WaPo Is Trying to Use Christchurch Attacks to Undermine American Immigration Policy

It seems that the editorial board of The Washington Post, in their Trump Derangement Syndrome eagerness to place the blame for a terrorist attack about as far away from the United States as you can get, are upset, appalled, outraged, and just quaking with anger that President Trump did not condemn the attack using the words they wanted him to use:

Trump sends the wrong message on New Zealand. World leaders must denounce the attack.

By Editorial Board | March 15, 2019 | 7:45 PM

The unspeakable carnage in New Zealand must be called out by its proper name: a terrorist attack by a white-nationalist bigot consumed by Islamophobia and impelled by the fervid extremism that suffuses the Internet’s darkest crevices.

Looks to me like it was quite speakable, given that the editors were speaking about it! But I’d like to know: have the editors ever written:

The unspeakable carnage in ______________ must be called out by its proper name: a terrorist attack by Islamist fundamentalists consumed by anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism and impelled by the fervid extremism that suffuses the Internet’s darkest crevices.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Well, we don’t need to be shown this, because the editors would never write something that could be considered as Islamophobic. Chelsea Clinton Mezvinsky, of all people, visibly pregnant and at an NYU service to honor the victims in Christchurch, was accosted by some leftist idiots, blaming her for the tragedy, because she had spoken out against the anti-Semitism of Representative Ilhan Omar Hirsi (D-MN), and we have been shown, full well, that for the radical left, condemning anti-Semitism = Islamophobia.

Oddly enough, a site search of The Washington Post’s website for “Chelsea” and then again for “Chelsea Clinton“, performed at 10:15 AM EDT, failed to find any story on Mrs Mezvinsky being so accosted, even though the incident has, at present, drawn over 141,000 tweets,  is the top trending (non-sponsored) topic on Twitter, and there is video of the whole thing.

I am not an editor for The Washington Post but I would think that students aggressively accosting the daughter of a former President and the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee would actually be, you know, news.

The editors continued:

The alleged gunman’s garden-variety racism — his rantings about the peril posed to whites faced with “replacement” by Muslims — is of a piece with other hatreds espoused by other racist killers in other places and times. That he spent his days slinking through online cesspools and communing with like-minded social networks gives his crime a postmodern gloss.

But the forces that animated him, as evidenced by his inflamed manifesto — ignorance, intolerance, bloodthirsty tribalism — are ancient. The Internet and social media did not invent or refine evil; they just made it accessible on demand, in all its banal and lurid manifestations. As for the suspect’s evident wish to instigate discord and sow divisions — he wrote that he wanted to “incite violence, retaliation and further divide” and hoped that by carrying out his massacre with a firearm he would add fuel to the United States’ gun debate — he’s a little late.

Still, it’s critical that world leaders clearly and precisely denounce this ghoulish act. An attack on mosques, as on any place of worship, is especially sinister and dangerous. Online racists lionized the murderer as a hero and cheered his killing spree as he streamed it live. In fact, he is a monster who slaughtered innocent people — parents and children, the old and the young.

President Trump is not to blame for the tragedy, despite his own history of Islamophobic statements and a travel ban that targets predominantly Muslim nations. Still, he should go further than he has; for starters, by condemning the alleged killer, whose nativist rhetoric — he called immigrants “invaders,” attacked “mass immigration” and wrote that he hoped to “directly reduce immigration rates” — overlaps with the president’s own. On Friday, Mr. Trump cited an “invasion” of immigrants to justify his national emergency declaration to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

That the Christchurch attacker believed that unregulated immigration was encouraging “invaders” means that he was saying the same thing as President Reagan.

And the elder President Bush.

And President Clinton.

And the younger President Bush.

And President Obama.

The only real difference? President Trump is actually trying to do something about our porous southern border, and now the Democrats, who will resist anything Mr Trump does, are opposing any action. Several cities run by Democrats have declared themselves ‘sanctuaries’ from federal immigration law.

What the editors are doing is trying to use the Christchurch attack to undermine American immigration policy. We have immigration laws of long standing, designed to encourage immigration of people with the education and skills to fit into the American economy, to be able to support themselves and their families once they reach our shores. The illegal immigration President Trump, and most Americans, oppose is that of people with few, if any, skills to fit into our economy, other than at the most basic unskilled labor jobs — if they had any real job skills, they’d have had jobs in their native countries, and wouldn’t be fleeing them — and who will be drains on our public education and welfare systems, and who enter almost wholly unvetted concerning criminal backgrounds.

That the Christchurch attacker was deranged should go without saying, but that he was deranged does not mean that it somehow invalidates American immigration policy. We want and need immigrants with valuable skills, who can contribute to the United States; we do not need an invasion of welfare recipients.
If you found this article interesting, annoying or outrageous, please visit my Red State story archive.
My personal website, The First Street Journal, includes articles not necessarily in Red State’s paradigm. This article does appear, in slightly different form, on my personal site.
You can follow me on Twitter.