Fox News’ Laura Ingraham Bemoans Immigration and Demographic Changes (Is She Wrong?)

Fox News’ Laura Ingraham Bemoans Immigration and Demographic Changes (Is She Wrong?) August 9, 2018

How many 100 percent, pure blood Native Americans do I have reading, right now? I’m genuinely curious.

As we all get further away from our roots, pinpointing the particulars of our origins tends to fade from certainty to guesstimates.

The reality is, most of us living in the United States today are a beautiful patchwork of varied racial and national roots.

I recently did one of those DNA tests that are supposed to track down ancestry through a saliva sample. In the most accurate of terms, if there is any validity to these things, you can refer to me as Heinz 57, at this point.

There were some surprises.

My results were 36 percent Scandinavian, 31 percent Irish, 14 percent Great Britain, 10 percent African (with 5 percent from Nigeria, and the rest distributed among the Congo, Benin, Togo, and Libya), 3 percent Russian, and a wide smattering among the Iberian Peninsula and Western Europe.

I had 1 percent Native American in my DNA profile.

I am a mutt; A beautiful, beloved by an almighty God, collection of many different peoples and places, and I’m pretty happy about that.

I’m also uniquely, unapologetically American.

Part of being American is understanding that it took a little of everybody from everywhere to make this nation what it is.

So, yeah. Fox News personality Laura Ingraham really stepped in it, Wednesday night.

Ingraham was in the process of doing a segment on Democratic House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Ocasio-Cortez, not the swiftest or brightest candidate Democrats could offer up, is getting a pass because she wants to make everything in the nation paid for by the government, a move the socialist faction of the left can totally get behind.

Millennials fail to see the actual cost of getting everything “free,” as evidenced by Freebie Barbie’s inability to adequately explain how her proposed programs would be funded.

Ingraham was having some fun with Ocasio-Cortez’s description in a podcast interview of how the face of the nation has changed over the last few decades, including with a declining upper middle class.

“She’s kind of right in a general sense,” Ingraham said after mocking Ocasio-Cortez’s comments.

“In some parts of the country it does seem like the America we know and love doesn’t exist anymore,” Ingraham continued. “Massive demographic changes have been foisted upon the American people. And they’re changes that none of us ever voted for and most of us don’t like.

“Now much of this is related to both illegal and, in some cases, legal immigration that of course progressives love,” she added.

You know, She’s not entirely wrong, at least in saying that things are changing.

I’ll even go as far as to defend her right to be concerned.

It’s not the “look” of the nation that is a problem presented by immigration. Ingraham’s failure is in adequately expressing that.

Immigration in the early, formative years of the nation was different.

Those who came here had a singular goal of freedom. They shared the dream of America. They wanted opportunity. They wanted to embrace and embody the American dream – freedom of religion, freedom to speak and be heard by their government. They wanted to belong.

Today’s immigrants seem to want all the perks, but they also want separate communities within the greater structure of the nation.

We have to be honest and open about this. We shouldn’t run from the debate.

There are some cultures that clash with a free republic. The question becomes how do we deal with incompatible cultures, while maintaining the freedoms we were built upon?

It becomes harder to have those conversations openly when you have loyalists on either side making it a partisan issue.

“Remember the old Democrats — maybe some of them Ocasio-Cortez is referring to — they used to think that borders mattered,” she said. “But the new activists believe enforcing immigration laws is essentially an ongoing human rights violation.”

Borders do matter. The immigration laws that have long been on the books are adequate and fair, but the nipping, tucking, adding, and subverting that have gone on for several decades now have distorted what was intended, and yes, it has all been for partisan purposes.

What former President Obama did with DACA was scandalous. What President Trump has done with everything from the “zero tolerance” policy that has separated families to a recently announced position that would punish legal immigrants that use public assistance, such as food stamps, is just vile.

That vileness makes Ingraham’s slavish praise of Trump ring awful and wrong, on so many levels.

Ingraham praised Trump in her remarks for bringing out “uncomfortable” truths about the country. She also said it was time for Congress to take action on immigration.

“The president can be so persuasive, so give us the whole truth, Mr. President, the good, the bad and, yes, the uncomfortable,” she said.

“This is a national emergency, and he must demand that Congress act now. There is something slipping away in this country, and it’s not about race or ethnicity. It’s what was once a common understanding by both parties that American citizenship is a privilege, and one that at a minimum requires respect for the rule of law and loyalty to our constitution.”

I don’t disagree with the need for respect for the rule of law or loyalty to the Constitution. What I disagree with is the notion that everything President Trump is doing is for our good.

Trump is taking direction from Stephen Miller, as far as his immigration policy, and much of it is heartless, pulling away from everything that has made our shores a welcome refuge, and meant to shape a policy that is exclusive, not inclusive.

Was Ingraham suggesting that the problem was with the race or ethnicity of immigrants?

