WaPo: Trump Admin! MASS FAMILY ARRESTS!!! CHILDREN!!! "RECENT MIGRANTS"!!! IN THEIR HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS!!!! DID WE MENTION CHILDREN???111
Round about the third paragraph we're finally informed that these "recent immigrants" failed to show for their hearings and have been ruled deportable.
The story is written in such a way to come as close to saying the following as possible without actually saying it:
It is wrong to deport illegals with children (and, perhaps, wrong to deport any of them at all) and Trump et al. are monsters for having even considered it.
Look, no one is enthusiastic about kicking people out. But this seems like madness to me--and many others. We have a very generous--perhaps overly-generous--immigration system. We're bending over backwards to do the right thing with respect to asylum--and people are abusing the system en masse. (And, in particular, using kids to do so.)
Progressives now argue for policies which, taken together, commonly amount to de facto open borders: border barriers are "immoral" (Pelosi et al.), no more should be built, and what we have should be torn down (O'Rourke). Therefore: we should have no border barriers. And, once people are in, they shouldn't be deported (see the comments on the story...if you dare...). And that goes double for those who have (or claim to have) children. (Oh, and don't forget: they should receive the benefits of the welfare state, including health care (Harris et al.))
The real story here seems to be that Vitiello and Nielsen had reasonable, practical, operational objections--objections that seem reasonable to me, anyway. And: they were fired for it. But that story--seemingly about Trumpian impetuousness and pig-headedness--gets lost in the Post's rush to tell the story in a way that promotes the progressive open borders agenda. Am I wrong about that? This is not a counterproductivity argument; screw those. Rather I'm saying: legitimate concerns about Trump get buried because they aren't anti-Trump enough. Better to freak out and pump out the suggestion that Trump is insane and evil--even if that requires tacit advocacy of policies that would wreck the country--than to simply report an actual, reasonable criticism of Trumpian mismanagement.
Yet again: this puts someone like me in the position of choosing between (a) Trump and his cohort and (b) the other guys. And the other guys include: the media. The media which is supposed to have a sacred duty to report the facts to us so that we can make rational decisions about governance of the republic. But which has, instead (or so it seems to me) hopped on board the progressive crazy train.
The story is written in such a way to come as close to saying the following as possible without actually saying it:
It is wrong to deport illegals with children (and, perhaps, wrong to deport any of them at all) and Trump et al. are monsters for having even considered it.
Look, no one is enthusiastic about kicking people out. But this seems like madness to me--and many others. We have a very generous--perhaps overly-generous--immigration system. We're bending over backwards to do the right thing with respect to asylum--and people are abusing the system en masse. (And, in particular, using kids to do so.)
Progressives now argue for policies which, taken together, commonly amount to de facto open borders: border barriers are "immoral" (Pelosi et al.), no more should be built, and what we have should be torn down (O'Rourke). Therefore: we should have no border barriers. And, once people are in, they shouldn't be deported (see the comments on the story...if you dare...). And that goes double for those who have (or claim to have) children. (Oh, and don't forget: they should receive the benefits of the welfare state, including health care (Harris et al.))
The real story here seems to be that Vitiello and Nielsen had reasonable, practical, operational objections--objections that seem reasonable to me, anyway. And: they were fired for it. But that story--seemingly about Trumpian impetuousness and pig-headedness--gets lost in the Post's rush to tell the story in a way that promotes the progressive open borders agenda. Am I wrong about that? This is not a counterproductivity argument; screw those. Rather I'm saying: legitimate concerns about Trump get buried because they aren't anti-Trump enough. Better to freak out and pump out the suggestion that Trump is insane and evil--even if that requires tacit advocacy of policies that would wreck the country--than to simply report an actual, reasonable criticism of Trumpian mismanagement.
Yet again: this puts someone like me in the position of choosing between (a) Trump and his cohort and (b) the other guys. And the other guys include: the media. The media which is supposed to have a sacred duty to report the facts to us so that we can make rational decisions about governance of the republic. But which has, instead (or so it seems to me) hopped on board the progressive crazy train.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:39 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home