize their status. Farmers and other business owners who depend on immigrant labor are still looking to Congress to bring order and efficiency to the system.“
Uh, I’m not sure EB realizes what it said there. “Living outside the law.” That’s exactly the problem. These people broke the law to come here, and now we’re supposed to give them a free pass? It defies the very notion of national sovereignty. Oh, I’m so sorry that farmers need the illegals to pick their crops. It’s such a travesty that we aren’t taking more jobs away from actual American citizens to give them to illegal immigrants. I want my country back! *hard eye roll*
This is another problem. We are living in a crony state. Businesses (including farmers) are using illegal labor because it’s cheap. They support open borders because it will provide them with a continuous supply of cheap, illegal labor. If we grant amnesty to illegals, we will be rewarding criminals. But apparently, that’s what EB thinks is right.
“Congressional nihilism has created a vacuum. Now it’s President Obama’s job to fill it, to keep his promise to end the border crisis and find ways to redirect immigration enforcement and protect possibly millions of families from unjust deportation. Of course, regardless of what he does, the system will still be marked by chaos and pain. And the hard-liners will scream at any action he takes. Having spent the summer howling about a catastrophe at the border, Republicans are now congratulating themselves for refusing to solve it.“
Wow, God forbid Republicans behave nihilistically when the country is so wildly corrupt! They should just sign on for anything the Democrats ask them to. *second hard eye roll* EB goes on to speak of “unjust deportation.” I’m curious to know what exactly makes the deportation of illegals unjust? If someone can answer that query for me, I’d be grateful, because it seems to me that those who came here against the law, and are not legal citizens should be deported.
Finally, EB triumphantly concludes by saying that Republicans are just so happy that they are “refusing to solve it [the border crisis].” The fact that Republicans have rejected “comprehensive” immigration reform doesn’t mean that they are happy about the situation at hand. They have a position that is not being met. The left has not given Republicans anything. Are we to expect Republicans will simply agree to a bill that goes against everything they believe in, for the sake of getting something done? If they were to behave that way, I would question their integrity. Refusing to give up on what one believes is right is a mark of integrity, and not something to be mocked.
Whoever wrote this piece doesn’t seem to care much about logic, they only seem to care about mocking their opposition. I guess they’re losing the argument.