The liberal press is engaged in a constant cri de cœur, bewailing the fact that Donald Trump is our president, and attacking everything the administration does, no matter how benign. The New York Times, in particular, is impossible to parody. It exists for no purpose other than to elect Democrats, and therefore to attack President Trump and his administration at every opportunity. That is, in virtually every item of national or international “news” that it covers.
This is a screen shot of an email I got this morning from the Times. Do you see a pattern? Is there any reason why they bother to publish a newspaper, other than to implore voters to elect Democrats in the midterm elections, and a Democratic president in 2028? It reads like a parody of the Times. But no, this is the actual newspaper:
I was curious about the story on the woman who “sacrificed everything to reach the U.S.,” but “under Trump, decided to leave.” That article is typical of the Times‘s coverage of the illegal immigration issue:
Ms. Rojas left her home country of Venezuela two years ago and first spent a spell living in Colombia, she said. She packed up her son and daughter in the summer of 2023 and made her way to Missouri, after the three crossed the U.S.-Mexico border and turned themselves over to the authorities to request asylum.
I don’t blame Ms. Rojas for leaving the hellhole of Venezuela, once beloved by American liberals. But the law of asylum says that you apply for asylum in the first safe country you reach. It seems that very few do that, either here or in Europe. Here, Rojas could have applied for asylum in either Colombia or Mexico, but didn’t–likely because she preferred to be in the U.S., but also because she knew that those countries would scrutinize her asylum application, while under Joe Biden, she would be welcomed into the U.S. with no questions asked.
For Yessica Rojas, the choice was clear. After less than two years in Missouri, she and her two children had to leave.
The reason, she said, were [sic] stories about Venezuelan mothers like her that had gone viral on social media. Ms. Rojas heard they had been deported to Venezuela while the American authorities held on to their children.
“It just isn’t worth it now,” said Ms. Rojas, 29, explaining her decision to leave the United States.
The stories are not just rumors: This year, a Venezuelan 2-year-old called Antonella by her family remained in foster care while her mother was sent back to Venezuela and her father to a prison in El Salvador. (Antonella has since been returned to her family.)
The idea that the U.S. would deport illegals while “holding on” to their children is ridiculous. In fact, the Trump administration has been accused of the opposite: in the most widely-publicized case, liberals alleged that the administration had “deported” a two-year-old American citizen. But, as Secretary Kristi Noem and others explained, you can’t deport a citizen. The child’s mother, an illegal alien, was deported, and she chose to take the child with her. The Trump administration doesn’t separate families at the border.
In the case referred to by the Times, the father was evidently a criminal who is now imprisoned in El Salvador. The mother was deported while the two-year-old Antonella “remained in foster care.” So the child was already in foster care, for reasons the Times doesn’t explain, but probably are related to the fact that the father was a criminal. In any event, Antonella was “returned to her family,” which I assume means her mother.
I wish Ms. Rojas well, and I feel sorry for her, having to live in Venezuela, where she is a citizen. But the fact that the Times never wants to acknowledge is that the United States has immigration laws. Those laws were openly flouted by Joe Biden, in the worst violation of the rule of law in modern American history. A large majority of Americans want the rule of law to be restored. On this fundamental issue, the Times, and pretty much all other liberal news outlets, are on the wrong side.
Tomorrow the Times will send out another email, and once again every story, or nearly every story, will be an attack on the Trump administration. The good news is that no one is paying attention.
