The courts giveth, and the courts taketh away.
Just yesterday, the Boston Globe ran a jubilant article on page 6 in which the courts dealt a decisive blow to the Trump administration’s immigration policy. “US must let asylum seekers into the country” was the headline and it described another apparent win in a long series of victories by the Left in trying to open up our borders to illegal immigrants, providing sanctuary to them within the U.S., and avoiding deportation back to their home countries. (Our article on this is here: https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/very-temporary-reprieve/)
The joyous celebration on February 29 is detailed in this March 1 article which gloomily discloses that the order was vacated within hours by the very same court while the Trump administration appeals. In other words, nothing has changed.
Asylum seekers are feeling despair and confusion. Well, Globe readers must also be confused, because the big win yesterday has completely evaporated. But you have to read up to page 15 of today’s paper to find out about the reversal.
This article quotes several sympathetic souls, representative of all the deserving asylum-seekers. Well, the millions of illegal migrants who came before them have ruined it for those who followed. The U.S. has been overwhelmed and we need to tighten things up and return to normal, controlled, and legal immigration.
Like the Dreamers, whom the Democrats have abandoned, the asylum-seekers are also deserving of an immigration fix. But the Democrats have decided not to negotiate a solution with the Trump administration. Do they prefer watching Trump find ways to fix the problem on his own? Perhaps they didn’t think he’d be able to do it and they would have another issue in the 2020 election. But very slowly and surely, Trump is building the wall, stopping illegal immigration, closing the loopholes, and deporting those who are not here legally.
I suggest the Democrats abandon their “ignore the problem” strategy, because neither of their two top candidates will be a match for Trump. So they might as well try to get stuff done and they can start with looking for a compromise on immigration with the President. Perhaps some of their members will survive the coming Republican wave if they have some good legislation that gets approved before November.
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: [Due to a technical error, no Facebook link for this article. Sorry! Allen]
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!