PDA

View Full Version : NY Times Op-Ed: Deport Americans, Invite Migrants




timosman
06-20-2017, 06:33 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/18/ny-times-op-ed-deport-americans-invite-migrants/


by NEIL MUNRO 18 Jun 2017


America belongs to immigrants because immigrants make the nation more powerful, says a former Wall Street Journal writer who is now working for the New York Times.
Immigrants produce more babies, work harder, create more jobs, and have more ideas, claims the revealing column by immigration-advocate Bret Stephens:


I speak of Americans whose families have been in this country for a few generations. Complacent, entitled and often shockingly ignorant on basic points of American law and history, they are the stagnant pool in which our national prospects risk drowning…

Bottom line: So-called real Americans are screwing up America. Maybe they should leave, so that we can replace them with new and better ones: newcomers who are more appreciative of what the United States has to offer, more ambitious for themselves and their children, and more willing to sacrifice for the future. In other words, just the kind of people we used to be — when “we” had just come off the boat…

I’m the child of immigrants and grew up abroad, I have always thought of the United States as a country that belongs first to its newcomers — the people who strain hardest to become a part of it because they realize that it’s precious; and who do the most to remake it so that our ideas, and our appeal, may stay fresh.

That used to be a cliché, but in the Age of [President Donald] Trump it needs to be explained all over again. We’re a country of immigrants — by and for them, too. Americans who don’t get it should get out.

Stephens’ article includes several apples-to-orange statistical flubs, plus grotesque generalizations, and regurgitated business-funded agitprop. For example, Stephens says the United States “is a country of immigrants” even though roughly 84 percent of people living in the United States were born in the United States — despite the elite-backed huge influx of immigrants over the last few decades. Similarly, Stephens treats immigrants as a uniform mass, as if he believes that migrating MS-13 gang members are as beneficial as are freedom-seeking inventors.

But the article’s main feature is the progressive view that people — Americans, foreigners, gang-bangers, whatever — should be selected by the all-powerful State to serve the State’s high-IQ progressive leadership class in D.C. and Wall Street.

That view is shared by former President Barack Obama, who told supporters in November 2014 that:


Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently. And that, sometimes, has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration. If you look at the history of immigration in this country, each successive wave, there have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks’ — even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans.

That government-first view allows Stephens to ignore the Declaration of Independence which declared that people’s rights came from a higher source than government: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The elitist view also allows Stephens to welcome mass immigration because — not despite, but because — it hugely distorts the nation’s economy in favor of elite business leaders and major cities.

Mass immigration spikes profits and stock values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees, drives up real estate prices, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, and sidelines marginalized Americans and their families. Mass immigration also imposes the social “diversity” which helps Stephens and his allies as they claim a Darwinian right to fragment, divide and rule Americans without any rude interference by the voters on November 8, 2016.

In contrast, President Donald Trump won his 2016 campaign on a promise to put Americans first. He told his inauguration listeners that he would hold to a policy of “Buy American, Hire American,” he has started enforcing immigration laws and is pushing for a “merit-based” immigration plan that would raise the productivity and wealth of Americans.

Read the New York Times column here (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/opinion/only-mass-deportation-can-save-america.html).

tod evans
06-20-2017, 06:39 AM
Deport ALL of NY City!

Start over.

Brian4Liberty
06-20-2017, 10:39 AM
Prominent neoconservative:


Bret Stephens is a columnist for the New York Times who previously worked at the Wall Street Journal and the neoconservative flagship magazine Commentary.[1] A promoter of aggressive “pro-Israel” U.S. foreign policies, Stephens also previously worked as editor of the rightist Jerusalem Post and has appeared frequently on Fox News.[2]
...
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Stephens_Bret/

shakey1
06-20-2017, 12:30 PM
Be a good sport now ol' chum & GTFO!

Brian4Liberty
06-20-2017, 01:43 PM
I’m the child of immigrants and grew up abroad, I have always thought of the United States as a country that belongs first to its newcomers

Just another example of how children of immigrants are prone to being more radical, extreme and confused about their loyalties.

timosman
06-20-2017, 04:53 PM
Just another example of how children of immigrants are prone to being more radical, extreme and confused about their loyalties.