I don’t think so. She’s an adoptive mother to 3 kids, some from Guatemala, one of the very nations affected by Trump’s immigration policies.

Was she right?

I don’t think this is an issue that anyone is going to get 100 percent right, at this point, and the fear is that we may be too far gone, too beholden to our emotions over the issue, and too partisan in our loyalties.


"The Apostles' Creed has nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Church.I addressed that in ..."

Let’s Address Franklin Graham’s Refusal to ..."
"There’s not a word within the creed you can question and still claim to be ..."

Let’s Address Franklin Graham’s Refusal to ..."
"Trump's cult of personality has inadvertently created the saddest group of people on the planet: ..."

A Review of U.S. – Saudi ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • JASmius

    Historically, the U.S. has had alternating waves of immigration and periods where immigration was cut off. The latter provided the breathing space to assimilate the preceding immigrant influx before the next wave began. What we have lacked over the past half-century-plus is that breathing space. The immigration floodgates were thrown open in 1965 and haven’t even been partially slowed down since. Cutting off illegal immigration should be a given; severely cutting back in legal immigration would provide a much-needed cultural respite. Both might have been doable had Donald Trump not come along, gone out of his way to loudly and obnoxiously embrace and personify every negative stereotype of conservatives that the Left has ever devised and spewed, and discredited every conservative policy idea across the board, most especially on immigration. The irony being that Trump is an open borders guy merely posing as an immigration hawk to put over his con. Nevertheless, if it’s ever possible to get back to a point where we can slow down legal immigration and control our borders, it will take years, and probably decades, so severe is the damage Trump has done to that particular cause.

  • GotMyLoveGlassesOn

    Good points.

  • Polarbearpapa

    Good read Susan…

    “The times they are uh changing” …

  • IllinoisPatriot

    I have found myself recently turning against the conservative principles that I once supported. Not because I feel the principles are wrong. It’s solely because I do not want Trump to succeed in his version of “implementation” since his implementation is invariably poisoned with his own toxic mix of cronyism, ignorance, bigotry, persona-enrichment, ego, and lack of consistency or consistent, coherent follow-up/follow-through. Trump is the absolute worst person to implement any conservative policy or to oversee said implementation. He corrupts everything he touches with hateful rhetoric that displays he’s implementing what should be difficult decisions requiring integrity, fairness, grace, and massive credible discussions with the public to explain and justify with nothing but personal animus, bigotry and hatred – and not necessarily limited to his OWN failings, but he’s also highlighting the influence of the bigotries and personal corruption of those around him in his decision-making process.

    Given the toxicity with which Trump implements and distorts what should be wholesome, healing policies for this country, it would be far better if he simply backed away from implementing ANY conservative policies and allowed the next president to attempt to heal the divisions and implement the healing – assuming the next president has credibility (first and foremost), integrity, propriety, respect for others, respect for even-handed implementation and administration in ALL areas of government, and a true desire to end the revolving doors of lobbyists, cronyism, and self-serving that has polluted and discredited our nationals government agencies and officials.

  • Steven Andrew

    It might be fun to write up a post telling us how you became a conservative, or what you see as conservative, in that past and in the future, what you identify with or champion. I have zero doubt that you’re sincere, but as the conservative movement has gone off toward the Trump corner, and a big part of that is both buffoonery and bigotry, I’d be interested to know what it is originally that fires you up vis-a-vie the movement writ large or on a finer scale, i.e., individual issues.

  • Jessie Collingsworth Yao

    Wonderful and well reasoned comments Illinois Patriot. I love it when an adult speaks. And thanks Susan for always bringing out the best in us.

  • IllinoisPatriot

    I cannot speak for Susan, but I’ll make an initial stab at an answer and hope others will chime in with modifications, additions, or disagreements:

    For me, conservatism is not just a set of political actions, nor a set of political policies. To me conservatism is an entire way of life that values and emphasizes a person’s character, values, ethics, morals, principles, courage, humility, and faith.

    A conservative will never “hate” someone simply because they disagree with one or more values unless that person’s values are dangerous, demeaning, or destructive to himself/herself or others. I can disagree whether Trump is good or bad for the country, but I will stop or report or refuse to associate with someone that publicly advocates for violence, for the death of another, for laws to be passed that have the understood intent of preventing others from speaking their minds or expressing opinions (whether the person justifies said laws with patriotic-sounding excuses or not) or any person that attempts to intimidate or frighten others into comply with his/her wishes using deceitful means.

