The
New Yorker is upset that the media and the Dems fell for the White House's cynical framing of the immigrant dilemma:
Like the media, Pelosi, whose district covers the sanctuary city of San Francisco, didn’t directly challenge the unspoken but clear premise that something terrible would happen to these cities if immigrants came to them.
Such is the framing of the issue by the White House, and the framing of the story by the media, that no one had the one right response to this idea: “But this is the very point of a sanctuary city! Immigrants, regardless of status, are safe in them. Bring them here! They are welcome.”
You know, that's right. Neither Pelosi nor the media made that argument. I'm perplexed now.
4 comments:
If they want open borders and designate "sanctuary cites," then they should be more than willing to accommodate those who enter through those open borders into their self-designated "sanctuary cities." Put your money where your mouth is.
I am reminded of the old joke where someone from the free world condemns Mao for not permitting free emigration to the West. Mao's reply: "How many hundreds of millions do you want?"
Maybe we will end up with a system of Balkanized city states, surrounded by America. We just need to convince them that sanctuary status = secession.
It brings to mind the immortal Obama line "Don't call my bluff."
Cher (yes, I know, not the sharpest tack) tweeted today that the Los Angeles has thousands of homeless to take care of, why should illegals come there.
Frickin amazing.
Post a Comment