Allen West “Our economy is shrinking and yet we’re still being fed a story that things are getting better”February 1, 2013
Former Mayor Ed Koch is very upset with The New York Times at the moment.
The cause? An editorial on immigration, where the the publication of record saw a new opportunity to push for reform in the wake of Republican election losses this year. But Mr. Koch, in one of his regular missives typically containing movie reviews, instead used the space to accuse The Times of overreaching in its rhetoric.
“I have never read a more biased editorial than The New York Times editorial of November 18th,” Mr. Koch began. “The Times in its editorials rarely refers to ‘illegal’ immigrants. It generally refers to them simply as immigrants, making no distinction between the legal and the illegal; sometimes, it refers to them as ‘undocumented,’ and its newest description is ‘unauthorized.’”
Mr. Koch went on to castigate The Times for its “full-throated call for amnesty,” and for using a straw man depiction, “hardliners against reform — including the white-culture alarmists and the closet racists,” to make their argument.
“I repeat, I have never seen a more intolerant editorial in language and tone appear in The New York Times,” the former mayor said. “The Times editorial board should apologize for its outrageous description of opponents of amnesty and allow a debate to ensue presenting the arguments fairly on both sides.”
View Mr. Koch’s full commentary below:
The New York Times Editorial of November 18th On Immigration Reform Is A Disgrace
I have never read a more biased editorial than The New York Times editorial of November 18th, entitled, “New Hope on Immigration.” It advocates, as it has for years, providing amnesty for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now residing within the borders of the United States.
The Times in its editorials rarely refers to “illegal” immigrants. It generally refers to them simply as immigrants, making no distinction between the legal and the illegal; sometimes, it refers to them as “undocumented,” and its newest description is “unauthorized.”
In its editorial ,The Times libels those Americans who believe that the U.S. should not have open borders. No country in the world has an open-door policy. The Times editorial refers to the opponents of open borders and amnesty as, “The hardliners against reform — including the white-culture alarmists and the closet racists.” It contrasts them with those “behind reform – student activists, business groups, farmers, labor unions, Catholic bishops, evangelical churches, African-Americans, civil-liberties organizations and regular American citizens who support legalization.” I believe a majority of Americans oppose the amnesty legislation. Because of their opposition, the proposal has been defeated several times in Congress.
Many of those opposed to an amnesty providing a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, support a compassionate response such as the “Dream Act.” That act, which President Obama implemented by executive order, allows youngsters brought here by their parents illegally to remain here, receive a green card permitting them to work, and exempts them from deportation pending passage by the Congress of the Dream Act. Many would support keeping families together and include the parents in the amnesty ultimately provided the youngsters covered by the proposed Dream Act. Supporting such a broad amnesty is a good example of Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s comment “defining deviancy down,” meaning if you can’t control illegality, accept it and make it legal.
The Times in its full-throated call for amnesty and a change in immigration policy denounces opponents by stating they “despise illegals.” Untrue. The opponents believe the U.S. should enforce its immigration policy and not allow the law to be ignored and violated with impunity. Many of us believe that our current policy of permitting 750,000 aliens and 250,000 refugees to enter each year, all of whom are eligible for U.S. citizenship, should be amended to expand the number and allow more of those waiting in line for their turn to come in. The Times apparently believes no one should have to wait, and the walls should come tumbling down.
The Times even believes that those it refers to as “minor offenders” should be welcomed to stay, the “minor offenders” language generally referring to those who have committed misdemeanors where the crime is subject to up to a maximum one-year prison sentence. The Times states that “[t]here is enforcement work to be done like finding more effective ways to stifle illegal employment, but any strategy that fixates on deportation and the border is foolish and ineffective.” Ridiculous.
The Times objects to President Obama’s successful efforts to find and deport those who have committed crimes, other than the crime of illegal entry, resulting in 400,000 deportations annually. It opposes the federal government through Homeland Security using “state and local police officers” to help the feds in enforcing the law. President Obama’s policy has been to secure the borders before providing amnesty legislation. Amnesty legislation did not solve the problem in the 1980s when it was employed and won’t solve it now. Millions of people from around the world want to live in the U.S. and do not want to wait in line, as they must and do for every other country, including Mexico. Providing a blanket amnesty now simply encourages others to enter illegally and wait for the next amnesty.
