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.
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 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?