Not surprisingly, the Courier opinion page has included several pieces recently about the immigration debate. Those pieces have generally been in support of a relaxed approach to immigration, both in accepting new arrivals and dealing with those already here without authorization (entering illegally or over-staying visas). The opinions offered are either negative (anyone opposed to that approach is heartless, uncharitable, or simply racist), or affirmative (welcoming immigrants is wonderful, and they eventually are a net positive for our country).
Charity is wonderful, but should not be a basis for governmental policy. If any, government largess should focus within our borders. Does anyone doubt there are homeless, hungry, disabled, abused, unemployed, illiterate, functionally uneducated Americans that have the need for help? To the extent events in other countries call for humanitarian assistance, relief should be event- and location-specific, provided as directly to the people as possible, and limited to the immediate need. We cannot afford to, and have no obligation to, fix the world’s problems.
Is Trump eloquent? Sadly, no. Was his Haiti/Norway comment racist? Only to those who see everything through the prism of race, or who seek to score political ‘gotcha’ points. The relevant difference between Norway and Haiti is not race but that the population of some countries (e.g., Norway) are more likely to be literate, educated, and healthy and therefore a better source of immigrants than countries (e.g., Haiti) with a population that is less so.
Sorry if this triggers, but – America first!