It’s clear now that you can no longer have a conversation about limiting immigration in any way without being called a racist.
Here, for example, is Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson with his take Tuesday on President Trump’s compromise immigration proposal:
The only coherent — if despicable — arguments for Trump’s plan are racial and cultural. The way they used to put it in the Jim Crow days was succinct: White is right.
It’s an effective, and abhorrent, strategy being used by the left, including some very prominent people.
Remember our Alinksy Rules for Radicals, numbers 11 and 13: “If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside” and “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Unfortunately, the rules for radicals long ago became rules for mainstream Democrats. Now “chain migration,” a term used for years to describe immigrants bringing family members into the United States, is racist. Presumably because Democrats think it doesn’t tug at the heartstrings strongly enough — much better something like “loving family invitations” — and therefore the phrase must be eliminated.
Here’s New York Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a potential presidential candidate, absurdly lodging the racism charge.
In the video below, Washington Post reporter David Nakaruma, puts the charge more subtly, saying the term has been “co-opted” by immigration opponents to generate “a bad feeling among ordinary Americans who are hearing these terms.”
I think chain migration is another word that’s been weaponized by critics, mostly on the right of the debate, to sort of generate ill will toward immigrants, even those who are coming legally.
And here is a sampling of Democrats using the term, over and over again: