According to the New York Times (1/4/24), the immigration situation has put President Joe Biden at odds with local Democratic leaders who want a tougher border policy. But the evidence of local Democrats morphing into Trumpists on the border is scant to nonexistent.
The New York Times (1/4/24) reports that “President Biden is under growing pressure to curb record numbers of migrants…from Democratic mayors and governors.”
The so-called migrant crisis—the increase in refugees at the US southern border (FAIR.org, 6/2/23)—has been seized on by Republicans as a line of attack against Biden as he runs for reelection (Gallup, 12/22/23; USA Today, 1/4/24), as well as a way to cause chaos in Democratic strongholds. This latter motive is exemplified by Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s program of shipping unsuspecting asylum-seekers to Democratic cities. (Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis similarly exploited migrants by tricking them into going to Massachusetts’ Martha’s Vineyard—FAIR.org, 8/31/23.)
In a front-page, above-the-fold piece headlined “Biden Faces Pressure on Immigration, and Not Just From Republicans,” Times reporters Michael Shear and Miriam Jordan led by saying that Democratic mayors and governors were applying “growing pressure” on Biden “to curb record numbers of migrants crossing into the United States.”
The article concluded by saying that the administration’s willingness to speed up the deportation process “would be a huge departure from the positions taken by most Democrats” in the beginning of Biden’s term, but that these Democratic mayors and governors made it clear that the “dynamics have changed.”
The Times admitted that, “for the most part,” these Democrats “are not calling for the kind of severe border restrictions that Republicans are demanding.” Yet that is not how the Times framed this situation at the bookends of the article. In essence, the Times began and ended the article by saying that their reporting showed that Biden is under pressure from both Republicans and Democrats to take more anti-immigrant attitudes, both at the border and toward undocumented immigrants generally.
One problem: That isn’t what the Times sources say in the rest of the article.
Asking for help, not a wall
The Times‘ first example of a Democratic politician who wants to “curb record numbers of migrants” is Denver Mayor Mike Johnston—who wants to make it easier for migrants to legally work (NBC, 12/7/23)
The first Democratic politician to be quoted was Mayor Mike Johnston of Denver, whose city has been struggling to house a growing number of incoming migrants (NPR, 12/14/23). He told NBC News (12/7/23) that his solution rested on expediting work authorizations, and was quoted in the Times story, “This is actually a solvable problem, if we had work authorization, federal dollars and a coordinated entry plan.”
The Times later quoted Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson—from his appearance on Face the Nation on CBS (12/31/23)—who stated that cities are simply unequipped to handle the situation. Rather than demand enhanced law enforcement against migrants, he demanded that cities receive more federal aid. He recently announced that he would meet with Illinois congressional leaders about securing such funding (WLS, 1/4/24).
Like Johnston in Denver, Johnson pointed his ire less at Biden and more at Abbott (CBS, 12/31/23). He recently said Abbott was “determined to continue to sow seeds of chaos” after a “private plane chartered by Texas officials” with migrants arrived outside the city (Chicago Tribune, 12/31/23). Meanwhile, Illinois’s Democatic Gov. J.B. Pritzker said in a statement (9/20/23) that he would
work with the Biden administration and the Department of Homeland Security to address the ongoing influx of asylum seekers with care, compassion and practicality as this crisis evolves.
Pritzker and Johnson are, indeed, clashing over funding to address the migrant issue (WBBM, 12/5/23), but they aren’t changing the overall Democratic position on immigration.
Finally, the article quoted Democratic Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey, who did say the federal government should invest in “border security,” the kind of bland and unspecific comment most politicians make, but also for federal help for local governments to handle the issue. In fact, both Healey and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, also a Democrat, hailed a federal injection of cash into the state to address the influx of migrants last summer (WGBH, 8/18/23).
Healey even said (WAMC, 1/3/24):
I will say, the good news here in Massachusetts is people are housed and, more importantly, people have work authorizations. I asked the Biden administration to get on the ground here a few weeks ago, they did, we processed over 2,000 people for work authorizations. That’s important, because we’ve got a lot of jobs, a lot of employers, a lot of industries looking to put people to work, and so, you know, that’s a good thing.
