Whynot
I Can't Even—LA TIMES Is APPALLED That A Government Would Try To Change Demographics Through Immigration Policy
Thumb sailer
March 02, 2017, 06:40 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
Screenshot 2017-03-02 01.46.12From the Los Angeles Times:
The real goal of Trump’s executive orders: Reduce the number of immigrants in the U.S.

by Brian Bennett

Behind President Trump’s efforts to step up deportations and block travel from seven mostly Muslim countries lies a goal that reaches far beyond any immediate terrorism threat: a desire to reshape American demographics for the long term and keep out people who Trump and senior aides believe will not assimilate.

“Reshape American demographics!!!” Whoever heard of such a thing? It’s completely unethical for a political party to use immigration policy to try to reshape American demographics to win future elections.
In pursuit of that goal, Trump in his first weeks in office has launched the most dramatic effort in decades to reduce the country’s foreign-born population and set in motion what could become a generational shift in the ethnic makeup of the U.S.
Inconceivable! It’s completely undemocratic for a democratically elected government to exercise some degree of choice over which foreigners are let in and which are not.
Trump and top aides have become increasingly public about their underlying pursuit, pointing to Europe as an example of what they believe is a dangerous path that Western nations have taken. Trump believes European governments have foolishly allowed Muslims with extreme views to settle in their countries, sowing seeds for unrest and recruitment by terrorist groups.
But doesn’t Trump understand that all those people in the Bataclan Theater had it coming? For being white?
“Take a look at what’s happening in Sweden. Take a look at what’s happening in Germany. Take a look at what’s happened in France. Take a look at Nice and Paris,” Trump said Friday during a speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, referring to riots last week in a predominantly Muslim neighborhood in Stockholm, as well as attacks and unrest in similar neighborhoods in Germany and France over the last few years. …

Two days after Trump imposed the ban, a senior administration official told reporters at the White House that the order was part of a larger strategy to develop an immigration system that selects immigrants the White House believes will make “positive contributions” to the country.

“We don’t want a situation where, 20 to 30 years from now, it’s just like a given thing that on a fairly regular basis there is domestic terror strikes, stores are shut up or that airports have explosive devices planted, or people are mowed down in the street by cars and automobiles and things of that nature,” the official said.

Looking 20 or 30 years ahead?

That’s not who we are!

President Obama and his aides also sometimes contrasted the relative lack of terrorism in the U.S. experience with the higher level of violence in Europe.
Because they do things better worse in Europe.

Wait, I’m confused, I thought Europe was more civilized than America? Has NPR been lying to me?

But they attributed the difference to America having done a better job than European countries of assimilating foreign-born residents.
The only reason Mexicans aren’t screaming “Allahu Akbar” while beheading infidels in San Bernardino is because Obama was President and supported comprehensive immigration reform.

Now, watch out, those bloody Latin savages will run amok under Trump.

You know what they say: “Catholicism is the religion of jihad.”

Wait … never mind.

Trump and his aides do not accept that. In their eyes, the U.S. has been spared mostly because its Muslim population remains much smaller than that of France, Germany or other European nations. Muslims make up about 7.5% of the French population, but only about 1% in the U.S., according to estimates by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

“Foreign terrorists will not be able to strike America if they cannot get into our country,” Trump said Friday. …

But his argument ignores other big changes in society, critics note.

“If you were going to say, ‘We don’t like that equalization we did in 1965, we need to go back,’ that is going back to a time when the United States was more overtly racist,” said Tanya Golash-Boza, a sociology professor at UC Merced who studies immigration and race.

Tanya Golash-Boza [Email her] is a blue-eyed blonde lady who, I suspect, would like to have a better job than at forlorn UC Merced in the stoop labor belt. Older UC campuses are usually located in coastal suburban paradises like La Jolla and Santa Barbara, but then there’s Merced.
… Nations, including the U.S., are undermined by too high a level of diversity, Bannon has argued.

“The center core of what we believe, that we’re a nation with an economy, not an economy just in some global marketplace with open borders, but we are a nation with a culture and a — and a reason for being,” Bannon said Thursday at the conservative gathering.

“Rule of law is going to exist when you talk about our sovereignty and you talk about immigration,” Bannon said. …

“Uncontrolled immigration over many years has undermined wages, hurting prospects for people from all backgrounds and all walks of life and has made us less safe,” Miller said. “Proper controls will raise wages, improve employment, help migrant workers enter the middle class who are already living here and keep us safe from the threat of terror.”

I can’t even.

[Comment at Unz.com]