The country was sold to bankers in 1913. What difference does it make at this point?:rolleyes:

Krugminator2
06-20-2017, 05:14 PM
Just another example of how children of immigrants are prone to being more radical, extreme and confused about their loyalties.

Worth a watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3GzbLjPcc

phill4paul
06-20-2017, 05:20 PM
Anyone is free to try and deport me.

Slave Mentality
06-20-2017, 05:38 PM
Deport ALL of NY City!

Start over.

Seconded. At least clean out south of the Mason Dixon.

phill4paul
06-20-2017, 06:14 PM
Seconded. At least clean out south of the Mason Dixon.

:confused: I'm south of the Mason Dixon.

otherone
06-20-2017, 06:39 PM
But the article’s main feature is the progressive view that people — Americans, foreigners, gang-bangers, whatever — should be selected by the all-powerful State

This is the alt-right view as well.

milgram
06-20-2017, 07:12 PM
Bret Stephens was the guy who debated Rand on MSNBC about the war in Yemen. He only had 30 seconds of talking points so he had to repeat everything twice.

TheCount
06-20-2017, 07:21 PM
This is the alt-right view as well.

This.

This is not a progressive view, it is a statist one. The only difference between the far left and the alt right on this topic is which type of person is the chosen one.

Brian4Liberty
06-20-2017, 08:06 PM
Worth a watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3GzbLjPcc

So someone is doing new versions of the old Daily Show interviews...

Was it edited as heavily as the Daily Show was, or was this kid just that dense?

Brian4Liberty
06-20-2017, 08:32 PM
This.

This is not a progressive view, it is a statist one. The only difference between the far left and the alt right on this topic is which type of person is the chosen one.

So the neoconservative position is "anti-Statist"?

In the most simplistic (and not terribly enlightening) view, anything and everything done by government is "statist". The neoconservative goal is one world government. How can that be anti-Statist?

nikcers
06-20-2017, 08:40 PM
So the neoconservative position is "anti-Statist"?

In the most simplistic (and not terribly enlightening) view, anything and everything done by government is "statist". The neoconservative goal is one world government. How can that be anti-Statist?
Maybe its like how Rand Paul is against big government even though he works for the big government

oyarde
06-20-2017, 08:57 PM
Bret Stephens was the guy who debated Rand on MSNBC about the war in Yemen. He only had 30 seconds of talking points so he had to repeat everything twice.

I am confused , I thought the article said by Neil Munro , but he died in 1930 .

Danke
06-20-2017, 09:04 PM
Worth a watch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up3GzbLjPcc

Just shoot me

Brian4Liberty
06-20-2017, 09:07 PM
Maybe its like how Rand Paul is against big government even though he works for the big government

Even in a minimal US government, there would still be a Congress.

nikcers
06-20-2017, 09:18 PM
Even in a minimal US government, there would still be a Congress.
Ron Paul basically says that the main two competing "policies" are philosophically self-defeating and will collapse on there own. I had someone argue this on reddit to me a few years ago a lot better then I can, but basically it was Ron Paul's premise on steroids. They told me that the neoconservative choice which was Romney was the best poison pill because it would ultimately lead to the destruction of the state and the deep state with it. Lots of Trump supporters made this argument too, while claiming Trump was Ron Paul on steroids.

AuH20
06-20-2017, 09:31 PM
Prominent neoconservative:

EVERY SINGLE TIME..............

AuH20
06-20-2017, 09:35 PM
877188452688822272

euphemia
06-20-2017, 09:42 PM
Deport ALL of NY City!

Start over.

To be honest, New York is one of the most segregated cities ever. This is why liberals want to keep protecting different groups of people. They are afraid of poverty. I would rather live around people who are short on money than people who are short on soul.

Swordsmyth
06-20-2017, 09:47 PM
Secession is the answer.

Exodus 9:13 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Rise up early in the morning, and stand before Pharaoh, and say unto him, Thus saith the LORD God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.”