‘The borders should remain open’
New York Mayor Eric Adams’ anti-immigrant politics are not popular with his constituents or other Democratic politicians in his city (The City, 12/11/23).
The one Democratic politician quoted by the paper with a genuine anti-immigrant stance is New York Mayor Eric Adams, who recently sued the bus companies who are transporting the migrants into the city (Office of the Mayor, 1/4/24). His top advisor called on the federal government to “close the borders” (New York Post, 10/1/23; Twitter, 10/1/23).
Yet even Adams’s own rhetoric doesn’t exactly live up to the “closed borders” framing of the Times. While Adams has openly discouraged migrants from coming to New York, despite it being one of the most international cities in the world, the mayor still stressed (Politico, 10/3/23): “We believe the borders should remain open; that’s the official position of the city.”
And Adams is hardly representative of typical Democratic local governance. A chorus of city council members and progressive leaders are blasting the mayor for exploiting the migrant issue to justify draconian cuts to education and other services, including the fire department (WABC, 12/4/23; The City, 12/11/23). The city’s second-highest citywide elected official, Comptroller Brad Lander, countered the mayor in a statement (1/4/24): “Rather than shutting the door on new New Yorkers, our city, state and federal government must work together to keep the tradition of embracing immigration.” When Adams’ approval rating recently hit a historic low of 28% (WABC, 12/7/23), it became clear that his scapegoating of migrants was not widely embraced by the public.
‘Bipartisan demands for action’
AP (11/1/23) c0rrectly frames Democratic complaints about Biden administration immigration policy as being about lack of resources—not about making common cause with xenophobic Republicans.
In short, the available evidence shows that Democratic leaders recognize the fact that immigration is a federal matter, and that Abbott’s human-trafficking program isn’t just a cruel stunt for the migrants involved, but also a drain on municipal resources in blue cities. In response, they want federal assistance.
There’s no mystery about this. The Associated Press (11/1/23) reported months ago that the “mayors of Chicago, Denver, Houston, Los Angeles and New York” sought “federal help in managing the surge of migrants they say are arriving in their cities with little to no coordination, support or resources from his administration.”
That is a far, far different political position than Republicans’ official policy of xenophobia and closed borders (AP, 1/3/24; Reuters, 1/8/24). Yet that didn’t stop the Times story from asserting, in its second paragraph, that “a clear-cut ideological fight between Democrats and Republicans has become bipartisan demands for action”—falsely suggesting a meeting of the minds between Johnson, the progressive Chicago mayor and a reactionary like Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson.
The Times could have easily written a straightforward story, reporting that local Democratic leaders demand more federal help when it comes to immigrants. Instead, with sloppy reporting and perplexing misframing, featured prominently in a Saturday print edition in the Times, the paper paved the way for a dangerous anti-immigrant backlash.
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the New York Times at letters@nytimes.com. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your communication in the comments thread.
FEATURED IMAGE: New York Times photo of migrants in New York that accompanied its January 4, 2024, article.
“[S]loppy”?
I’d call it deliberately duplicitous.
“[P]erplexing”?
Isn’t it crystal clear what’s being peddled here?
Clever reporting but the author left out important facts such as several Democratic Mayors in New Jersey are currently sending their recently arrived migrants to NYC via New Jersey mass transit. Also, its well documented NYC Mayor Adams re-sends (by bus and plane) approx 20% of these migrants off to parts unknown. Salient, important points that spoil an other wise ‘fair’ narrative.
Salient, important and wrong in its spin.
The majority of migrants traveling from NJ to NYC are not “sent” by anybody, they go there, sometimes with transportation partly funded by New Jersey cities (not “Democratic Mayors” as you contend) because NYC is where the offices of the consulates of their countries of origin are.
Similarly, migrants traveling from NYC to other locations (is it “well documented” or “parts unknown, José Balart?) receive help with bus or air fare from NYC’s budget (again, not from Mayor Adams) on their way to family and jobs.
