The New York Times isn't the only one telling one-sided stories!
I noted before you can always tell a one-sided story by the way they feed it to you - bits at a time, filled in-between with heart-wrenching puff details, before they drop the bomb on you:
So instead of a story that begins "Little Joey was wrongly convicted!" we get something along the lines of "It was cold that day as little Joey pedaled his bicycle 10 miles to school, hoping that he would be in time for his Algebra test, so he could make his mother proud!"
Articles like this go on for paragraphs before they finally get around to the main point. I don't know if it's just poor writing or if it's by intent. But I suspect it is the latter. They want to build up a sympathetic profile of the subject of the article before they start bringing in nasty little details like accusations of gang affiliation.
In the Post today, an interesting story. A young man (17) comes across the border and is put into detention where he is fed, clothed, and given a therapist. He tells a tale of horror, how he was "forced" to help MS-13 dismember corpses, torture captives - including his own cousin - and perhaps even kill people. But again, he was not part of the gang, because he told us he wasn't, so that settles that. He just let them move into his house, is all.
It is an interesting story from a number of angles. The Post wants you to be outraged that the "Therapist/Client" confidentiality has been breached. And while this may be part of a therapist's code of ethics, it is not enshrined in the United States Code - of Law. It raises an interesting question, though. Is the Post arguing that we would be better off not knowing this young man's background? If released today (as they suggest he should be) would he go live with relatives in Texas and start over with a new life - or go to LA and re-join the gang he was in? I highly suspect the latter, which is why the ICE (boo! hiss!) wants him deported. It is a tough question. He speaks no English, and would likely be drawn into an Hispanic community where he would be drawn into a gang, if released.
It is interesting that the liberal press is obsessed with this idea that no one is a member of MS-13 or that it is some sort of social club. If you read even the Wikipedia entry, it reads like a horror story - the level of violence and intimidation is off the charts. Hacking people to death with machetes is one of the most humane things they do. Gang-bangers are a real problem in the United States, and it goes without saying that we don't need to import any more.
The problem is, it is all-too-easy for a gang member to get into the United States by claiming to be a refugee from such gangs, just as many former Nazis slipped into the US by claiming to be "displaced persons" after the war. With so much destruction during the war, it was easy to claim that "records were lost" and such. It was only decades later that Israeli Nazi hunters searched out and found many of these former Nazis - many former death camp guards - living and working in the US.
Right now, a similar thing is happening - worldwide. People are "migrating" from war-torn countries, or countries run by intolerant rulers, dictators, and religions. Some of these countries in Africa, we even maintain relations with and send monetary support to, even as they brutalize their own people and tell us to fuck off when we ask them politely to stop.
So people are swimming across the Mediterranean, often drowning, or trying to hitch a ride through the Channel Tunnel, often getting killed in the process. Some are so desperate as to ride in the landing gear wheel wells of aircraft - a certain death - often making it to the West, only to fall out as a frozen body landing on a rooftop at the approach to Heathrow. It is very, very sad, and it shows that these are truly desperate people.
But that being said, why again is this our problem? Yes, I know, this sounds heartless, but it is a question not asked. Our "sanctuary" policies date back to a time when a lot fewer people were seeking sanctuary. And yes, historically, we've had an "open door" policy toward immigration - my own ancestors came here seeking "a better life" often fleeing persecution in some far-away homeland. Of course, the United States was a lot more empty back then - although I am sure the Indians were none-too-pleased about the whole situations. I am sure more than one native American asked, "Why is this our problem? How come you have to come here and take away our country after you've fucked up your own? Why don't you go back there and solve your own problems instead of bringing them here? Sheesh!"
Well, fast-forward a hundred or so years, and the "native" Americas (those born here) are asking the same thing: why do we have to be a refugee camp for the world's problems? The same question is being asked in Europe and Australia as well. Sadly, few want to answer this question - few even want to ask it, for fear of being shouted down as "racist" or worse.
Ilhan Omar, the Representative from Minnesota came here from Mogadishu, Somalia - one of those countries that is completely fucked up. Yes, it is fucked up, which is why she fled there to come here. And you can't blame her for that. In her home country, opportunities for women are limited - limited to having your genitals mutilated, and then becoming someone's slave-wife and living under a Burka. And hopefully, you don't get stoned to death for being an apostate. In America, you can do what to do, become whatever you want to be - even a Representative in the House of Congress - one of the highest offices in the land! If anyone is proof that the American dream is alive and kicking in America, it is Representative Omar.
Sadly, it seems all she wants to do with her position is criticize her adopted home as being a place of deprivation, inequality, and unfairness. The irony is lost on her. If this was such a shitty place, why did she become so successful so quickly? A lot of people think that maybe she doesn't appreciate how lucky she really is - and how magnanimous the United States has been in offering her this great perk. She was given a great opportunity - an opportunity that maybe someone else in Minnesota who doesn't think the United States sucks, would like to have.
