When I read a NY Times opinion piece of particular interest to me (especially one I disagree with), I like to go to the user comments and sort them in order of ones with the most user recs. This is certainly not a scientific sample of American opinion -- it represents the statements on this topic most recommended by NYT online readers: who are usually, I believe, intelligent, articulate and liberal.
The Times pieces generally represent the current Democratic position; this is the case with the piece I'm concerned with here: "Slamming Shut America's Door", against Republicans' attempts to limit the numbers of refugees coming into the country from conflict zones like Syria.
Following are excerpts from three of the four comments most highly recommended by NYT readers:
There are 52 Muslim nations. Let Muslims go there. We do not particularly need yet more people who adhere to a culture and a religion that is in conflict with western values such as equal rights for women and gay people. Just because the editors who run this paper like to pretend there's nothing wrong with the Muslim world does not mean people like myself, a Jewish, gay woman, are obligated to join them. I'm tired of being told to welcome people here who hate all that I am and teach their kids to feel the same.
… some" of the skepticism about runaway immigration -- particularity illegal immigration (which some try to relabel as "undocumented" immigration) -- is NOT prompted by racism or extremist religious zealotry.
Instead, it IS prompted by skepticism about the Panglossian benefits of globalization (and "free trade") we were all sold on, the concerns (largely unaddressed) about lower-skilled immigrants taking jobs from especially vulnerable working people here (visit any fast-food place or get delivery from a NYC restaurant!), and legitimate concerns about assimilating people with poor educations, job skills, and language abilities. ...
And *some* of the anxiety about immigration may well have to do with the "800,000 refugees" -- and an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants -- than the "five arrested on terrorism charges". Those are HUGE numbers. People who feel anxious about the impact of those numbers on society are not necessarily racist or intolerant.
____________
"Almost every terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11 as well as most of the attacks that were disrupted in advance...were committed by an American citizen or a green card holder who had been in the country for a decade or more, including Omar Mateen, the killer in Orlando, who was born in Queens. That means that the attackers were largely radicalized here and that halting the flow of refugees would have almost no effect."
This logic is, well, illogical. These attacks or disrupted attacks were carried out by second generation Muslims. Had their parents not been permitted in the country they would not have been in a position to carry out or attempt to carry out their murderous deeds.
____________________
One nasty war in Syria, and we have millions of desperate people trying to migrate to countries where they do not speak the language, share the customs or religion, and are not employable.
We have a grievously overpopulated, poisoned planet, we face global warming with inundation of our huge cities, political breakdown, and religious fanaticism. Refugees could eventually number in the hundreds of millions. Or more.
We can keep calling the people who are concerned about immigration xenophobes, bigots, and racists. That's what the Left did in England. And what did they wake up to this morning?
If we keep sneering at the immigration issue, we can wake up to a President Trump.
And yes, I read the diary today blaming conditions in Britain on the economic austerity policy. Certainly, that made the situation worse, but to focus just on that is shortsighted. An economic policy that achieved economic growth could have absorbed immigrants better. For a while.
But this planet has had about all of our economic growth that it can stand.