    A conservative believes in personal honesty and personal honor. A handshake deal with a conservative is as binding to the conservative as a contract. His/her word is important and is not given lightly. Promises are to be kept and reflect on the value of a person’s honor and their word, therefore breaking a promise that is it possible to have kept is considered a stain on the character and honor of the individual – by the individual that made (then broke) the promise as well as those to whom the promise was made. If a conservative enters into a deal (handshake or formal contract) to pay for services rendered and the services are performed completely (but not satisfactorily, the conservative will still pay the full amount (because he/she made the deal), but retains the rights to (a) notify others of the shoddy workmanship that resulted from the deal, (b) never hire that person again and (c) report the person to the appropriate authorities and monitoring organizations (Better Business Bureau, authorities, etc). Should the job be charged more than the agreed amount to be paid, the conservative understands that he can only be held to his agreed payment amount and should either freely re-negotiate or report the attempted increase as “extortion” if a substantial amount. Under no circumstances would a conservative renege on a payment that was agreed to after the job had been accomplished and the other party’s work equity and materials had already been expended.

    A conservative is a person of good character. A conservative does not make false accusations or engage in malicious name-calling or gossip. A conservative does not use vulgar language and always sets a good example for others in public and in private under the expectation that children will be watching and emulating his/her actions and that other people may find vulgar language offensive for personal or religious reasons. A conservative does not act out of spite or pettiness, but out of courtesy, and good-will toward what can most help others. (Sometimes what most helps others is to refuse to give them the handouts they may ask for or demand, but to require them to earn the goods/food/respect for themselves. A conservative lives a life that is both respectful of and respected by others.

    A conservative is also a chauvinist (in the medieval sense of knighthood). He will put the welfare of women and children under his care above his own. He is unquestionably the head of the household. There can be only one “alpha” in any household. She will honor and respect and defer to the head-of-house, recognizing his role as “alpha” that necessary for children to understand the role of men in a family. When the woman is both the alpha and the nurturer, she cannot also be the disciplinarian and the “final word” lest she confuse “discipline” with “nurturing” and “alpha role” with the compromises needed in showing “compassion” and “understanding”. Some of the best lessons to children are when Mommy intercedes with Daddy’s “rigid” sense of “right” and “wrong” behavior for leniency when extenuating circumstances are involved. The quotes are intentional because Daddy’s “rigidity” may often be an act and “right” and “wrong” are the simplifications of the general rules of the moral and behavioral codes that Mommy and Daddy actually share and want their children to absorb.

    It’s hard to imagine a man retaining his personal honor or value system or even a desire to stay in a household when the woman of the household is determined to be the “alpha” and tell him what to do and when to do it to suit HER priorities, preferences, and beliefs on how HE should feel or act 24 hrs a day. Other than his sense of responsibility to the family and his belief that he plays a responsible and indispensable role as a parent in the household, a man has no real reason to stay with a woman – especially one that insists the kids belong to HER and that he has no say in how they are brought up or that he has no authority to require behavior patterns or obedience from the children of the household.

    For women and children not under his care, a conservative man will still practice medieval chivalry by opening doors, allowing women and children first in line, making extra allowances for women struggling with many kids or small children, even sometimes helping with physical tasks like lifting/carrying heavy loads or helping to corral or distract wayward children. This chivalry (for men) will usually include preceding women down steps (should they fall), following them up steps (should they fall), walking on the outside of the sidewalk (closer to traffic) and standing in serving lines while the lady(ies) find seats and settle any accompanying children that are present). For women, being conservative means being willing to accept what conservative men attempt to do for them with grace, respect, a smile and appreciation instead of accusations of “male superiority” or “toxic masculinity”.

    A conservative values integrity, personal honor, and good character above policies or political positions. This differentiates between the new-Republican conservatives that will sacrifice principles if they can get selected policies (actions) from Trump in the name of “compromise”. A conservative is one that lives the by the views he/she believes in – if a conservative says they do not believe in abortion, they would not vote to fund PP – even if the liberals are willing to force a government shutdown over the issue.

    A conservative values honesty and is neither afraid nor unwilling to admit when they are in error or when they have made an error. They do not view an apology as weakness, but as a sign of maturity and strength – maturity in knowing when their actions or speech have caused unnecessary and unreasonable harm to someone and the strength to admit that fact, the courage and honesty to realize they are in the wrong, and the courage to publicly express true remorse and to make an effort to mitigate the damage done. An apology can also be an actual sign of weakness – but only when it has been decoupled from a sense of responsibility for one’s actions and a sense of remorse and repentance for unnecessary damage that has resulted from ones words or actions. Such uncoupled apologies are worthless and show only that the one apologizing has capitulated to some type of pressure to “make amends” but has no actual intention to do so – essentially it is an apology without repentance and without meaning to the one apologizing or worth to the one being apologized to.

