Pushback

In a really entertaining back and forth on Donald Trump's proposed legal immigration policy* between Jim Acosta of CNN and the administration's Stephen Miller, Acosta suggested that requiring some proficiency in English and a markable skill that might add value to our country was "against our values."

Really? What "values" exactly? I guess, according to Acosta, they're the values espoused in a 19th century Emma Lazarus poem about "huddled masses." In a way, that's kind of laughable. Acosta and his ilk would be the first to note that the 18th century Constitution of the United States is a living document that is open to broad interpretation so that it fits our modern times. But an 19th century poem—oh yeah, that's sacrosanct.

But there is a bigger issue here. Why is it that those on the Left (and Acosta, like most of the trained hamsters in the main stream media, is a denizen of the Left) have decided that they and they alone have a monopoly on "our values?" To be blunt, who appointed them as the sole arbiter of what American values are?

The inimitable Kurt Schlichter comments:

You want to know why you got Trump? This is why you got Trump. He was the only nominee not telling normal Americans “You’re stupid, so shut up and do what you're told.”

But the liberals don't see anything wrong with that. They do think you're stupid, and that you should shut up and let them tell you what to do. This arrogance is a result of the false premise underpinning America’s elite class. That false premise is that the prestigious educational credentials that confer elite status also confer competence. Nope.

Basically, 17-year-olds apply and get accepted to the right college and this itself is a sufficient achievement to enroll them in the elite. They don’t have to actually do anything once they are accepted because no one fails to graduate from the Harvards or Yales unless he chooses to drop out, or unless he's a male who gets jammed up by a kangaroo court because he broke up with some bitter chick who then carries a mattress around because of patriarchy or something. So basically, you get into the Ivy League and then you start school at 18 and then you're set. You're part of the elite, and everyone else should bow down and acknowledge your awesomeness.

These people imagine they attained their lofty positions as a result of their successful performance within a strict meritocracy, and that their cultural power is not just the result of their efforts but of their innate moral goodness. But here’s the thing about America’s meritocracy - is it really so much for us to expect that those occupying the heights of the meritocracy start showing some merit?

We keep hearing from them about how society is such a mess, that we are besieged by problems, and that our society is a disaster. Of course, the solution is always to shift more and more power and money from the normals to the elite. But this raises a question the elite never seems to ask: Who the hell has been in charge while all these crises were percolating?

And there is the rub. The elite media doesn't like it when people like Steven Miller, or for that matter, the President of the United States, push back. They really don't like it when they are accused of the things (e.g., racism) that they so blithely accuse others of.

The American people have observed the elites (both Dem and GOP) and their policies for many decades. The results of elite governance are very mixed. They are certainly not all good. The elites have created generation after generation of dependents who now demand rights that don't exist and free stuff from the government that isn't at all free.

It's long past time for some pushback, and the elites don't like that one bit.


FOOTNOTE:
-------------------
* As a practical matter, I disagree with some of the changes proposed by Trump. I believe that legal immigration is a net positive and that vetted immigrants should be allowed to enter our country in approximately the same numbers as the past. I also believe that English language skills are important, but not mandatory, if the person has other attributes that warrant admission. But all that's beside the point. Trump's comments represent a proposal that would be modified extensively by Congress before any legislation is passed and would likely be softened, as it should be. It is however, completely acceptable to follow the many countries (e.g., Canada, Australia) that do establish some requirements for legal immigrants, including establishing a requirement that those immigrants do not stress our social welfare system immediately upon arrival.