On Sunday, November 19, the Denver Post ran an editorial on mass deportation that was divisive and included at least one lie, all with a clear goal of spreading fear and promoting opposition to the policies of President Trump. I'm left wishing I was finally retired so I could send a letter to the Editor in response, but I'm not (yet) so I can't. I can only respond here. Here is what I would have written to them:
------------------------
To the Editor:
Your Editorial of November 17, "Mass deportation will hurt Aurora," is divisive and misleading, including a clearly false statement about President Trump's first term. Your paper is sending a signal that rather than being willing to offer compromises or suggestions to make things better, you intend to spread fear and promote opposition to the policies of President Trump, while insulting the majority of Americans who voted for Trump.
According to your editorial police say there were only 12 members of the violent Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members in Aurora. To paraphrase Vice-President Elect Vance, "Are you even reading what you're saying?" The wording of your Editorial suggests the Denver Post believes no deportation actions are necessary in Aurora because there are only 12 members of Tren de Aragua in Aurora. Is that really what you mean because nothing in your Editorial says you want them removed?
An Editorial seeking to promote unity, not divisiveness, could have commended President Trump for the plan to start his Administration's deportation program by targeting violent criminals and persons on the Terrorist Watch List that are known to be in the United States. You could encourage the Trump Administration to start with the 12 violent Tren d Aragua gang members known to be in Aurora, while cautioning them to be very precise by removing only those individuals.
Your discussion of Trump's plan for people on Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is misleading to say the least. You refer to individuals living in the United States "legally." You make no acknowledgement of the fact that there is a difference of opinion on the legality of their stay. Temporary Protected Status is, as the name states, Temporary. It is not permanent. As your article says "[f]or some going home will be a death warrant." What about the people here on TPS for whom your statement admits going home is not a death warrant? An editorial not so clearly intent on generating fear and outrage would encourage President Trump to adopt procedures to fairly evaluate the status of each individual and only cancel TPS for those from countries where the circumstances have improved.
Your Editorial states "Trump's attempt to repeal Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was one of his first actions as President in 2017." That's not just misleading, that's a lie.
The truth? One of President Trump's first actions was to call on Congress to pass immigration reform and to pressure them to do so Trump said if Congress did not act he'd have no choice but to repeal DACA. President Trump then engaged in negotiations with both Republicans and Democrats to try to achieve a reform bill. Trump was practicing "The Art of the Deal."
Those talks continued until the Democrats, particularly Senators Schumer and Durbin, declared that President Trump used a dirty word to describe third world countries and the Democrats walked out of the negotiations, never to return. Trump used a portion of his State of the Union speech to invite the Democrats back to the negotiating table, offering a program that would protect more "Dreamers" than were included in DACA in return for reasonable immigration reforms that had been supported by Democrats in previous years. Only when the Democrats made clear they would not resume negotiations did President Trump seek to repeal DACA.
An Editorial seeking to both promote unity and offer a better approach to the issue of illegal immigration would tell the truth about what happened in President Trump's first term and suggest President Trump repeat the actions of his first term by again offering to negotiate immigration reform. A non-biased Editorial Board would then say its time for the Democrats to come back to the table and do what's right for our Country and for the Dreamers and other immigrants by seriously negotiating with President Trump.
As a person who supported President Trump, I rejected statements that Trump is the next Hitler or Stalin. I rejected the ridiculous suggestion Trump will be a dictator and end Democracy and cancel future elections. As a Trump supporter, I did intend to give Trump a mandate to deport illegal immigrants. And as a Trump supporter, I reject your Editorial's outrageous characterization of Trump's plan as rabid fear-mongering by an Editorial Board that is unwilling to acknowledge some illegal immigrants should be deported, while being very willing to lie about President Trump's past actions to help fuel your false narrative.
No comments:
Post a Comment