'Impartial' media always side with illegal immigrants

By EDDIE SCARRY • 3/4/17 8:38 AM

If the national press wanted to prove it's not the "enemy of the people," it could start by covering illegal immigration more like it's a serious problem and less like their husbands just left them.

It's nearly impossible to find a news story on illegal immigration that doesn't read like a Nicholas Sparks novel.

President Trump signed an executive order in late January that recommitted the White House to enforcing immigration laws, including deportation of just about any illegal immigrant who has committed a crime (including fraud) and "the immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border."

This might otherwise be known as maintaining the U.S. as an actual country with established borders and laws.

Regarding the so-called DREAMers, immigrants brought into the country illegally as children and who were given legal protections to stay by former President Barack Obama, the New York Times in February noted that Trump harbors some natural sympathy.

"The problem that Mr. Trump faces as he worries aloud about how to handle the young immigrants … encapsulates the beating heart of the difficult choices confronting him," said an article in the Times.

News stories on abortion are couched in the most sanitized, passionless terms, but on immigration, "the beating heart" leaps to the forefront of the Times' conscience.

After one illegal immigrant who had been living in America for decades using a fraudulent Social Security number was deported in February, all three network prime-time newscasts put together packages on "the family she leaves behind."

Those were CBS correspondent Carter Evans' words.

Mental exercise: What would happen if the IRS found out that an actual citizen, Carter Evans, for example, was employed for years under a fake Social Security number?

When Trump signed a separate executive order in January that put a hold on incoming Syrian refugees and non-citizens coming from some Muslim-majority countries (the order has since been stayed by federal courts), New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof likened it to the establishment of internment camps.

"When Japanese-Americans were rounded up, other Americans were silent," he said, unbothered by the dissimilarity of a policy that forcibly relocated real citizens in their own country, but stewing nonetheless. "Today, it is heartwarming to see Americans of all creeds standing up against similar bigotry."

By "Americans of all creeds," Kristof means: Two judges and some protesters.

Otherwise, a clear majority of Americans, 54 percent, said they at least "somewhat" approved of it, according to a poll published Feb. 8.

This past week, Trump said in his first joint session address to Congress that he was directing the Department of Homeland Security to create a new office for the Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement, or VOICE.

"Joining us in the audience tonight are four very brave Americans whose government failed them," he said, acknowledging four guests he invited and who had family members killed by illegal immigrants.

The Washington Post editorial board called it "the ugliest moment" of Trump's speech and asserted that the victims were only "allegedly" murdered by illegal immigrants.

In the cases of those "allegedly" murdered by illegals, one person, illegal immigrant Pedro Espinoza, was convicted in 2012 of killing 17-year-old Jamiel Shaw II.

Another illegal immigrant confessed. Luis Enriquez Monroy Bracamontes, stated in court in 2015, "I killed them cops," a reference to two police officers, Danny Oliver and Michael Davis Jr., he says he shot dead.

Three Americans are gone but for the Post, the "ugliest moment" was Trump's vow to reduce crime by immigrants who violated the law and snuck into the country.

The national media are affronted when Trump calls them the "enemy of the people."

But that's only because Trump doesn't specify he's referring to legal citizens.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/im...rticle/2616449