This Boston Globe article has a strangely passive-case headline: “Border patrol move is criticized.” What it meant to say is “Our opinion is that the Border Patrol’s assistance to local Immigration authorities is racist.” Because that’s what this “news” article goes on to try to prove. And it does so in a one-sided article claiming that enforcing our country’s immigration laws, which are set by the federal government (not the states) should be resisted by states. And then the article goes through their checklist of community and immigration advocates who want open borders, don’t want criminals to be deported, etc., etc., etc.
What has actually happened is very predictable. When “sanctuary” cities, towns, and states refuse to allow federal authorities to keep illegal immigrants out of the country and enforce the current laws by declaring that criminals may flaunt their illegal status and get protection, the feds will react and fix that little loophole. And if they need to send in more personnel to assist those ICE offices who are struggling now, what else would you expect them to do? Do you think that states acting illegally in preventing federal enforcement of immigration laws should be able to resist the federal government? Should our federal ICE officers be put in harms way because states refuse to allow them to enforce the law? (Making ICE agents find their targets in the community instead of when they are disarmed and in a courthouse is outrageous.)
How would states like it if the federal government started to undermine their authority as states? I’m sure the governors and mayors would not like that even one little bit.
It is satisfying to see our ICE agents backed up by from a safety and effectiveness point of view by trained border patrol agents, but it is also gratifying to listen to the Boston Globe whine about it.
Perhaps the Globe should have encouraged Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues to accept President Trump’s offer to fix the immigration system back in 2017 in exchange for making all the Dreamers legal. Wouldn’t that have been smart politics and good for the country too? Maybe it would have brought our hyper-partisanship to a close and prevented a year or two of wasted energy fighting these partisan fights. But no.
So now the Globe goes on the offensive by claiming that enforcing immigration laws is racist. They have advocates arguing that enforcing federal law may be “unconstitutional.” (LOL). They are grasping at straws to try to shield their future attempted voters from being deported.
President Trump’s administration has reportedly agreed to higher limits for temporary workers this year. Maybe this can be used by the Democrats as a face-saving opening. How about the Democrats agree to fix the loopholes, and give Trump funding for the wall, and then we can end this stupid nightmare of protecting criminals from deportation?
It is ILLEGAL to be here illegally. The vast majority of Americans support LEGAL immigration and we could have a national discussion of whether we should admit higher numbers. Maybe we should ask new immigrants to move to areas that are experiencing population stagnation as a way to revitalize those parts of the country. I’m sure there are a million ways we can improve our system rather than wasting so much time, money, and energy fighting this senseless battle.
Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.
NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/786117865246692
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!