Let’s revisit the notion of a “fair” narrative.
Well, ‘if so, facto’ huhh ? I consider you little narrative ‘Spin’ and frankly just confirming my written words.
This entire paragraph is biased to the point of lying. You say, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary’ that the humanitarian and, for the border states, financial crisis at our border is ” so-called.” You say, in the face of more evidence, that Gov. Abbott is shipping “unsuspecting” illegals to democratic cities. You have to be either dense or following an agenda-driven script to not understand that every person that illegally crosses that border have been made well aware of exactly what to expect once the crime is committed and the border is breached. That would include knowledge of the buses, and each adult has free will before boarding the bus going to the “sanctuary” city they choose to go to. They continue to board those buses, and there are no empty seats. Neither Gov. Abbott nor Gov. DeSantis are “tricking” anyone. It’s all a voluntary and informed decision.
Stop lying. Do journalism.
“The so-called migrant crisis—the increase in refugees at the US southern border (FAIR.org, 6/2/23)—has been seized on by Republicans as a line of attack against Biden as he runs for reelection (Gallup, 12/22/23; USA Today, 1/4/24), as well as a way to cause chaos in Democratic strongholds. This latter motive is exemplified by Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s program of shipping unsuspecting asylum-seekers to Democratic cities. (Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis similarly exploited migrants by tricking them into going to Massachusetts’ Martha’s Vineyard—FAIR.org, 8/31/23.)”
Free will to board the buses?
Spare us.
It is not a crime to be a refugee. You are mistaken.
A little late, I had some things on limited time which I considered higher priority. In any case, outrageous article. Getting a hold of it, worse even than Mr. Paul details. Below is the letter I wrote. Not very polite, but I considered the purpose as a warning to the Times: “many people are wise to you.” I wasn’t interested in an “effective” letter for them to “do better.” I don’t think that’s what they’re about.
Well, here it goes:
Dear New York Times,
The headline of your January 4th article, “Biden Faces Pressure on Immigration, and Not Just from Republicans,” suggests that a bipartisan consensus and opposition to President Biden’s apparently “open border” policies is growing, and indeed that was the focus of the piece.
Reading the article, however, it becomes clear that the pressure President Biden faces from Democrats is for more funding so northern cities and states can better welcome and assimilate migrants, asylum seekers, and humanitarian parolees. The mayors of Denver, Chicago, and New York, as well as the governor of Massachusetts, are referenced and, with the exception of Mayor Adams of NYC, quoted in the article.
What then is the motivation of the writers Michael D. Shear and Miriam Jordan, and the Times’s editors to title the article as they did, open the article with
President Biden is under growing pressure to curb record numbers of migrants
crossing into the United States — not just from the usual Republican critics, but also
from Democratic mayors and governors in cities thousands of miles from the border.
and conclude in the three penultimate paragraphs
(About the push by the White House to get more funding for Ukraine by tying border issues, the assault on Palestine, and security funding to Taiwan)
“But the pressure on Mr. Biden is clearly having an effect on the legislative
negotiations. White House officials have signaled that they are open to changes that
would make it harder for asylum seekers to pass an initial hurdle, known as a
credible fear interview. If that happens, more of them will be returned home more
quickly.
Democratic negotiators, including Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security
secretary, also have appeared willing to discuss new rules that will allow more rapid
deportations of migrants living illegally in the United States far from the border.
That would be a huge departure from the positions taken by most Democrats in
the opening days and months of Mr. Biden’s presidency. But as the mayors and
governors have made clear, the dynamics have changed”?
Why is the New York Times promoting the far right’s xenophobic case against President Biden?
The motivation is disturbingly made clear in the 9th and 10th paragraphs of the 35-paragraph article:
Most have arrived, unannounced, on buses or planes sent by Texas Gov. Greg
Abbott, who argues that cities far from the border should get a taste of the flood
of migrants in his state. Democratic mayors have lashed out at Mr. Abbott for what
they say is a political stunt, using human beings as props.
So far, the stunt seems to have worked, by delivering the migrants — often without
coats, or family members in the U.S. — to the cities far to the north.
