Surprising only to the New York Times

I was scrolling through my Twitter feed when I happened across a headline from the New York Times that actually made me put my head in my hands.

Check it out:

Legal immigrants opposing Sanctuary bills is surprising?


The only people who would be surprised by this work at the New York Times.

At first blush, making Howard County a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants had seemed a natural move: The county has twice as many Democrats as Republicans and a highly educated population, full of scientists and engineers. One in five residents was born abroad.
But the bill met stout opposition from an unlikely source: some of those very same foreign-born residents.

Why is opposition from legal immigrants “unlikely?”

Well, let me answer that rhetorical question.

This is what happens when you do not distinguish between immigrants and foreign nationals in the country illegally.

Immigrants followed the rules. They made the effort to come to the United States by legal means. And they are here to be Americans.

Foreign nationals who violate our immigration laws leap-frog over those seeking to enter legally. They break our laws, disproportionately avail themselves of our welfare system, and are a drain on education, healthcare and law enforcement.

Yet cities, counties and states want to shield these foreign nationals from facing the consequences of their own illegal actions.

Why wouldn’t legal immigrants object?

In passionate testimony before county legislators, and in tense debates with liberal neighbors born in the United States, legal immigrants argued that offering sanctuary to people who came to the country illegally devalued their own past struggles to gain citizenship.
Some even felt it threatened their hard-won hold on the American dream.
Their objections stunned Democratic supporters of sanctuary here and helped bring about the bill’s demise in March. A similar proposal for the state collapsed this month in the Maryland Senate, where Democrats also hold a two-to-one advantage. Some of the same immigrants spoke out against it.

Stop and marvel over this.

Only Liberals would be “stunned” that their immigrant neighbors oppose coddling illegals.

That’s how condescending American Liberals are, my friends.

They really do believe that they know better than their legal immigrant neighbors.

Dare I say it, but doesn’t that make them kind of racist?

Before profiling four legal immigrants who oppose Sanctuary bills, the New York Times added this eye-opening statement:

Some supporters of sanctuary had dismissed them as white-collar professionals whose personal struggles could not compare with those of undocumented people now facing possible deportation.

Immigrants who are white collar professionals. Remember when those were the kind of immigrants we wanted?

Now Liberals hurl “white collar professionals” as if it’s some kind of invective.

Good grief.

But let’s unpack this claim.

First of all, I agree. They don’t compare to illegal aliens now facing possible deportation.

You want to know why?

Because they are legal immigrants who followed the law, not foreign nationals in the country illegally!

Oy, the work.

But it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the New York Times pretends not to know the difference between legal immigrants and foreign nationals in the country illegally.

Keep in mind that the New York Times owes its life to Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim who, in 2008, bailed out the paper of record before it went bankrupt.

Slim depends on those remittances pouring into Mexico from both legal immigrants and illegal aliens.

From Ann Coulter’s book Adios, America: The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country into a Third World Hellhole:

Not only do taxpayers have to support Americans who lose their jobs to low-wage immigrant laborers, taxpayers support the immigrants, too. Seventy-five percent of immigrant families from Mexico are on government assistance.
Then they turn around and give the money to Carlos Slim. The majority of the money sent by immigrants to Mexico is used for “consumption”— i.e., to buy Carlos Slim’s telephone service, shop at Carlos Slim’s department stores, and eat in Carlos Slim’s restaurants. Slim’s businesses account for 40 percent of all publicly traded companies on Mexico’s main stock market index.

Slim is as dependent on illegals sending cash to Mexico as the New York Times is dependent on Slim.

Ann goes on:

That’s why, in 2014, Slim was exhorting Mexican youth to cross illegally into the United States for jobs. The stated purpose of Obama’s open defiance of American immigration laws was to avoid punishing “children” who were brought to the United States by their parents. Slim didn’t care about that. (Then again, neither did Obama.) He just wanted more Mexicans working in America and sending dollars back to him. As the CEO of the “Carlos Slim Foundation” explained, “[O]ur goal is to reduce the access barriers for them to reach this potential . . . to build not just them but their families, so they’re able to contribute to the economy”—i.e., the Mexican economy owned by Carlos Slim.

And since he’s the Times’ sugar daddy, they need to toe the line by blurring the line between legal immigrants and illegal aliens.

Trust me. The fact that legal immigrants are sick and tired of getting lumped into the same group as foreign nationals who broke our immigration laws surprises nobody.

Well, nobody except condescending, well-meaning racist Liberals and the editorial staff from Carlos Slim’s New York Times.

Hit the tip jar!

Please consider making a contribution to Hit DONATE button in the side bar. Even a few bucks can make a world of difference!