“Who have defied a court order.”
Those six words were missing from the Boston Globe story at several key locations, in order to create the false narrative that the Trump administration is doing something illegal or immoral in regards to its law enforcement activities. The Globe and illegal immigration advocates are trying to portray the President, Republicans, and their allies as heartless. They needlessly and cruelly break up families who are just looking for a better life, you see. And, therefore, you need to vote for whoever the Democrats nominate to challenge Trump in 2020. (Please God, let it be Chief Warren.)
These illegal immigrants have been falsely claiming asylum. Something like 10% of asylum claims are ever approved by our courts, so claimants make their claims, are released into the U.S., and are supposed to return for their hearing. Whether they return or not is immaterial, because once a judge denies their claim, they are supposed to leave the country. Period.
By leaving out those six words, the media is trying to confuse readers. They are also trying to make the case that we really only should be deporting illegal immigrants who commit other crimes while here. If someone keeps their nose clean, they should be left alone, regardless of the judge’s ruling. In other words, it is not illegal to be illegal and it is not illegal to ignore deportation orders.
What this does to our justice system is quite damaging, but when you pair it with the “low level” offenses that some DAs are now dismissing (Rachel Rollins in Suffolk County is our local poster child) we could have illegal immigrants who, say, are non-violent drug dealers who would never get deported because their crimes are “victimless.” So once they sneak in, make a false asylum claim, or overstay their visa, the Democrats and their media allies would allow them to stay forever. Unless they kill or rape someone. Then, maybe, their court-appointed lawyer can tie the case up for several months at taxpayer’s expense before we deport them.
These “low-level” illegal immigrants will thus get special protection, because we have various places that are self-declared “sanctuary” cities and we now don’t let ICE agents near courtrooms because that might discourage illegal immigrants from going to court. Fear of a lawful arrest is now something the state will protect certain people from, so will this new policy be extended to American citizens as well? What about citizens who fear bill collectors? Citizens who don’t want to get served by officers of the court? I’m afraid of being stopped by the police for speeding. Can I use that fear to argue I don’t need to pull over? Protecting people from fear over the consequences of their own actions makes no sense, not if you are going to uphold the rule of law.
This situation, with the Liberals complaining about “raids” of illegal immigrants who have defied a court order should now be seen as an extension of the “open borders” argument, which is an extension of the “human right” to live in the U.S. no matter where you are from.
*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!