Connect with us

Immigration

Media highlight why migrants left their countries, but neglect one important fact

Published

on

Media highlight why migrants left their countries but neglect one important fact

Buzz around the migrant caravan has been waning over the last week. President George H. W. Bush’s death and other stories have moved the swelling problem in Tijuana and all along the border to page two, but the problem keeps getting worse. As it moves into the stage of being labeled a humanitarian crisis, mainstream media is focused on spreading two narratives, both of which are centered around choices.

The first narrative has been up and down in the news cycle. Sometimes, it’s the focus, as it was when the migrant caravans were first forming and also today as the narrative is being reintroduced. Other times, it’s simply inserted into other stories as a reminder to reinforce the narrative. This is the “no choice” narrative.

The second narrative is one that calls for the United States to make a choice. There’s only one acceptable choice in the minds of leftists and mainstream media that is even remotely acceptable. Let’s look at each choice and see how they work together. When we dig deeply enough, we’ll see that the premise of the first choice (or lack thereof) doesn’t jibe with the second choice at all.

Of course, they don’t want you to think that deeply into this matter.

Narrative 1: No choice for the migrants

An article today sought to justify not only the trek the migrant caravans made but the decision many of them have made to bypass the system and enter the United States illegally.

Why members of the immigrant caravan are entering the US illegally — Quartz

https://qz.com/1485613/why-members-of-the-immigrant-caravan-are-entering-the-us-illegally/Some members of the caravan of Central American immigrants that arrived in Tijuana last month are starting to illegally slip through the US-Mexico border.

The Trump administration has tried a variety of strategies to stop them since they set out on the long trek weeks ago—from insults to troop deployment to the use of tear gas. But for citizens of countries that have long been convulsed by tragedy, those may seem like minor obstacles.

The article then goes on to try to convince us that everything from natural disasters to poverty have given many of the citizens of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador no choice but to seek asylum. If the Guatemala civil war (which ended in 1996) doesn’t kill them, then violent crime will surely get them, or so we’re told. While armed conflict shouldn’t be downplayed, it’s nowhere near as bad as mainstream media wants us to believe. As for violent crime, it’s bad. But then again, it’s bad elsewhere.

The murder rate in Guatemala is lower than the murder rate in Newark, NJ.

I’m not suggesting we ignore the problems they’re facing. The conditions those in the migrant caravan are fleeing are serious concerns. This narrative works when trying to convince Americans the migrants had no choice. Let’s go with it for now.

Narrative 2: The United States must choose to let the migrants in

This particular narrative is the natural followup to the first narrative. We are a nation and a people that seeks solutions. Mainstream media and leftists are offering us a very simple solution: Let them in.

This has been the off-and-on-again narrative for a decade. There was a time (I know, hard to believe) when Democrats and mainstream media acknowledged the problems associated with our porous borders. It’s hard to imagine today, but I remember investigative reports that demonstrated how easy it is to sneak into America. These reports would often focus on dangerous men who crossed the borders and quickly reunited with their gangs who had already crossed.

One in particular (I wish I could find the video) talked to a man who claimed he traveled with people he suspected to be terrorists. This was right after 9/11 when fears of infiltration were not being called “Islamophobia” yet, so mainstream media happily covered it.

Today, the narrative is all about our abundance and the migrants’ needs. It’s the standard socialist talking point meant to pull at our humanitarian heartstrings. We have, they don’t, so let them in so we can take care of all those poor women and children.

The ignored choice

In all the reporting I’ve been reading today about the migrant caravan, I had to turn to a source I don’t like to use in order to find a reporting of the real solution.

Mexico offers asylum to thousands in the migrant caravan

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/mexico-offers-asylum-thousands-migrant-caravan-181207143116460.htmlMexico offers a choice of a humanitarian visa or access to a speedy asylum process. Tijuana was supposed to be a transit point for the Central American migrant caravan.

But, as access to the US is becoming more difficult, many of these asylum seekers are opting to start a new life in Mexico instead.

That’s it. That’s all there was to the article. The attached video on the page continues to reinforce the two primary narratives, as if reporting on the actual solution needs to be overshadowed.

Mainstream media and leftists are ignoring the fact that the two narratives they’re pushing are both reconciled by Mexico’s offer of asylum. The migrants left a dangerous situation. They’re being offered security, jobs, healthcare, and asylum by Mexico. Problem solved, right?

No. The vast majority of migrants are not seeking safe haven from dangerous conditions. If they were, they’d take it.

Our real choice as a nation is whether we are sovereign or not. If we are sovereign, then we enforce the law and protect our borders. Migrants who choose to go through the legal process to get granted asylum are welcome here. Those who choose to ignore the law are not welcome. It really should be that simple.

But that’s not a narrative you’ll see from mainstream media because it doesn’t push their agenda.

If it’s asylum they seek, they have it available to them in Mexico. But that’s clearly not what they seek or more would accept the generous offer. Why won’t mainstream media or leftists acknowledge this inconvenient truth?

