Media Give Raise Act Silent Treatment

Media bias comes in many forms. One that is difficult for normies to sniff out is the editorial decision of what to publish and what to ignore. It is however the basis of the agenda setting power of the NYTimes and WashPo and network newscasts. We recently saw an example of it revealed by emails of journalists plotting with Obama administration officials to minimize coverage of the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting.

Now we have an example with the cold shoulder they have given the Raise Act, Trump's signature piece of legislation on the signature issue of his campaign. Every poll shows wide public support for the basic principles of the bill, eg drastically cutting back so-called family unification visas and giving priority to immigrants with useful skills. The media however have largely ignored the issue or featured predictions it cannot pass from amnesty supporting republicans.

As Ann Coulter points out, even the republican amnesty chorus is mainly interested in cheap workers, not paying the bills for the disabled parents and distant relatives of cheap labor. Voting against the bill should be a tough vote and likely career ender for many senators and representatives. So rather than inform the public what is at stake, the media just ignore it or mischaracterize it as anti-immigrant bigotry.
 
TRUMP GOT YOUR TONGUE, MEDIA?
August 9, 2017 by Ann Coulter

The current issue of Newsweek (yes, it's still in business!) has a picture of President Trump sitting in a recliner, with snacks and an iPad in his lap, pointing his TV remote at the viewer, blazoned with the headline, "Lazy Boy."

Liberals only wish.

Last week, the president joined Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) to announce legislation that would make seminal changes to our immigration laws for the first time in more than half a century, profoundly affecting the entire country.

The media have chosen not to cover the RAISE Act (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment). This bill is their worst nightmare.

Instead of admitting immigrants on the basis of often specious "family" ties, the bill would finally allow us to choose the immigrants we want, based on merit, with points granted for skills, English proficiency, advanced degrees, actual job offers and so on.

Most Americans have no idea that we have zero say about the vast majority of immigrants pouring into our country. Two-thirds of all legal immigrants get in not because we want them -- or even because Mark Zuckerberg wants them -- but under idiotic "family reunification" laws.

The most important provision of the RAISE Act would define "family" the way most Americans think of it: your spouse and minor children.

Unfortunately, that's not how the Third World thinks of "family." In tribal societies, "family" means the whole extended clan -- adult siblings, elderly parents and brothers-in-law, plus all their adult siblings and elderly parents, and so on, ad infinitum.

Entire tribes of immigrants are able to bully their way in and, as legal immigrants, are immediately eligible for a whole panoply of government benefits. Suddenly, there's no money left in the Social Security Trust Fund, and Speaker Paul Ryan is telling Americans they're going to have to cut back.

At some point, American businesses are going to have to be told they can't keep bringing in cheap foreign labor, changing the country and offloading the costs onto the taxpayer. But that's not this discussion. Business owners want cheap workers -- not the disabled parents of cheap workers.

In a sane world, merely introducing such an important bill -- with the imprimatur of a president elected on his immigration stance -- would force the media to finally discuss the subject they have been deliberately hiding from the public.

Has Trump personally endorsed any other legislation like this? He harangued congressional Republicans on Twitter to pass some Obamacare replacement, but he never endorsed a specific bill.

But, you see, there's a reason the media don't want to talk about immigration.

With a full public airing, Americans would finally understand why recent immigrants seem so different from earlier waves, why income inequality is approaching czarist Russia levels, why the suicide rate has skyrocketed among the working class, and why all our government benefits programs are headed toward bankruptcy.

As Stephen Miller, the president's inestimable speechwriter, said, some legislative proposals "can only succeed in the dark of night" and some "can only succeed in the light of day." This is a light-of-day bill.

So, naturally, the media refuse to mention it, except to accuse Miller of being a white nationalist for knowing hate-facts about the Emma Lazarus poem not being part of the original Statue of Liberty. (It's the Statue of Liberty, not Statute of Liberty, media.)

They ignore this bill so they can get on to the important business of Trump's tweets, who's up and who's down in the White House, and Russia, Russia, Russia.

According to my review of Nexis archives, there was only a single question about the RAISE Act on any of the Sunday morning shows: Chris Wallace's last question to his very important Republican guest. Unfortunately, his very important Republican guest was amnesty-supporting nitwit Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who sniped about Trump employing foreign guest workers at Mar-a-Lago.

However that may be, guest workers have absolutely nothing to do with the RAISE Act, which, as Miller heroically tried to explain to clueless reporters, concerns only green-card holders, i.e., lawful permanent residents -- not guest workers, not illegal aliens and not a poem Scotch-taped onto Lady Liberty in 1903.

At least the media aren't deluded about the popularity of their position. Discussing immigration is a total loser for them. They know what they want is not supported by anyone.

Low-wage workers don't want hundreds of thousands of low-skilled immigrants being dumped on the country every year. Employers don't want the deadbeat cousins of their cheap workers. Americans on public assistance don't want foreigners competing with them for benefits. Boneheaded Scandinavian communities that welcomed refugees don't want to turn their entire town budgets over to various foreign tribes.

In a recent Numbers USA poll of voters in 10 swing states with vulnerable Democratic senators up for re-election next year, only 22 percent of respondents thought immigrants should be allowed by right to bring in "family" other than spouses and minor children.

Make the senators vote, Mr. President!

Donald Trump was elected president, beating the smartest, most qualified woman in the world, by proposing to put Americans first on immigration. This bill makes good on that promise.

There's a reason the media won't discuss it. If Trump were smart, he'd talk about nothing else.

COPYRIGHT 2017 ANN COULTER
 
The fact that we would want to admit immigrants who might actually add to our country rather than be a drain on it is bigotry?

She describes all immigrants as low wage workers or moochers. It's all just wrong and thus her lies come across as bigotry.

If instead he made a cogent argument, it wouldn't be bigotry. But instead it's just inflammatory and thus not newsworthy except for its trollish value.
 
She describes all immigrants as low wage workers or moochers. It's all just wrong and thus her lies come across as bigotry.

If instead he made a cogent argument, it wouldn't be bigotry. But instead it's just inflammatory and thus not newsworthy except for its trollish value.

Yes, using merit as a deciding factor is clear bigotry.
 
Yes, using merit as a deciding factor is clear bigotry.

I don't know if you are confusing the point intentionally or you don't understand.

Having a merit based immigration policy is worthy of conversation.

Saying "all immigrants who use family unification are moochers and low wage monkeys" is not worthy of a conversation and a debate. So when the OP claimed that this rule will be viewed as bigotry, he is right when it's presented the way Ann Coulter presents it.

Want to be taken seriously in life. Present cogent rational arguments. Stop insulting everyone. Your ideas and actions are inherently linked to intent and language whether you like it or not.
 
This is an example of why it is a waste of time to discuss any issues with progressives. They lack a sense of humor, and their PC-deadened minds are in constant search for anything they can flag as offensive.

Ann never wrote "all immigrants who use family unification are moochers and low wage monkeys", even though he used quotation marks to make it seem that she did. Like the GOOG CEO, he then attacks his imaginary strawman. Her point was admitting vast tribes of claimed relatives more or less as a matter of right is insane. In fact a substantial and growing percentage of them are welfare recipients. Why we would admit people who immediately go on welfare is a difficult issue for progressives to answer, so they either ignore it or go immediately to the race/bigotry/hate card.
 
Back
Top