printThat US immigrant is … me.
A couple of the regular “conservative” culprits were cogitating, on Bret Bair’s Special Report, over who could come up with the most “inspiring” (read schmaltzy) message to lure the only immigrants America seems eager to court.
The Republican Party was being described as the designated home of the poor, low-skilled, Latin, welfare recipient (by default), likely illegal new arrival, when, out of the blue, a bold Tucker Carlson saw fit to reintroduced an outrageous idea you’ve heard from other patriots (and even from David Frum).
Desirable immigrants, and I paraphrase Mr. Carlson (transcripts, a civilized feature, so rare online, should be up shortly), are those who are financially successful. (For even if you are a stellar guy earning $17,000; other native and immigrant families will be subsidizing your medical care, your nutritional needs—through food stamps—your schooling, etc.)
To flabbergasted glares from his co-panelists, Tucker inquired as to why we were avoiding a “conversation” about an unmistakable trend—as well as about the identities and countries of origin from whence successful immigrants tend to hail (versus the identity of the unsuccessful kind). Carlson even credited the good kind of newcomer for being partial to the host country’s values and culture.
He will be branded as a racist. That’s for sure.
But thanks, Mr. Carlson. And yeah, how about a “positive” message to high-value immigrants, you know, the kind that help pay for the political largess politicians and pundits are so eager to extend? Kind words are seldom directed at those who do not insist on their right to mulct other Americans (immigrants included) out of their earnings.
The process Canada follows is based on the merits of the individual; his education, linguistic skills (English and French), appreciable achievements and likely ability to find employment. Novel, isn’t it?
UPDATE (Dec. 4): The Carlson quote is up. Here is what Mr. Carlson said to his flabbergasted co-panelists:
CARLSON: …”Well, the screen begins with a conversation about outcomes. Why is it that immigrants from certain countries have not thrived and immigrants from other countries have thrived? No one wants to have that conversation because it’s considered mean, but when the future of the country is at stake, it’s worth taking a rational, non-passionate, and, by the way, nonpolitical look at outcomes, and ask real questions like, why is it? You’re not attacking anybody. But these are questions that we need to ask because the country is at stake.”
Meager but meaningful, considering the climate.