Trending
Stephen Kershnar (Feb. 8) has a lot of nerve to call critics of his right-wing nationalist agenda "unbelievably ignorant"; hardly a professorial or philosophical argument, I think. And a lot of local conservatives and populists wrongly seem to assume that a professor must have his details straight -- especially if they already believe and accept such "alternative facts."
What follows corrects his and their unawareness about some of the actual facts and key data.
First, consider that Kershnar claims that President Trump's Executive Order was not a ban. But it was, as is proven by Mr. Trump's own words during the campaign and since, and by several of his representatives. In fact, his comments about a "Muslim ban" were turned against his recent executive order in an appeals court case as evidence of its unconstitutionality. And that court -- on Feb. 10, not Kershnar, has since concluded in a unanimous ruling (3-0) that the ban is contrary to the Constitution because, among other problems, the government demonstrated "no substantive evidence to support a need for the ban." And the court took special note of "numerous statements by the president about his intent to implement a 'Muslim ban' as well as evidence they claim suggests that the executive order was intended to be that ban." The professor, like others, is thus simply citing his opinion of the ban, one that the court and many more Americans reject.
For example, at last count about 60 percent of Americans oppose the ban, 70 percent the ban on Syrian refugees (New York Post, Feb 7); and according to the Gallup organization, as of Feb. 10 only 42 percent supported Mr. Trump's performance in office. Moreover, on Feb. 8, in the Washington Post, more than 500 Evangelical leaders and pastors published a letter denouncing the ban as un-Christian, citing the Bible to remind readers of their "Christian duty" for charity toward refugees. So both the Catholic Bishops and the Evangelical leadership condemn the ban, as no doubt do many from other religious communities.
But Kershnar instead approvingly consults the National Review, a bastion of single-minded right-wing opinion, and even feels comfortable with the reliability of the alt-right "newspaper" Breitbart, widely considered by political analysts and critics to be the main publishing mouthpiece of propaganda for white supremacists and whose former editor Steven Bannon now seems to be running the White House. Fun quotes: "State Department reverses visa ban" (Feb. 4 Breitbart headline, italics mine); or, on feminism, "Birth control makes women unattractive and crazy" (Breitbart headline Aug. 24, 2016).
The professor clearly reveals a personal bias when he describes what he sweepingly generalizes as the undesirable traits of "these groups," by which he seems to mean all those from the seven countries named in the ban -- even though most domestic terrorism since 9/11 has been by American citizens. Thus, he points only to Muslim anti-Semitism and anti-gay hatred as typical of them, without acknowledging similar characteristics among some Americans, especially white-supremacist groups. (Remember Timothy McVeigh who in April 14, 1995 bombed and killed scores of people in Kansas City?).
Nonetheless, Mr. Trump, in another (even worse) action, has changed the focus of the "Countering Violent Extremism" governmental program that formerly monitored all extremist groups, to henceforth focus only on "radical Islam." Thus, despite his loud claims of concern for the security of America, and ignoring the FBI's judgment that the violent ideology of extremist right-wing American individuals and cell-groups is the greatest threat of terrorism (see Google, "It's not foreigners who are plotting here . . . ''), he leaves Americans open to home-grown terrorists. For example, In recent weeks a worrying number of synagogues and churches in the U.S. have been threatened by such bigots (e.g., see Google, "Three synagogues in Stamford threatened . . . ).
And the professor concludes his long harangue with an attempt to prove that immigrants?and from the beginning he confuses all immigrants with the sub-set of refugees escaping life-threatening conditions?are a drag on the economy and our taxes. Wrong! Published data in a report from the Wharton School (June 2016, the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School (of economics and business) cites the following contradictory and surprising findings:
¯ In recent years there has been no slower wage growth due to immigrants, documented or not.
¯ Immigrants are "in the forefront of innovation and ingenuity" and produce patents at a rate twice that of native-born Americans, thus promoting the economy.
¯ In fact, they also help "expand the domestic economy" by spending money.
¯ Thus, they make a "net positive contribution to the federal budget" and local and state sales taxes.
¯ There are only "small costs on Social Security and Medicare."
¯ And, contrary to the professor's conviction and probably common intuition, they require a "below average" degree of public assistance compared to Americans.
¯ Furthermore, "they reduce the federal tax burden of the average citizen."
¯ And, in conclusion, their effects on the economy are reported as "broadly positive."
(see, Google, "The impact of immigration on the US economy" for the easily readable report and supporting data, graphs, etc. -- and while you're doing that, check out the several other similar studies cited on Google with similar titles, and about the world-class reputation of the Wharton School).
The writer's personal animosity to immigrants (what he describes as the "flood" and "torrent of immigrants") is greatly uninformed in one further way: he is decidedly ignorant of the fact that the largest influx of immigrants to the U.S. since 2009 comes from China, East Asia, and India (shall we ban them, too?). And that the FBI reports that terror suspects are mainly coming from Canada (The Daily Beast, Feb. 7)! Shall we build a wall from California all the way to Maine?
As far as the doom and gloom of Trump and Kershnar about the dangers facing America, the court was given no evidence of a protective need to ban entire groups of people based on where they live or have visited. Homeland Security, the FBI and local law enforcement have been on their toes and there's no reason to doubt their ability to continue being effective. Problems in Europe are not relevant: those countries were not formed by immigrants, most are small and protective about their language and customs, and have little historical experience with incorporating immigrants or refugees.
Thomas A. Regelski is emeritus distinguished teaching professor at the State University of New York at Fredonia.