Some people think immigrants, particularly from non-Western parts of the world, are putting the country and its citizens at risk. Other people acknowledge that assimilating foreign folks is not frictionless, but overall, the costs of immigration are overstated and the benefits are underappreciated. [And some people think any limits on immigration are just racist because there is literally no other possible hypothesis . . . more on that later.]
I fall into the second category and generally (but not in all respects) regard restrictions on immigration as consistent with their Progressive provenance, i.e. give-aways to labor cartels at the expense of low wage workers and the population at-large. In other words, I regard immigration as more good than bad for natives and immigrants alike.
A few days ago, however, a Boston couple was tragically and brutally murdered by a West African immigrant who (apparently) was previously convicted twice for robbery. As punishment for those crimes, he received a 364-day sentence because a 365-day sentence would have triggered mandatory deportation.
While this is only a single data point, it is quite plainly a data point in favor of the anti-immigration crowd. An immigrant allegedly did a truly horrible thing and it might have been prevented under a harsher regime.
That presumably explains why the New York Times determined that the story is not worth reporting. Indeed, the only coverage offered by the New York Times was a reprint of an AP story that remarkably referred to the suspect as “30-year-old Bampumim Teixeira, of Chelsea.” That’s consistent with the Washington Post, who also referred to Mr. Teixeira as “a 30-year-old from Chelsea, Mass.” There was no mention of the 364 day sentences.
The Times and Post didn’t bury the story completely, but at the very least they protected their readers from knowing that the suspect was actually from Guinea-Bissau and grew up in Cape Verde, or that a Progressive judge gamed the immigration system to protect Mr. Teixeira from deportation. That data might be used to validate arguments for stricter immigration policy and those are not allowed. [Consider, by contrast, what the coverage would be like if the victims were PoC and the matter was being investigated as a HATE CRIME.]
If you rely on the MSM to help you make informed decisions on matters of public concern, you’re being misled. For the really important stuff, the MSM decides what you’re supposed to think and it protects your feeble mind from nasty thoughts to the contrary. It’s no wonder that Times and Post readers think anti-immigration types are out-of-their-mind racist (and generally regard their political opponents as a combination of crazy, mean and stupid) because they’re spared from any data that would suggest otherwise.
In the Age of Trump, an independent media is all the more important. Someone better alert the media.