    A conservative recognizes and accepts reality – aka “facts of nature”, “natural law”, “God’s law”, “physics” and “peer-reviewed science” (as opposed to the “consensus science” of AGW where “facts” are determined by political agreement of “approved” individuals or organizations. For example: a male human is identified by the XY chromosomes in every cell of his body. No surgery or mental gymnastics can change that. There is no “consensus” of scientists that will ever succeed in repealing the Law of Gravity. Likewise, no one can dispute that the genetic make-up of a fertilized egg in woman’s womb is different from the DNA makeup of either the woman or the male’s sperm but is a combination of both. This makes the fertilized egg a unique being that is alive and that consists of human DNA (not cells from the mother). There is no point after conception where a potential human can be aborted without the term “murder” being applicable – regardless of what “consensus” would like one to believe. Likewise changing the data input to an unproven, unverified computer climate model in order to match a predetermined outcome is not science – it is skulduggery and deceit. To claim otherwise is not honest or honorable once the undeniable facts involved are accepted.

    A conservative woman will not gossip or use vulgar language. She will dress and act lady-like in public. If on a date, she will act in a manner that does not embarrass or shame her date. If out with her husband, she will not mock or argue with him in public (knowing that he will not take advantage of her restraint by taunting her or abusing her restraint). She will keep herself above reproach at all times, avoiding the appearance of impropriety with other men. A conservative woman may often be called upon to act as the “conscience” or “compassionate side” of her husband, but should acknowledge that there can be only one head-of-household in a successful marriage. A conservative woman will be as self-sufficient as possible, but will also recognize that her self-sufficiency cannot come at the expense of allowing others to do things for her as an expression of kindness, love or gratitude. A conservative woman will work for what she gets in life, recognizing that no one can ever properly appreciate something that comes “for free” without work or sacrifice (including welfare and trust-funds).

    A conservative recognizes that a person’s character drives the results of every endeavor they engage in. The better the person’s character, the more successful the endeavor because of the additional effort they will invest to be even-handed and moderate (in the old-fashioned – not political – sense), more compassionate and understanding (without being enabling), more willing to help when needed and to step back when others are able to act, and more willing to help behind the scenes but not take or receive either credit or the spotlight. A person of bad character will never be able to achieve good results because their character will always poison the relationships they need to succeed in leading a team effort or they will inspire their “team-mates” to act on their own negative character traits of greed, deception, sloth, avarice, or rivalry, thus degrading or defeating the ostensible shared purpose for the team in the first place.

    To take the previous point to an example, consider the results of every direct personal involvement of Trump in international or government activities. his divisive personality and pettiness have done more to destroy teamwork (including foreign alliances on trade and defense) and to cause our partners to resent or refuse to work with Trump’s “teammates” in good faith than would have been the case of a president with good character such as Ronald Reagan or GW Bush. Both of the latter were able to put together world-wide alliances to combat the USSR and the Iraq/Iran/Taliban/ISIS-coalition respectively). In the case of GW Bush, he also recognized and successfully convinced Israel to refrain from military action or joining his coalition because of the potential for impeding his fragile coalition of Muslim nations and European and other allies to fight the Muslim nations of Iraq and Iran backed by Russia. It was at the request of GW Bush that Israel kept their heads down and did not retaliate militarily to Saddam Hussein’s many scud missile attacks on their country – but let the coalition make their response for them.

    Anecdote: when asked why I never advertised to my family that I can cook and know my way around a kitchen, I replied that I have 2 sisters, two sisters-in-law, one brother and a wife that loved to cook that all wanted to cook Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners in addition to all other meals during holiday get-togethers. My mom described her kitchen as a “two-butt kitchen”. Why should I get in the way ? What could I add ? Though I am quite capable of cooking, it made more sense to me to stay out of the kitchen and show appreciation for the cooking of others during holidays. Once everyone had gone and I was alone taking care of my aging mother, I was able to step forward and do the cooking, the cleaning and the laundry as her health failed and she became unable to do these activities herself – activities that heretofore had been assumed to be beyond my capabilities as a “mere man” but which gave pride and sense of purpose to those that derived a sense of worth from “taking care of me”. being a conservative also means to allow others to retain their sense of dignity and usefulness for as long as they possibly can and never playing the “victim” or “helpless me” card or whining about what people are NOT doing for you.

    Finally, all the above are basic, fundamental principles that drive a person’s worldview, their principles and their actions. They are generalized goals and beliefs – not all of which apply to every circumstance – not minimum standards of behavior. They are what I strive to follow (as what I believe all conservatives strive to follow even though the level of effort and success varies by individual).

    OK – this post is long enough. There is a lot more to my definition of “conservative” than the above, but in summary, I guess you could say that “conservatism” is a respect for and acknowledgement of the dignity, honor, and self-respect of others as well as yourself and a deep disgust at the greed, selfishness, and deceit that would cause one person to take advantage (financial, spiritual, or physical) of another.

    Others may differ and are welcome to add or refute my points above. Just stay away from the name-calling and insults if your opinion significantly disagrees with mine.

  • kenofken

    Trumpism is, at its core white nationalism. It’s no surprise people are barely bothering to try to mask it anymore.