Our holding pens are full. Our facilities are overrun. Our immigration system is broken and we have a crisis at the border.
President Trump summarizes this in a simple yet effective way: our country is full. His full quote, as quoted in the article, is “‘Can’t take you anymore. Can’t take you. Our country is full. Our area is full, the sector is full. Can’t take you anymore. I’m sorry,’ Trump said during a roundtable on the border at the US Border Patrol station in Calexico, Calif. ‘So turn around. That’s the way it is.'”
So what does the Boston Globe do? It tries to belittle and undercut this summary by implying that Trump meant that “America” was full and we couldn’t accept any more immigrants. That is despite no changes to our legal immigration allowances, which are in the neighborhood of a million new legal immigrants a year.
Obviously, he is sending a message that he hopes is heard South of the Border that we won’t be accepting any more illegal immigrants. And since we obviously take about a million legal immigrants per year and Trump has not stopped legal immigration, he didn’t mean that “the country is full.”
This is a great example of how Trump is covered by the media. They purposely take his comments out of context, pulling out one phrase from a long quote, and then get Democrats to go on the record objecting to the phrase. (“Trump’s claim that the United States is ‘full’ prompted pushback from his critics.”)
Just to make sure my point is clear, let’s say we had immigration quotas of 1,000 people per European country, and President Trump went to the airport serving Britain. At that time, we had already let in 1,000 British citizens. He could say “I’m sorry, the country is full.” This means that we can’t accept any more British citizens, it doesn’t mean that we have reached the quota for every nation. He is talking to the would-be British immigrants. The context of President Trump’s statement is that he is at the Southern border talking about whether we can take any more illegal immigrants over that border, and the answer is No.
Just a few weeks ago, the Democrats were arguing that there was really no crisis at the border and this was all contrived by Donald Trump. We now know that claim is false. No apologies from the media at having pushed it, of course. On to the next misleading narrative they can peddle. At least today’s article plainly states that our detention facilities are over capacity: “…including thousands who have been released after arriving because border officials have no space for them.” So yes, we are full.
*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!