But getting back to "migration" - why is her plight or that of the young man profiled in the Post piece any of our concern? You see, there is a shitload of injustice in the world, a lot of it occurring right here. People born in this country are forced into gangs, forced into a life of crime (or fall into it). We have our own problems with our own government, our own budget, our own people. Where is it written that we have to solve the world's problems, too?
Yes, yes, it is the Christian thing to do. Turn the other cheek, slaughter the fatted calf for the prodigal son- and all of that. But I think opening us up as a refugee center presents some serious problems - problems that merit discussion, not shouting down, shaming, or damning.
The first and foremost is, how are things going to get better in Somalia, Nicaragua, or any other troubled country if all the best and brightest people leave? The reason why Venezuela hasn't seen their inept corrupt government overthrown is that so many of the citizens have left and are working in neighboring countries. The wealthy elite? All living in Miami, with the Cuban ex-pats. This leaves the playing field wide open for the dictators or religious fundamentalists to further ravage these distressed countries. If enough people rose up and fought back, change might actually take place, and their lives and the lives of their countrymen would improve.
Instead, we have refugees, coming here and trying to make a small slice of America "just like home" - bringing their own problems, whether it is violent street gangs or religious fundamentalism, along with them. This is creating a culture clash, which is why a lot of Americans are lashing back - why Trump is so popular in the "heartland" of America, and why Democrats will lose yet another election. "Open borders" just doesn't sell outside of the coffee shops of the coastal cities.
Yes, we feel bad for the folks who are persecuted in their homelands. And yes, the vast majority are not gang members or want to enact sharia law. But why our country and not someone else's? Why do we have to be the refuge for the world?
The question is valid because of a second point - if enough people "migrate" into the United States, eventually the United States will turn into the third world country they left. If we truly "opened borders" tomorrow and told people of all the nations of the world they could move in on a moment's notice, most of South and Central America would immediately flock to the States. Russia would empty out, as would half of China. People would gravitate to a country where the economy is strong, jobs are available, and crime and corruption are relatively low. And just as the tourist destroys the thing he comes to see, the migrant destroys - or at least dilutes - the country he migrates to. A lot of people might migrate back home at that point, of course.
Open borders isn't going to happen, of course, although people still try to get in. In another article online today, the "Reagan University" was exposed as a "Visa mill" for Chinese who want to live in America, at least for a few years while they are nominally studying. Pregnancy vacations are offered to people of various countries, so they can have an "anchor baby" in America. And of course, migration is still happening at our Southern border, although not as much as it was. Love him or hate him, Donald Trump has done what he said he would do - which was to limit immigration, legal and illegal. Actually getting things done in Washington is something of a novelty.
And yes, much of this has resulted in heart-wrenching stories. Another story in the papers recently about a U.S. Customs agent deported to Mexico. He had lived in America nearly his whole life and was only months away from retirement. Turns out it was a not-so-well-kept secret that friendly "midwives" in Texas would sign birth notices saying that Mexican children were actually born in the United States. Under the law, they are illegal immigrants. Under the law, they can be deported. The argument from the Left is that, well, they're nice people and should be allowed to stay. But of course, if you do that, well, it encourages more "midwife" birth announcements down the pike.
And of course, he claims he never knew his birth certificate was faked - and that settles that, because he said so! One-sided stories, yet again. The article does note that there are a lot of corrupt agents who get into the service, so they can accept bribes to allow contraband across the border. Fortunately, he was not one of those corrupt agents! And we know this because he said so, so that settles that. Journalists are oddly incurious as of late.
This immigration situation presents a conundrum for Democrats. If they adopt some of the more ludicrous positions of the Left, such as "open borders" or "abolish ICE" I think they are going to lose big-time to Trump. One reason border crossings and migration has dropped off in recent months is that Trump's policy is in fact, working,whether you like it or not. The word has gotten back to the home countries that it ain't so easy anymore to claim refugee status or to even sneak across the border. It is akin to when Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform act into law - people stopped applying for welfare months before the bill was even signed into law. Once word gets out, well, people change their plans.
Yes, we need a more humanitarian immigration policy. But no, telling one-sided stories like this isn't the answer. Calling illegal immigrants "migrants" or "refugees" is just trying to spin the story. We need less weepy stories in the Post and the Times and a more coherent immigration strategy and policy. And sadly, the Democrats don't seem prepared to do this, as they believe that anything other than "open borders" and "abolish ICE" will turn away the Hispanic vote - assuming (wrongly) that that is what even Hispanics want.
I can tell when I am being bullshitted. I can tell when an author is trying to manipulate my emotions. These sort of articles don't motivate me to move to the Left, but rather wonder why they have to resort to such shenanigans to sell their policy view.
Maybe because it is past its "sell-by" date?
