Wednesday, June 15, 2022

Where is Walter Cronkite now that we need him?

 


One of our neighbors mentioned the other day that she had stopped watching FOX “news” Her decision was based more on economics than her dissatisfaction with the channel itself, since she admits that she missed the channel.

 

One of her relatives had suggested watching Newsmax – but I told her that it was not a reliable news source.

 

You’re never going to find consensus on which news source is more credible, but here’s a way to start.

Media Bias / Fact Check is an independent website that rates the bias, factual accuracy, and credibility of media sources. Media Bias/Fact Check determines the bias of media sources and the level of overall factual reporting through a combination of objective measures and subjective analysis using our stated methodology. Dave Van Zandt is the primary editor for sources. He is assisted by a collective of volunteers and paid contractors who provide research for many sources listed on these pages. Finally, MBFC also provides occasional fact checks, original articles on media bias and publishes daily, curated fact-checks from around the world.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/about/

How do we know if THIS source is credible?

Here’s one fact from their website:

“The credibility of a website/media source is not determined by who owns them but rather by their track record. Everybody starts as a beginner and, through experience, becomes an authority in their field. MBFC is no different. Over the last 6+ years, we have proven to be a trusted authority on the rating of bias and the credibility of media sources. For example, MBFC is trusted by major media outlets and IFCN fact-checkers. This is evidenced by frequently being referenced by sources such as USA Today, Reuters Fact Check, Science Feedback, Washington Post, and NPR, among dozens of others. We are also frequently used as a resource in libraries, high schools, and universities across the United States.

Media Bias/Fact Check has also been used as a resource for research by the University of Michigan and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Further, we have been utilized by numerous print books such as these:

Finally, MBFC scored a perfect 100/100 rating by Newsguard, which rates the credibility of Media Sources. We believe it is significant that a competitor gave us this score.

 

I get most of my information from newspapers, and subscribe to The New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Boston Globe since they have earned the most Pulitzer Prizes. However, if you want to get your information from television, here’s a few ideas on where to start (the comments below are from MBFC:

 

 

Newsmax:

  

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

  • We rate Newsmax Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience as well as numerous failed fact checks.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

 

 

FOX “news”

FOX was a little better:

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

  • We rate Fox News strongly Right-Biased due to editorial positions and story selection that favors the right. We also rate them Mixed factually and borderline Questionable based on poor sourcing and the spreading of conspiracy theories.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

 

 

One America News

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

  • Overall, we rate One America News Questionable based on far-right bias, lack of sourcing, promotion of conspiracy theories, and propaganda, as well as numerous failed fact checks. OAN is not a credible news source.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Numerous Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

 

 

Breitbart:

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

  • Overall, we rate Breitbart Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda, as well as numerous false claims.

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Extreme Right, Propaganda, Conspiracy, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

****************************************

 

Trump News:

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

  • Overall, we rate From the Desk of Donald J. Trump Right Biased and questionable based on the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, and numerous false claims.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Poor Sourcing, Conspiracy Theories, Propaganda, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: FAR RIGHT
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

****************************

Apart from FOX, the most watched cable networks are MSNBC and CNN. This is how they are rated:

MSNBC

  •           Overall, we rate MSNBC Left Biased based on story selection that consistently favors the establishment left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to news hosts and the website producing 3 pants on fire claims.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

 

CNN

  • Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be sourced adequately with minimal failed fact checks.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

  

To the chagrin of the conservatives in the country, the MOST reliable source of television news is the “main street media”:

  • Overall, we rate CBS News Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

 


  • Overall, we rate NBC News Left-Center biased based on story selection and word choices that moderately favor the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a reasonable fact check record.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic

 


  • Overall, we rate ABC News Left-Center biased based on story selection and word choices that moderately favor the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing, and a reasonable fact check record.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

 

 

Waler Cronkite had a career that spanned 40 years, and at least 30 of those years were with CBS. His last broadcast was on March 6, 1981. The link below gives you more information on his career.



https://tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2022/03/and-thats-way-it-is.html

 The title of “the most trusted in America has had several contenders since 1981. In 2018, it was Anderson Cooper of CNN, who received the Cronkite Award in October of 2018.


