Immigration Watch International (2): 'Controversial' to Put Brakes on the Border?

Monday, January 2, 2023

'Controversial' to Put Brakes on the Border?

When he reflected on his time as treasury secretary under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, William Simon joked the media called him "controversial William Simon" so much he thought "controversial" sounded like his first name.

"Controversial" can certainly be an accurate adjective, but that doesn't mean it isn't wielded very deliberately to define what liberal journalists don't like. On Monday, CNN morning anchor Christine Romans reported on Twitter under Elon Musk "reinstating controversial figures, including former President Trump." That's true -- Donald Trump is controversial -- and it sounds like CNN finds that Musk move objectionable.

Minutes later, Romans reported on President Joe Biden demanding in recent months that the oil companies pump more oil: "He did the same of Saudi Arabia during a controversial visit in July." Wow, Biden did something controversial -- but put an asterisk on it because journalists are especially angry over the Saudi crown prince ordering the gruesome murder of Qatar-backed Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

NBC's "Today" used the C-word accurately in describing Netflix shows on Jeffrey Dahmer and on Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle.

But this week, TV networks overwhelmingly employed the word to describe Title 42 as the Supreme Court upheld it. CNN reporter Sara Sidner explained on Monday's "CNN This Morning" that "the Supreme Court is expected to rule on whether to keep the controversial Trump-era border restriction known as Title 42 in place." One could joke that this is the only COVID restriction that the media didn't like.

When the high court ruled 5-4 to keep it, networks sounded the alarm. On ABC's "World News Tonight," fill-in anchor Mary Bruce led off the show: "Breaking news, as we come on the air tonight, the Supreme Court announcing that a controversial Trump-era policy, allowing asylum seekers to be quickly turned away, known as Title 42, can remain in place." Notice that "controversial" and "Trump era" fit perfectly for them.

On Wednesday's "Today," NBC co-host Kristen Welker lamented "the Supreme Court handing down a ruling that would keep the controversial Title 42 policy in place by a tight 5-to-4 vote until they can take up the case and make a permanent decision next June. It comes as the immigration crisis at many border towns around the country has reached a breaking point."

But here's the strangest part: It's "controversial" when the "immigration crisis" reaches a "breaking point" and someone puts the brakes on the surge?

MSNBC host Alex Witt used this framing on Tuesday's "Andrea Mitchell Reports." She said: "Left in limbo! The Supreme Court is keeping the controversial Title 42 policy in place for at least another six months. What it means for thousands of migrants desperate for asylum and the communities struggling to provide basic humanitarian needs." The flood of "desperate migrants" are the sympathetic victims of "controversial Trump-era" policies.

Fox News Channel has also used the C-word on Title 42, but the spin is different. On Wednesday's "Special Report," Bret Baier announced, "Breaking tonight, a controversial COVID emergency immigration policy remains in place. Yet the southern border crisis shows no signs of slowing down, and a plan for how to manage a post-Title 42 border is nowhere to be found, at least not yet."

As a candidate in 2019, Joe Biden openly encouraged a surge. "I would make sure that there is, we immediately surge to the border all those people seeking asylum," Biden said. "They deserve to be heard. That's who we are. We're a nation that says, 'If you want to flee, and you're fleeing oppression, you should come.'"

Guess what that is not? "Controversial."

https://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozellandtimgraham/2022/12/30/controversial-to-put-brakes-on-the-border-n2617707

***********************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com/ (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://awesternheart.blogspot.com.au/ (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*******************************

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.

Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.

The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:

1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

Immigration Watch International (2)

Monday, January 2, 2023

'Controversial' to Put Brakes on the Border?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Background

Other blogs

Blog Archive

Contributors