NYT Angry That Reported Refugee Reform Puts America First

On Wednesday, The New York Times’ Zolan Kanno-Youngs and Hamed Aleaziz reported the Trump administration is considering “giving preference to English speakers” and foreigners who “oppose migration” to potential refugee seekers.

According to The Times, “The proposed changes would put new emphasis on whether applicants would be able to assimilate into the United States, directing them to take classes on ‘American history and values’ and ‘respect for cultural norms.’”

To The Times, such alleged reforms are apparently scandalous — as if wanting foreigners to be able to understand our history and values and respect our culture is some sort of problem. In reality, it’s what any serious nation would do. Of course prospective refugees or any other migrant should be evaluated on whether they can integrate into American life.

“The proposals, some of which already have gone into effect, would transform a decades-old program aimed at helping the world’s most desperate people into one that conforms to Mr. Trump’s vision of immigration — which is to help mostly white people who say they are being persecuted while keeping the vast majority of other people out,” Kanno-Youngs and Aleaziz write.

To be clear, Kanno-Youngs and Aleaziz are — as any good leftist propagandist would — trying to frame these commonsense reforms as racism. But there is nothing racist about wanting immigrants who speak English, and “‘American history and values’ and ‘respect for cultural norms’” to be prioritized — whether they also happen to be white doesn’t matter. In fact, learning English is hardly a high bar in today’s world. Technology and global education make it easy to learn English, so English proficiency isn’t some impossible barrier to entry for nonwhite foreigners, it is just the basic expectation for anyone serious about joining our society. The only people who would be excluded by that requirement are people who are unwilling to assimilate in the first place. Further, someone who can’t speak English can’t meaningfully participate in our social contract because without a shared language, he can’t understand our cultural expectations or civic duties.

America’s immigration and refugee policies are supposed to serve Americans — not the world’s “most desperate people” and certainly not the globalists over at The New York Times.

Current U.S. law describes a refugee as a foreigner who may face persecution in his home country on the basis of “race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.”

But this description is not a permission slip for unlimited entry. The real question is — after an individual meets one or more of the criteria — how will that individual impact the United States culturally, community-wise, and ultimately, what is our capacity to absorb newcomers like at any given moment?

Certain English-speaking foreigners from European nations place far less strain on American communities than the resettlement of thousands of individuals from vastly different societies that differ in language, norms, and civic expectations. It’s not prejudice or racism, it’s just the reality that assimilation depends on shared language, values, and cultural compatibility rather than the wishful thinking that has consumed left wing globalists.

Because if you don’t consider these things, you end up in a situation like in Dearborn Heights, Michigan, where officials in the community were discussing a potential police patch that would be in Arabic. A Facebook post from the police department said the Dearborn Heights Police Department said the patch was “designed … to reflect and honor the diversity of our community – especially the many residents of Arabic descent who call Dearborn Heights home,” according to Fox News.

But as I previously wrote, the hallmark of assimilation is learning and embracing the language — which in this country, is English. Allowing mass waves of foreigners who don’t speak English means that not only will it be harder for them to assimilate — but they may not try ot assimilate at all. Instead, they may try to create ethnic enclaves in American cities, as is the case in Dearborn Heights. Which is why reforms to prioritize English speakers are more than necessary and common-sense.

Further, a sound refugee policy must balance sustainability and cultural cohesion. Alexander Hamilton said as much in 1802, “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common National sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias, and prejudice.”

Hamilton understood what the modern left refuses to: that is, a nation cannot endure without a shared language, culture, and sense of belonging. Such features and habits of a people are foundational to the success of the country and therefore should be the foundation of our immigration and refugee policies. The Times and the left’s apparent outrage over these commonsense reforms, however, is borne out of a hatred toward those things — because those things create and sustain a nation, and globalists hate nations.

As The Federalist’s John Daniel Davidson wrote in these pages, America is not merely an idea. It’s a real country with a culture, a history, and a people. Therefore, refugee policy must be guided not just by humanitarian instinct, but by national cohesion and cultural compatibility. A nation cannot sustain itself if it is unable or unwilling to discern which refugees will assimilate into and strengthen its national fabric.

“Prioritizing certain foreigners over others is a repudiation of the popular but fatuous notion that any person from any culture or part of the world can become an American simply by going through a neutral administrative process. In other words, it matters where you come from, what you believe, and how you live,” Davidson explained. “In practice, that means it’s going to be easier for some foreigners to become Americans than it is for others.”

America’s leaders owe their duty to their own citizens, not citizens of foreign nations. Exercising discretion over who enters the country is good governance.

Brianna Lyman is an elections correspondent at The Federalist. Brianna graduated from Fordham University with a degree in International Political Economy. Her work has been featured on Newsmax, Fox News, Fox Business and RealClearPolitics. Follow Brianna on X: @briannalyman2