The “open borders” crowd wishes to allow unlimited illegal aliens into the country. Following the immigration laws used to be supported by both parties in Congress, but no more. Democrat activists now file numerous lawsuits to try to prevent the Trump administration from curtailing illegal immigration and closing immigration loopholes. The Democrats in Congress have refused to negotiate a solution despite President Trump’s offer two or three years ago.
When was the last time you heard about the “Dreamers”? How come the Left no longer seems to care about these innocent children who were brought into the country illegally by their parents, or stayed past their allotted time, and are now in legal limbo?
Illegal crossing used to be much more common, but they were often laborers, coming to work the harvest and then returning to Mexico. Now, we have families and unaccompanied minors coming from Central America who wish to permanently reside in the U.S. One of the loopholes these migrants are using, with the help of illegal immigration advocates, is to claim asylum.
Everyone knows that few of these applicants are eligible for asylum, and the court rejects most claims. But asylum, especially with kids in tow, has been a way to get released into the country while awaiting the hearing. By the time that comes, the family has disappeared and joined the underground economy, aided and abetted by “sanctuary cities.” This has created a dangerous country for these migrants who instead should have been encouraged to apply for legal immigration and waited their turn.
So now, the illegal-immigration attorneys go to court and seek “nationwide injunctions” from Left-leaning courts and judges, and they often get them. The Trump administration has fought back by appealing and getting emergency reviews and often (eventually) wins. That is because immigration is a federal responsibility, not a state responsibility, and the Trump administration is basically enforcing the law.
So when the press gets a temporary judgment in its favor, they throw a party like in today’s article. The article sounds like it is the final word on this particular issue and goes into a lot of detail bolstering the arguments in favor of the illegal aliens, quoting the immigration attorneys, the ACLU, etc. Only when you read further down do you realize that this is very likely to be quickly appealed and has a good chance of being overturned. The article suggests the Trump administration might “request” that the Supreme Court make the decision. You think?
So the media is basically selling a fantasy, an outcome that fits its tale of the evil Trump administration, trying to illegally and immorally deny “people” their “right” to come to the U.S. and use our loopholes and our “pro bono” attorneys-with-an-agenda to get around our immigration laws.
Note how the story starts: the ruling “upend[s] a central pillar of the Trump administration’s immigration agenda.” But it leaves out the word “temporarily.” Same as the headline. “US must let asylum seekers into the country.” It leaves out the same key word.
The story also recounts the horrors of having to live in Mexico. Maybe the migrants need to think twice before making the long and dangerous journey to the US border without permission: Get a visa first. How about the media push that narrative rather than making its readers think that allowing unfettered illegal immigration is somehow a good thing?
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/794494681075677
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!