I repeat, I have never seen a more intolerant editorial in language and tone appear in The New York Times. The Times editorial board should apologize for its outrageous description of opponents of amnesty and allow a debate to ensue presenting the arguments fairly on both sides. The Times editorial can be seen at:
The report, entitled 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, stated that though the government has ceased the practice of immediately returning African asylum seekers arriving via Egypt, it “continued to deny many asylum seekers individual refugee status determinations, which impacted their ability to work or receive basic social services, including health care.”
The reports says that Israeli law allows most asylum seekers access to temporary asylum, however, refers to complaints regarding accessibility to the system and reports of discrimination.
Citing United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) data, the report says that out of 4,603 new asylum applications submitted during 2011, the government rejected 3,692, approved one and, 6,412 remained pending.
The US also viewed negatively government officials’ use of the term “infiltrators” to refer to asylum seekers, as well as officials who directly associations asylum seekers with the rise in crime, disease and terrorism. Interior Minister Eli Yishai was specifically flagged as an instigator.
Meanwhile, as the report was released, Yishai reiterated his views, telling channel 10 that “all infiltrators must be imprisoned, with no exceptions,” and that the state must transmit a message to them all, that Israel does not accept them.
Just think: The United States Obama administration wants Israel to be just like the United States, and have Hezbullah agents infiltrating as ‘refugees’ from Africa, just like the US has Hezbullah agents infiltrating from Mexico.
If you think that last statement is an exaggeration, consider this from YNet.
The report says that while Israel’s laws “provide for the granting of temporary asylum and the government has established a system for providing temporary protection for most asylum seekers, there were complaints about the system’s accessibility and reports of discrimination.”
The current laws, the report added, “Allow the Ministry of Interior to reject applications without appeal even at the registration stage, and exclude ‘enemy nationals’ from receiving asylum. The regulations fail to establish an independent appeal process.”
You got that? The mean, bad Israelis exclude ‘enemy nationals’ (like ‘Palestinians,’ Syrians and Iranians) from receiving asylum. Oh the horror! /sarc
And look what everyone else gets:
While “recognized refugees receive social services, including access to the national healthcare system,” the report noted that the government does not provide asylum seekers with public social benefits such as health insurance.
The report does, however, mention that in 2011 Israel granted temporary protection to refugees, primarily to Eritrean and Sudanese asylum seekers, and at times to asylum seekers from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ivory Coast, and Somalia.
They get access to the national healthcare system. Hello – we have socialized medicine here. So what does it mean to say that we don’t provide them with health insurance? Many Israelis have no healthcare beyond the national healthcare system. Why isn’t the State Department worried about them?
Sorry but this report is ridiculous. There’s no reason Israel has to provide benefits that are going to encourage more people to come here illegally. Every country has the right to protect its own borders. And thank God our leadership does not include Obama.
If Israel… and the United States just let everyone in… then there would be no incentive to come at all… because it would be a huge ghetto hell. It’s disgusting to cry bigotry at people that everyone says they hate… but we all know they are just jealous because the Jews take care of their own… which is something everyone else doesn’t. You don’t help people by reinforcing their poor values within your own borders.
(Islam In Europe via AFP): French Interior Minister Claude Gueant, who also holds the immigration portfolio, caused political uproar by claiming that not all civilisations are equal, with some more advanced than others.
“Contrary to what the left’s relativist ideology says, for us all civilisations are not of equal value,” Gueant on Saturday told a conference in the French parliament building, but closed to the media.
“Those which defend humanity seem to us to be more advanced than those that do not,” he argued in his speech at a meeting organised by a right-wing students group.
“Those which defend liberty, equality and fraternity, seem to us superior to those which accept tyranny, the subservience of women, social and ethnic hatred,” he went on his speech, a copy of which was obtained by AFP.
it is a simple idea really… it shouldn’t just be about Islam. We have lost all respect for details and the integrity of observation.
Sarkozy_and_Berlusconi are demanding European deportation pacts with the countries of revolutionary north Africa to send migrants home.
