MSNBC Guest Insists Neil Munro Motivated by Hatred of Non-white Immigrants, ‘White Supremist Ideology’

June 20th, 2012 10:46 AM

Any old liberal journalist can charge Daily Caller reporter Neil Munro for being a racist for rudely interrupting President Obama during a press conference. It takes a hard-core lefty to delve deeper to diagnose the Irish-born journalist as a bigot for, well, questioning Obama's policy vis-a-vis how it harms the job prospects of American citizens.

During a segment on the June 19 edition of his eponymous program, Bashir assented to the spurious charge by The Root contributor Edward Wyckoff Williams that Munro – an Irish-born naturalized American citizen -- was motivated by a "white supremist [sic] ideology" as evidenced by his belief that President Obama’s quasi-amnesty policy helps illegal immigrants at the cost of job opportunity to American citizens:

WYCKOFF WILLIAMS: It’s sort of disingenuous and sort of cognitive dissonance example here of someone who is Irish working in America but somehow believes that he’s more legitimate than a Hispanic who comes here as an immigrant.

And I think that it speaks to sort of a white supremist [sic] ideology, this idea that being white in and of itself is mainstream and somehow he is more deserving of being in America, even though he’s foreign-born than the Hispanics or Asians and Africans  who come seeking the American Dream.

And I wish that more people in the mainstream media would call him out on that aspect of what he said.

BASHIR: Indeed.

Indeed? A fair, objective journalist would be demand to see evidence to back up that claim, particularly since Obama’s policy is not about immigration per se but benefiting folks who are in the United States because they are violation of federal immigration law.


Whether Bashir or Wyckoff Williams like it or not, Munro is an American citizen who was previously a legal permanent resident in the United States. As a former legal immigrant who abided by the law, isn’t it entirely possible that Munro’s disagreement with the president is motivated by anger at the fact that he abided by the law while others who haven’t are going to benefit from a president who won’t enforce it?