King James Version (KJV)

Brian4Liberty
06-20-2017, 09:55 PM
Ron Paul basically says that the main two competing "policies" are philosophically self-defeating and will collapse on there own. I had someone argue this on reddit to me a few years ago a lot better then I can, but basically it was Ron Paul's premise on steroids. They told me that the neoconservative choice which was Romney was the best poison pill because it would ultimately lead to the destruction of the state and the deep state with it. Lots of Trump supporters made this argument too, while claiming Trump was Ron Paul on steroids.

Not sure that I've heard Ron Paul talk like that. What are these two competing "policies"?

phill4paul
06-20-2017, 10:08 PM
Maybe its like how Rand Paul is against big government even though he works for the big government

It's kinda like how I haven't filed Federal taxes in 6 yrs. but still take V.A. care.

nikcers
06-20-2017, 10:13 PM
Not sure that I've heard Ron Paul talk like that. What are these two competing "policies"?
Monetization of debt and interventionist foreign policy that creates its own enemies. The argument is we won't be able to afford the competing policies forever, and that one will give eventually, either a huge collapse or a huge amount of blowback.

TheCount
06-20-2017, 11:05 PM
So the neoconservative position is "anti-Statist"?

In the most simplistic (and not terribly enlightening) view, anything and everything done by government is "statist". The neoconservative goal is one world government. How can that be anti-Statist?Not sure what to tell you; maybe you should start examining individual concepts rather than seeking group membership and trying to decide which team's jerseys look the best.

Brian4Liberty
06-20-2017, 11:38 PM
Not sure what to tell you; maybe you should start examining individual concepts rather than seeking group membership and trying to decide which team's jerseys look the best.

You have to look at the forest and the trees, otherwise you will end up being somebody's useful idiot.

As far as group membership, you appear to be taking the neoconservative label personally.

otherone
06-21-2017, 04:09 AM
You have to look at the forest and the trees, otherwise you will end up being somebody's useful idiot.



Spoken like a lumberjack.

Slave Mentality
06-21-2017, 05:48 AM
:confused: I'm south of the Mason Dixon.

Sarcasm font was busted. We would use Super Mega Extreme Vetting anyway and I am certain you would do fine. 😀

TheCount
06-21-2017, 07:09 AM
As far as group membership, you appear to be taking the neoconservative label personally.No, I just think that the idea that statism is contrary to neoconservativism makes no sense whatsoever. Neoconservativism is a specific flavor of statism, not an opposing concept.

Brian4Liberty
06-21-2017, 11:03 AM
Monetization of debt and interventionist foreign policy that creates its own enemies. The argument is we won't be able to afford the competing policies forever, and that one will give eventually, either a huge collapse or a huge amount of blowback.

Those are complimentary policies, not competing. Monetization of debt enables warfare/welfare spending.

They are unsustainable in the long run, but it has been a very long run so far, and may continue for a long time.

Anyway, off-topic from OP discussion of neoconservatives wanting to deport deplorable natives and import more pliable workers/voters.

Brian4Liberty
06-21-2017, 03:45 PM
So the neoconservative position is "anti-Statist"?

In the most simplistic (and not terribly enlightening) view, anything and everything done by government is "statist". The neoconservative goal is one world government. How can that be anti-Statist?

In other words, neoconservatives generally want more immigration and more open borders.


Not sure what to tell you; maybe you should start examining individual concepts rather than seeking group membership and trying to decide which team's jerseys look the best.

The individual issue is immigration, and neoconservatives want more.


No, I just think that the idea that statism is contrary to neoconservativism makes no sense whatsoever. Neoconservativism is a specific flavor of statism, not an opposing concept.

You just said to focus on one issue. If that one issue is immigration, neoconservatives want more of it. Is it statist or anti-statist to fight for more immigration?

I'll take Bret Stevens suggestion to deport deplorable Americans as hyperbole, and not a serious suggestion, even if it is truly a wet dream of his.

AuH20
06-21-2017, 06:16 PM
The liberal mouthpieces aren't even hiding it anymore.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DC0MjVGW0AAwKt5.jpg