The New York Times’ coverage  of the U.S. House vote against President Trump’s emergency order to protect our southern border lacks balance, legal and precedential context explaining Trump’s actions under his purview as the enforcer of U.S. laws and regulation.
In quoting multiple Democrats and some Republicans skeptical of the president, Reporter Emily Cochrane offered no voices like, for example, Rep. Dan Crenshaw, who pointed out in a public statement that President Trump’s actions were “about the constitutional duty the president has to enforce the laws that this body created, including USC 1325, which makes it illegal to cross our southern border without documentation. Our Constitution requires the president to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’”
Cochrane also offered no perspective from U.S. Border Patrol agents, the Department of Homeland Security and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement leaders who say that our country needs additional security measures on our southern border. The New York Times also made no mention that the demographic makeup of border crossings has shifted dramatically in recent years toward mostly minors and families, who require substantial humanitarian resources to assist them and are significantly more difficult to remove from the country, even though they have no lawful basis to remain here. Cochrane also offered no mention of the more than 70,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017, compared to the reported 12,500 people who died from swine flu when President Obama declared a national emergency in 2009.
Cochrane also failed to mention that states have used emergency declarations responding to crises at the border in the past, for example, then New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, declaring a state of emergency along the border in 2005, stating that the area had “been devastated by the ravages and terror of human smuggling, drug smuggling, kidnapping, murder, destruction of property, and the death of livestock.”