NY Times Is Very Upset That Border Patrol Endorsed Trump

Donald Trump can be slammed for many things, including switching of past policy positions. One thing he can’t be slammed for is his opposition to illegal immigration, with some policy statements going back to 1999 and 2000, such as

America is experiencing serious social and economic difficulty with illegal immigrants who are flooding across our borders. We simply can’t absorb them. It is a scandal when America cannot control its own borders. A liberal policy of immigration may seem to reflect confidence and generosity. But our current laxness toward illegal immigration shows a recklessness and disregard for those who live here legally.

The majority of legal immigrants can often make significant contributions to our society because they have special skills and because they add to our nation’s cultural diversity. They come with the best of intentions. But legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily. It’s a long, costly, draining, and often frustrating experience-by design. I say to legal immigrants: Welcome and good luck.

It comes down to this: we must take care of our own people first. Our policy to people born elsewhere should be clear: Enter by the law, or leave.

That’s from Trump’s book The America We Deserve. One of his major schticks for his whole campaign, and what vaulted him to frontrunner status, was his stance on illegal immigration and controlling the border. He’s been extremely vocal on the issue, so, is it any wonder that the Border Patrol endorsed him? This has made the NY Times Editorial Board very upset

The Border Patrol’s Bizarre Choice

Turn away, for a moment, from the generalized idiocy of the presidential campaign to consider a specific instance of monumental dimness. It happened Wednesday.

The National Border Patrol Council, which says it represents 16,500 border agents, endorsed Donald Trump. It says it has never endorsed a presidential candidate in a primary before, but these are dire times.

“There is no greater physical or economic threat to Americans today than our open border,” says the endorsement, signed by the council’s president, Brandon Judd. The union “asks the American people to support Mr. Trump in his mission to finally secure the border of the United States of America, before it is too late.”

Well, that seems a pretty good rationale for endorsing Trump, does it not? It’s an organization tasked with, get this, protecting the borders of the United States against invaders. You can feel the sneers at the next line from the NYTEB

Too late for what? The collapse of America, apparently, from the “gangs, cartels and violent criminals preying on the innocent.”

They find that this is absurd. Because, apparently, every one of the illegals are just good people. None of them ever doing anything like rape, murder, steal, take people’s identities and ruin their lives and credit. They would never do something like kill a citizen while street racing, right?

The vast proportion of the 11 million unauthorized immigrants who are already living here are not criminals, don’t think or behave like criminals, and deserve a chance to stay, as immigrants have always done.

No, they don’t, they came here illegally, and quite a few of them make no attempt assimilate, speak our language, or show their love and respect of this country.

Mr. Trump’s immigration views are driven by defiant ignorance. That they should be embraced by a union whose taxpayer-paid members are the face of the immigration policies of the United States is appalling.

Suddenly, the NYTEB is upset that a public sector union is allowed to have an opinion. They seemed cool when the teacher’s unions were storming the Wisconsin statehouse, trashing the place, leaving human wasted, damaging it, and interfering with government business, while bring the kids who should be in school getting an education along on unapproved field trips.

If union leaders had their members’ interests in mind, they would not be aligning with vigilantes and nativists, birthers and borderline lunatics. They would know better than to view all unauthorized migrants as a class of hardened criminals, and they would treat as a delusion Mr. Trump’s plan to deport 11 million people in two years and to let “the good ones” back in.

They are tasked with treating them all like illegal invaders, people who should not be in this country illegally. Does the NY Times not have security guards, tasked with making sure unauthorized people are not in the NY Times’ building? Would the NY Times allow unauthorized people to simply set up shop and live in their building?

That is the fantasy claptrap that feeds the thinking that dehumanizes migrants, that tolerates reckless violence by border agents, like the shooting of an unarmed child, in the back, through the fence, into Nogales, Mexico — one disturbing episode among many. It reveals an attitude that condones abuse and cruelty toward those in custody and justifies the profiling and harassment of drivers on the highway. And that perspective, not surprisingly, finds common cause with Mr. Trump.

Again, I bet the Times would be very upset if these “migrants” decided to live in the lobby of the NY Times building, and would have security remove them and most likely have them arrested for trespassing. Note that there is no mention of these “migrants” throwing rocks at the BP, nor shooting at them. No mention of BP agents being killed by illegals, nor of illegals killing American citizens. Nor that many of them are repeat offenders, having been deported many times, yet keep coming in because the border is not secure. Did the Times think they would actually endorse an open borders idiot like Hillary or Bernie?

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!