The Hate-Hype Chorus Sings Again

One of the most despicable propaganda tactics of open border advocates is to label any criticism of illegal immigration as “hate speech” which then creates a “climate of hate” which in turn prompts crimes of violence against illegal aliens. The strategy isn’t hard to figure. Its perpetrators want to link speech they hate with “hate crime” in order to criminalize their opponents’ views. People with this mindset in Europe and Canada have successfully curtailed free speech in their lands, and their American counterparts are aiming to do the same thing here.

A particularly egregious example of hate-to-crime hype was The New York Times’ November 14th editorial berating Steve Levy, the Suffolk (New York) County executive. For the record, Levy is an elected official who has listened to the concerns of his constituents about illegal immigration and has worked within the law to bring about reforms.

But according to Times’ superheated editorialists, Levy was somehow linked to the murder of an illegal alien from Ecuador, allegedly by a group of drunken teenagers. Failing to make any rational connection between Levy’s stand for law and order and the murder, the Times’ opinionists fumed that the country executive “parroted extremist talking points. . . . He denounces racist hatred, yet his works make him a hero in pockets of Long Island where veins of racism run deep.”

One might reply that it is places like the Times’ editorial offices where contempt for ordinary Americans runs deep. To illustrate, such dens of elitism seldom show concern when illegal aliens commit heinous crimes against Americans. What did these hate-hype artists have to say last summer, for instance, when an illegal alien from El Salvador heartlessly gunned down an American father and his two sons in San Francisco? Was this killer motivated by racial hated or anti-Americanism? Alas, such questions rarely arise in the polite company of our media Mandarins.

For the record, violence and murder are wrong, no matter who commits them and no matter who the victims are. Immigration restrictionists, as upholders of the rule of law, are strongly inclined to condemn illegal acts. They have every right, however, to feel anger toward foreigners in their midst who show contempt for our country and its rules. And it is the height of dishonesty to confuse their justified outrage with malicious hatred. Under our system they have to express that outrage by working legally to change the system.

Acts of violence against illegal aliens should be punished, as any other crimes. And racial slurs and other truly abusive language against them should be condemned and discouraged. But reprehensible as well are the people who use these unfortunate occurrences of crime and malice to advance their own bigoted agenda of silencing dissent.       

If The New York Times and its ilk are truly concerned about violence breaking out, they should stop promoting a climate of anarchy with respect to immigration law. When the rule law goes down in any area, the probability of violence of all kinds goes up. With its irresponsible rhetoric, the Times is abusing freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

This irresponsibility, however, should never become a crime. The remedy for the abuse of free speech is more free speech to set the record straight. Opponents of immigration anarchy must speak out all the more about their just grievances, and not yield to the hate-hype chorus.