New York Times in a panic over Trump's promise to uphold U.S. immigration law
Things have gone so sideways in this country that the paper of record has gone into a panic about President Trump's plans to follow U.S. immigration law.
Check out today's hysteria:
Former President Donald J. Trump is planning an extreme expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he returns to power in 2025 — including preparing to round up undocumented people already in the United States on a vast scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to be expelled.
The plans would sharply restrict both legal and illegal immigration in a multitude of ways.
Mr. Trump wants to revive his first-term border policies, including banning entry by people from certain Muslim-majority nations and reimposing a Covid 19-era policy of refusing asylum claims — though this time he would base that refusal on assertions that migrants carry other infectious diseases like tuberculosis.
He plans to scour the country for unauthorized immigrants and deport people by the millions per year.
As a matter of fact, that's called carrying out the law.
The Times did get an interview with President Trump's top advisor on immigration, Stephen Miller, but only printed a few phrases here and there as to what he said, which kind of tells us they didn't want us to know about it. They'll keep that information to themselves.
But in their own words they noted, way down in the piece, that there wouldn't be any shifts in existing law under this plan by President Trump, merely an interest in upholding existing law.
All of the steps Trump advisers are preparing, Mr. Miller contended in a wide-ranging interview, rely on existing statutes; while the Trump team would likely seek a revamp of immigration laws, the plan was crafted to need no new substantive legislation.
Like we are supposed to be upset about this.
Not allowing illegal immigration? What an outrageous idea in the minds of these Times writers.
Legal immigration is the law. Illegal immigration is not. Don't like the law, get Congress to change it. But the Times, for all its howlings about threats to 'democracy' doesn't want the law, which is kind of odd thing to be against in a democracy with rule of law.
The whole thing has prompted panic -- get a load of this hysterical reading (emphasis added):
The constellation of Mr. Trump’s 2025 plans amounts to an assault on immigration on a scale unseen in modern American history. Millions of undocumented immigrants would be barred from the country or uprooted from it years or even decades after settling here.
Such a scale of planned removals would raise logistical, financial and diplomatic challenges and would be vigorously challenged in court. But there is no mistaking the breadth and ambition of the shift Mr. Trump is eyeing
Trump advisers’ vision of abrupt mass deportations would be a recipe for social and economic turmoil, disrupting the housing market and major industries including agriculture and the service sector.
They quoted an open-borders lobbyist to turn the volume up to 11:
“Americans should understand these policy proposals are an authoritarian, often illegal, agenda that would rip apart nearly every aspect of American life — tanking the economy, violating the basic civil rights of millions of immigrants and native-born Americans alike,” Mr. Schulte said.
The old 'threat to democracy' crap as if seven million people crossing into the U.S. with no vetting whatsoever and all of them presumed to have valid asylum cases enough to wait for years here and get a free work pass and obtain a free benefit package in the U.S. was some kind of 'legal' authorized by Congress, which has the sole Constitutional authority to set immigration numbers.
There's nothing legal about this at all. If the U.S. doesn't have resources to process migrant asylum claims in a timely manner, then the U.S. can't be taking applications for this process at all. And it shouldn't. Asylum abuse has clogged courts with cases sporting a 90% rejection rate as most applicants are just economic migrants looking to jump the immigration queue and claim benefits.
The Times dismisses the Trump team's idea that migrants should be excluded for bringing in third-world infectious diseases, claiming migrants wouldn't dream of doing such a thing. That's laughable given the reports from hospitals of migrants bringing in tuberculosis, leischmaniasis, measles, scabies, malaria, leprosy and other communicable diseases and through identification-free air travel and bus travel, spreading these diseases through the country.
Trump wants to keep crazed Islamists out of the country, do some serious vetting of the Afghans, mostly single males, who pushed and shoved their way onto American evacuation flights from Afghanistan trampling women, children, old people and the sick waiting in line, and ship back any students conducting violent pro-Hamas protests in the states now. Who the heck let these America-haters with low social capital into this country anyway?
The bottom line here is that most Americans, including even many Democrats support Trump's plan to fix Joe Biden's open border and restore the country to one that upholds rule of law with a legal process for immigration. The Times quoted just activists and threw in its own editorializing even though it was supposed to be a straight news piece. Naturally, some familiar names were seen in the bylines, such as Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, two well-known Trump haters.
They refused to admit there was a problem, and went into full hysteria mode to whip up angry Democrats and set the Joe Biden "narrative."
It was disgusting, and one can only hope that the American public will see right through it, knowing very well that there is a problem and it's growing with Joe Biden's open border.
When merely enforcing the existing law is a problem for the Times, the country is in much worse shape than anyone realizes.