Ever since President Donald Trump rescinded the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in September, Democrats, progressives, leftists, and immigration advocates have denounced him as a racist. They continued to do so even when the White House released its framework for immigration reform, which includes amnesty for the 700,000 [DREAMer] beneficiaries and 1.8 million “other DACA-eligible illegal immigrants.”
Criticism from members of the Republicans’ Freedom Caucus of the White House proposal did not assuage the perennially critical Democrats.
While Democrats have long claimed that DACA was so urgent that it even merited shutting down the federal government, they showed their true colors when their claim to virtue signalling and identity politics was at stake. Among them was Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has not been above claiming distant American Indian relations to advance her political career. Known to some as “Pocahontas,” Warren wrote on Twitter that in rescinding DACA, Trump had “subjected 800k Dreamers to deportation” and now wanted to “hold them hostage to [White House adviser] Steven [sic] Miller’s anti-immigrant wish list.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi asserted that the offer was “part of the Trump Administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.” Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) declared the White House proposal as “dead on arrival,” claiming that it advances a “hard-line immigration agenda—including massive cuts to legal immigration—on the backs of these young people.”
The immigration reform proposal is Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon’s white nationalist agenda. #SOTU— Linda Sarsour (@lsarsour) January 31, 2018
But Democrats have a history of hypocrisy in the area of immigration. In 2013, for example, Pelosi praised Senate passage of a bill because it upheld “our basic principles: to secure our borders, protect our workers, unite families, and offer an earned pathway to citizenship.”
Less than a decade ago, Sen. Chuck Schumer told an audience at Georgetown University, “The American people are fundamentally pro-legal immigration and anti-illegal immigration. We will only pass comprehensive reform when we recognize this fundamental concept.” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) told the audience on “The View” that the term “chain migration” is a racist slur to describe the sponsoring of immigrants by American citizens and legal resident aliens.
Cheerleaders in the media have also taken up the race-baiting banner. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson wrote on Tuesday: “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.”
As recounted in the works of Spero News columnist Stephanie Block, “Change Agents: Alinskyian Organizing Among Religious Bodies,” Volumes 1-4, the abhorrent yet effective strategy of the left is to isolate and vilify political opponents. She recounts that in his seminal work, “Rules for Radicals”, radical author Saul Alinsky wrote, “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, Alinsky’s rules have become rules for Democrats. For example, the term “chain migration,” which is a term that has been used by sociologists since the 1960s, has been deemed as racist. Because Democrats must believe that “chain migration” does not cause tears to flow or hearts to flutter, it is a term that must be eliminated and attributed to Republicans, whose only presumed intentions must be racist. Dan Stein, who leads the Federation for American Immigration Reform, may have correctly criticized the Trump administration immigration reform when he claimed that it offers “Americans too little while granting illegal aliens too much."
Washington Post reporter David Nakaruma recently said that "chain migration" as a turn of phrase has been “co-opted” by the opponents of immigration in order to generate “a bad feeling among ordinary Americans who are hearing these terms.” Nakaruma said, "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."