The crime of human trafficking, and possibly kidnapping, is merely a “stunt” that the Times cheers as a success. As they are to Abbott, the migrants, asylum seekers, and humanitarian parolees are just props for the right-wing extremist agenda. Who cares if mothers and children are shivering on the frigid northern streets of Denver, Chicago, Boston, and New York without coats? Who cares if they catch pneumonia and die? The Times doesn’t. What is more important is that the “stunt seems to have worked.”
None of the migrants, coatless or not, disembarking the buses are interviewed for the piece. Their thoughts and opinions don’t matter. The promotion of the xenophobic agenda takes precedence. Indeed, Mr. Shear reported from DC and Ms. Jordan from LA. Remotely. Could have been from Otzma Yehudit party (Ben-Givr’s party) headquarters in Jerusalem or Fidesz party (Orban’s party) headquarters in Budapest.
Note: parenthetical explanations not provided in original.
In the 15th and 16th paragraphs of the article, the Times acknowledges the global cause of migration:
A record number of people worldwide are fleeing conflict, climate change, political
turmoil and economic hardship in their homelands, according to the United Nations,
and smuggling networks have expanded their reach to Asia and Africa.
U.S. border agents carried out more than two million migrant apprehensions in the
2023 fiscal year.
As you can see, very factual in tone. Readers are left to question whether the far right’s answer of closed borders is truly feasible. The authors don’t deign to explore. Acceptance of the belief that migrants are coming because of Biden’s “open borders” without question is much preferred. I imagine the above two paragraphs are just included to flatter self-images of professional journalists. The “Gray Lady” has a reputation to uphold, after all.
That the migrants, asylum seekers, and humanitarian parolees are just props for the Times to promote the far-right objective of closed borders is seen later in the article when Mr. Shear and Ms. Jordan write:
Caught in the middle are some of Mr. Biden’s top foreign policy priorities: military
funding to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression, along with money for Israel as it
conducts a war against Hamas following the terror attacks on Oct. 7. Republicans
have held up both priorities as border negotiations continue.
Even a casual follower of the news recognizes this as disinformation. From most news reports, including those from the Times, it was clear that President Biden wanted to use the vengeful slaughter of Palestinians as a means to attain funding for Ukraine. The radical right dragged the border into negotiations. The writers and editors of this piece would like us to view individuals and families fleeing danger and hardship as “nuisances” who get in the way of more important priorities: fighting for white people against Russia and maintaining white dominance over brown Palestine.
As the article indicates, the Biden administration has signaled it is more than willing to sacrifice these “nuisances” for proxy Ukraine and white colonial rule in the Middle East. Apparently, this isn’t “hard” enough for Mr. Shear, Ms. Jordan, and their editors. Even before October 7th, Biden was deeply unpopular among those who care about immigration, a significant Democratic constituency, because his policies were as cruel as Trump’s in practice. The only difference was the current president put a “Holy Joe” face on them. When Trump returns in less than a year, perhaps immigrants, refugees, migrants, asylum seekers, and humanitarian parolees can be dropped from helicopters, Pinochet-style, into the Gulf of Mexico, as a right-wing extremist in Congress recently suggested. Perhaps full-blown slavery will return to the United States. Perhaps then Mr. Shear, Ms. Jordan, and their editors can sit back and take satisfaction and pride in knowing they helped make it happen.
Perhaps too this piece was requested by editorial management in a pandering attempt to prove “bona fides” to Trump for once his dictatorship gets underway. As it has proven throughout its history, the Times is more than capable of serving as a propaganda ministry. The problem for the “paper of record” is that Trump doesn’t read, and even if his people do and are aware of the Times’ propaganda utility, Trump much prefers the “radical left, lying New York Times” narrative for his populist charade. Good days do not lie ahead for the Times under Trump, no matter the effort. I would make contingency plans in the event of closure, shutdown, and arrest.
Sincerely,
Ed Kilcullen
(58-years-old, native New Yorker, living for the last 6 years in Japan)