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump, as expected

Published

on

16 states hit 9th Circuit to sue President Trump as expected

It was one of the most replayed parts of President Trump’s announcement regarding his national emergency declaration last Friday – a sing-song moment as the President predicted the declaration would be made, Democrats would sue, they’d go through the 9th circuit, and their decision will hopefully be overturned by the Supreme Court. So far, he’s been absolutely correct as 16 states have filed against the declaration.

New York, California, 14 other states sue Trump in Ninth Circuit over emergency declaration

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-california-sue-trump-in-ninth-circuit-over-emergency-declarationThe attorneys general of California, New York, and 14 other states on Monday filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit against the White House’s recent national emergency declaration over border security, claiming President Trump has “veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”

President Trump sarcastically had predicted the lawsuit last week. He’s slammed the Ninth Circuit multiple times as “disgraceful” and politically biased.

My Take

This is their right, and while it may annoy those who support building the border wall, it would be a mistake to condemn these states for trying to stop it. This is part of the way our nation is intended to operate. If one or more states feel the need to challenge the authority of Washington DC, they should be able to make their case before the courts. If the courts make decisions based on the Constitution, then the end result will be the accurate and righteous one.

That’s how this was all intended.

I’m not suggesting the 9th Circuit is going to treat this fairly, nor am I confident the Supreme Court will make its decision solely on the Constitution, but until things are changed, this is what we’ve got. Attempts to subvert any component of this system from the President’s right to declare the emergency to the states’ rights to challenge it to the courts’ responsibility to make a ruling about it all would be to denounce the foundation upon which this nation was built.

There was a way this could have been avoided. Had the President and the GOP decided to have the debate over the wall while they had power over the House, Senate, and White House, they would have been in better position to get the wall going by now. Unfortunately, they an improper political calculation to hold off on the wall debate until after the midterm elections, and now it’s costing the American citizens. It costs us money to sit here through the shutdown and the legal battle over the national emergency declaration. It’s costing us time; the wall should be much further along by now. It may end up costing us the wall altogether if they aren’t able to make a strong case before the Supreme Court.

We are in the midst of a crisis at the border, one that has been going on for decades. Let’s not exacerbate the crisis by adding a Constitutional crisis on top. This needs to play all the way out.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Dershowitz reacts to the backlash over Trump’s national emergency

Published

on

Dershowitz reacts to the backlash over Trumps national emergency

Lukewarm leftist Alan Dershowitz is against the use of a national emergency to fund the border wall, but he believes it will come down to whether or not the courts decide this is a real emergency or not. Could it be stopped altogether? Dershowitz, a lawyer, doesn’t believe that will be the case. Instead, he thinks the courts will hold up some of the expenditures, but it’s very possible portions of the wall will be built between now and the 2020 elections.

He also made an important point about Chief Justice John Roberts. Though the Supreme Court is currently considered to be “right-leaning” by most experts, Roberts has been willing to side with the left on more than one occasion since President Trump took office. This is a concern for wall proponents since the other eight Justices are likely split down the middle on maintaining the President’s power to go down this path.

My Take

As we’ve stated in the past, a national emergency is not the best way to build the wall. Some may argue it was necessary to go around Congress since they were clearly unwilling to play ball when it came to wall funding, but would it have been better for the President to stick to his guns and shut the government down for a second time? At this point, nobody can know because that’s not the course of action he took.

It’s a shame we’re having to watch the battle ramp up on the legal end when the need for the wall is so clear. Congress didn’t do its job when the Republicans were in control and they’re not doing their job with Democrats controlling the House.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Immigration

Blue Collar Logic: Why did the President sign the border deal?

Published

on

Blue Collar Logic Why did the President sign the border deal

Many conservatives have been scratching their head since hearing the details of the border deal the President signed last Friday in order to keep the government from another partial shutdown. The provisions in the omnibus have been a consternation that doesn’t make any sense on the surface. If we dig deeper, does it start to make more sense?

The short answer is, no. The justification for signing it is that the President doesn’t want to wait for another drawn out battle with Congress that likely won’t yield money for the wall, so he retreated to signing this bill and pushing for his national emergency declaration to get that particular ball rolling. Unfortunately, that means there are two major consequences Americans now have to face. First, we get the provisions of the bill itself, many of which actually work against the idea of securing the border. There are now even more incentives for illegal immigrants and criminals to come to the border with children in tow so they can get what essentially amounts to amnesty. It doesn’t matter if they’re here for a better job or if they’re coming to join MS-13. If they have kids (even if they’re not THEIR kids), they get a pass.

The second consequence is that the wall is going to be stuck in red tape for a long time, perhaps indefinitely. There’s no guarantee the wall will ever get built. It’s no longer in the hands of duly elected representatives of the people. It’s in the hands of bureaucrats and judges who must decide whether or not the President even has the power to declare this national emergency in the first place.

The folks at Blue Collar Logic broke down the justification. They believe the President was forced into a political move that will allow border security to be a primary issue of the 2020 election. Shutting down the government again would have hurt him, so this cave on the border bill and national emergency was the best chance he had at having a winning message for his reelection bid.

Even die-hard fans of the President have to see this as a betrayal on some level. He was elected to make the borders safer and so far, the exact opposite has happened. It’s sad that the guy who was going to drain the swamp is drowning in swamp as we speak.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report