Right on schedule, Time magazine offers the expected excuse for its mendacity:

“TIME defended its cover and its reporting Friday, essentially claiming the facts are irrelevant because of the propaganda value of the piece. The photo and story ‘capture the stakes of this moment,’ the editor in chief told reporter Hadas Gold.”

charles:

“fake but accurate”

That seems to be taught in Journalism 101.

Somewhere, Dan Rather is smiling and shaking his head.

I would suggest that all the world’s honest, productive, and freedom-minded people should have the OPPORTUNITY to legally seek life in the US.

I don’t believe there is any right to have US citizens FUND that opportunity for them.

Why don’t they have enough money to: go to a consulate, apply for asylum, and buy a plane ticket? I’ve never spent $5000 for a flight anywhere anytime.

map of US consulates in Mexico:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2007411182906381&set=p.2007411182906381&type=3

*see this; if we closed the border and shut the detention centers, we could end poverty among American citizens.

https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/illegal-children-on-public-dole-have-higher-living-standards-than-13-2-million-american-children/

It is probably way above the poverty level if the wife managed to pay a smuggler 5K.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/democrats-family-separation-position/

“One of the great cons of contemporary politics is the manner in which elected officials falsely stoke rage and fury for the sake of personal gain and political ambition. The gap between rhetoric and action is so great that contemporary politics is best compared to the WWE. The conflict is play-acted for the cameras, but too many members of the public don’t know that what they’re watching is fake. So they feel real emotion. They feel a real sense of crisis. And Washington rolls on with politics as usual.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/omnibus-bill-immigration-portions-anti-enforcement-win/

Heckuva Job, Paul and Mitch
By MARK KRIKORIAN
March 23, 2018 10:50 AM

“Apart from the absence of a DACA/Dream amnesty, the immigration portions represent a comprehensive victory by the anti-enforcement crowd. Nancy Pelosi even gloated about her victory on the House floor, saying to the president, “if you want to think you’re getting a wall, you just think it and sign the bill.”

Among other things, administration’s requested increase in ICE agents was rejected; since many of those agents were slated for worksite enforcement (which is bureaucratically separate from the deportations side of ICE), the Democrats have ensured that, while illegal aliens will keep getting arrested, the American employers who profit off them will have less to worry about than they would have otherwise.

What’s more, the bill funds less detention space than is currently being used. The request for added space to hold illegal aliens is especially important given the continued high levels of “unaccompanied” minors and family units still streaming across the border. In effect, the (Republican-dominated) House of Representatives has voted to continue a policy of catch-and-release, where illegal aliens, as under Obama, are apprehended and then let go into the U.S.
…
The idea of sanctuary cities is deeply unpopular, and yet measures that would have restricted funds to them, in order to persuade them to turn away from their John C. Calhoun–style nullification of federal law were stricken from the bill. True, the Justice Department lawsuit against California may eventually succeed, but there’s a reason the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse.

The spending bill also micromanages physical barriers on the border. It provides funds for 30-something miles of new fencing on the Texas border, but specifies that none of it may resemble the wall prototypes that the Border Patrol has been testing for the past few months. The bill prohibits any kind of border barrier in the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, a bird sanctuary on the Rio Grande in South Texas. A fence or wall wouldn’t interfere with the birds, of course, since they could fly over it; the objections to building there have centered on the fact that it would restrict access to bird-watchers. And a bollard wall actually saved another sanctuary, the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona, which a decade ago was being overrun by illegal aliens.

Perhaps most galling: The bill provides funding, without the onerous restrictions, to the Secretary of Defense “to enhance the border security of nations adjacent to conflict areas including Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Tunisia” — border security for thee, but not for me.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/donald-trump-family-separation-executive-order-obama-policy/

Trump Moves to Obama’s Position on Family Detention, Democrats Outraged
By DAVID FRENCH
June 21, 2018 3:36 PM

“Democrats — and many Republicans — united to end family separation. Now, Democrats unite again to take on policies that many of them supported (or were silent about) two short years ago. That’s one reason why it’s so hard to take contemporary political rhetoric seriously. Is a policy “child abuse” simply because Trump is executing it?

There is no perspective. There is no sense of proportion. There is no historical memory.”
* * *
To answer French’s question: a judge already decided that enhanced vetting of travelers from certain countries was illegal because Trump did it, but would have been okay from Obama or (presumably) President Hillary.

1) 2014 through 2016 stories from the Washington Post, NPR, and the New York Times with pictures and pictures of migrant kids (separated even).

2) A few posts on the Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Services because one of my friends was an avid poster posting propoganda from LIRS. I discussed the fact that LIRS has received $69 million in their latest Form 990 from the federal government, and in their latest A-133 had significant findings regarding their organization’s financial and managment practices (audit).

3) I also posted about this Honduran woman who took her 2 year old child – leaving her other kids and husband – paying $6000 to a coyote, not being separated, etc. etc

While I only got 3 likes, I have a friend who thanked me for sharing and did not know the information.

I also post from my heart when I do this. I preface everything with as a compassionate and loving man, I am for personal responsibility, not for child trafficking and endangering these children and I make sure that I include the words – PROCESS IS LOVE and LOVE IS PROCESS.

You can’t have no process and have this lawlessness inviting people to snatch kids and then try to cross the border.

What if when my daughter was two, I grabbed her and tried to head into Canada or Mexico leaving my wife. IT is a CRIME.