Today’s article is about criticizing the Trump administration for clamping down on eligibility rules for “green cards,” and giving preference to immigrants who are more self-sufficient.
You don’t learn until the very end of the story that this is long-standing US policy. Immigrants have no right to come to this country…it is a privilege. We want people who will contribute and not be a drain on our collective resources.
The country can decide at any time to open its doors and welcome poor people. Millions would come. But these days, we have serious economic problems: trillions of dollars promised in the future; a persistent and growing federal debt; and budget deficits that continue to increase with no projection for a balanced budget (let along paying back the debt.) We can’t continue to accept millions of immigrants who need costly medical care, food, clothing, housing, daycare, etc.
If compassionate people and immigration advocates want more people, then they should be the first to insist on a balanced budget, including payments to pay down the existing debt, and cuts to entitlement programs. If Americans want to tighten our belts to have more poor come to the U.S. and get on welfare, then let’s start with belt-tightening first. Let’s not let in millions of people and then figure out how to pay for it later.
Or Democrats with big hearts can start a fund to pay for legal and illegal aliens and if enough money is raised, then maybe we can let more poor immigrants in.
The best line is the part about medical conditions. Imagine trying to prohibit entry to indigent people who need expensive medical care! What, we shouldn’t take in a few thousand diabetics so that Medicaid can pay millions of dollars more per year for their medication? Give me a break.
“Those with least may suffer most” is the article subhead. The media’s favorite word is “fear” and the second favorite is “suffer.” The ones who are suffering are U.S. taxpayers and their fear is (or should be) a socialist takeover of the executive branch in 2020.
*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!