France and Italy have thrown down the gauntlet over Europe’s system of passport-free travel, saying a crisis of immigration sparked by the Arab spring was calling into question the borderless regime enjoyed by more than 400 million people in 25 countries.Challenging one of the biggest achievements of European integration of recent decades, Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi also launched a joint effort to stem immigration and demanded European deportation pacts with the countries of revolutionary north Africa to send new arrivals packing.
The French president and the Italian prime minister, at a summit in Rome, opted to pile the pressure on Brussels and the governments of the other 25 EU states, demanding an “in-depth revision” of European law regulating the passport-free travel that takes in almost all of the EU with the exception of Britain and Ireland.
Prompted by the influx to Italy of almost 30,000 immigrants, mainly from Tunisia, in recent months, the two leaders warned that the upheavals in north Africa “could swiftly become an out-and-out crisis capable of undermining the trust our fellow citizens place in the free circulation within the Schengen area”.
The passport-free travel system known as the Schengen regime was agreed by a handful of countries in 1985 and put into practice in 1995. Since then it has been embraced by 22 EU countries as well as Norway, Switzerland and Iceland, but spurned by Britain and Ireland. It is widely seen, along with the euro single currency, as Europe’s signature unification project of recent decades.
But like the euro, fighting its biggest crisis over the past year, the Schengen regime is being tested amid mounting populism and the renationalisation of politics across the EU.
In other setbacks to borderless Europe, Germany, France and other countries have been blocking the admission of Bulgaria and Romania to Schengen in recent months, while the arrival of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants in Greece has fed exasperation with Athens’s inability to control the EU’s southern border.
The Franco-Italian move, following weeks of bad-tempered exchanges between Paris and Rome over how to deal with the Tunisian influx, is the biggest threat yet to the Schengen regime.
“For the treaty to stay alive, it must be reformed,” Sarkozy said. Berlusconi added: “We both believe that in exceptional circumstances there should be variations to the Schengen treaty.”
They sent a joint letter to the European commission and European council chiefs, José Manuel Barroso and Herman Van Rompuy, urging proposals from Brussels and agreement on a new system at an EU summit of government heads in June.
The commission said it was drawing up new proposals, tinkering with the current system, to be unveiled next week. But it has resisted, with the support of most EU governments, intense Italian pressure to label the arrivals from north Africa an emergency.
Under European law the border-free regime can be suspended only for reasons of national security, routinely invoked in recent years by member states hosting major international sporting events such as the World Cup or the European football championships, where individual countries contend with a huge, one-off influx of foreigners.
Sarkozy and Berlusconi insisted the rules be changed to allow more restrictions on freedom of travel. A new deal was “indispensable”, they said. The June summit should “examine the possibility of temporarily re-establishing internal frontier controls in case of exceptional difficulty in the management of the [EU’s] common external frontiers”.
This, however, would clearly not be in the interests of Italy, which fears an end to the hostilities in Libya could spark an even bigger exodus. In that event, the letter said, the EU should provide “mechanisms of specific solidarity” including the distribution of immigrants among member states.
This will prove extremely divisive and will be rejected by countries such as Germany and Sweden, which have much higher numbers of asylum seekers than Italy, less restrictive immigration policies, and little sympathy for Italy’s plight.
The concerted Franco-Italian initiative also called for accords between the EU and north African countries on repatriating immigrants, a policy certain to spark outrage among human rights groups, the refugee lobby, and more liberal EU governments.
Promising strong support for the democratic revolutions sweeping the Maghreb and the Middle East, Sarkozy and Berlusconi added: “In exchange we have the right to expect from our partner countries a commitment to a rapid and efficacious co-operation with the European Union and its member states in fighting illegal immigration.”
Tuesday’s move followed weeks of feuding between Rome and Paris over the Tunisian exodus. Furious at the failure of other EU countries to “share the burden”, the Italians granted visas to the immigrants enabling them to move elsewhere in the EU. The Germans and the Austrians complained. The Belgians accused Rome of “cheating” on the Schengen rulebook. The French government promptly closed a part of the border with Italy briefly, re-erecting passport controls to halt trains.
But Berlusconi and Sarkozy, seeking to curry favour with the strong far-right constituencies in both countries, sought to bury their differences by urging the rest of Europe to buy into their anti-immigration agenda.