 In 1998, Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. So, who was the must trusted man in America in 2013?

If you answered “Bill Clinton”, you would be correct.

https://tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-most-trusted-man-in-america-part-2_18.html

Today, the most trusted man in the world would likely be Volodymyr Zelensky, who is a former comedian. In 1981, the most trusted man in America was also a comedian. His name is Jon Stewart.

          https://tohell-andback.blogspot.com/2011/10/most-trusted-man-in-america.html

After Kellyanne Conway used the term “alternative facts”, it became more difficult to tell real news from fake news, so the article about may help you sort things out a bit.

Although my favorite news sources tend to be on the liberal side, there ARE credible news sources that are more conservative, and the Wall Street Journal is a prime example. Ironically, it is owned by News Corp, which also owns FOX “news”.

 Fox used to have “fair and balanced” as its motto, but it was dropped in 2017.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/business/media/fox-news-fair-and-balanced.html

“The shift has nothing to do with programming or editorial decisions,” the network said in a statement. Instead, the slogan was dropped in part because of its close association with Roger Ailes, a network founder, former chairman and the originator of the phrase, who was fired in August in a sexual harassment scandal.

The network said that “Fair and Balanced” was shelved as a marketing tool after Mr. Ailes’s departure. In its place is a new motto: “Most Watched, Most Trusted.”

 Truthfully, I would not consider it to be the most trusted, but here is what I recommend:

 Get your information from as many sources as you can, both liberal and conservative. Over time, you’ll develop the ability to “separate the wheat from the chaff” and decide which news (in your opinion) is the most reliable.

 Uncle Walter would agree.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

the ghost of Don Bolles

 


Journalism can be a dangerous profession.

         

In 2021, 55 journalists were killed, and most of them were in two regions, Asia-Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. 90% of the killings that have taken place since 2006 are still unresolved.

         https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/01/1109232

 One killing that WAS resolved involved a reporter for the Arizona Republic named Don Bolles.

Former Arizona Republic reporter Don Bolles thought the mob had its fingers in the Phoenix Greyhound Park. He pursued the story through the early 1970s and there’s reason to believe he was thinking about it when a bomb went off beneath his driver’s seat on June 2, 1976.



 .



After the bomb exploded under his car, as he backed out of the parking lot of the Hotel Clarendon that June day, onlookers who rushed over to help heard him say “mafia” and “Emprise,” the company that partly owned Phoenix Greyhound Park.

Time and changing social mores would eventually do what Bolles’ journalism couldn’t: turn off the cash spigot at the dog track.

Dog racing ended in 2009. Arizona law banned it years later, ensuring it would never start up again.

This February, another vestige of the dog track came down.

 



The grandstand, which promised patrons fine dining with floor-to-ceiling windows overlooking the racing action, was taken down by excavators that hacked away at it, leaving behind heaps of concrete and glass.

It is not known what happened to any of the building’s secrets. 

Phoenix Greyhound Park would start getting press in 1969. But not the kind they wanted. Bolles started investigating Phoenix Greyhound Park that year after an editor noted a lawsuit filed by breeders against the Funk family, which owned every dog track in the state.


Posted by at No comments:

Friday, June 3, 2022

thoughts on the border "crisis"

 


There are currently 5 Republicans competing to be the 2022 candidate for governor in Arizona.

They are Kari Lake, Scott Neely, Matt Salmon, Karrin Taylor Robson, and Paola Tilliani Zen.

 

The highlighted portions of their bios show why they would be poor choices for governor.

Former television anchor Kari Lake has jumped into politics. After 22 years at FOX 10, Lake left the Phoenix station in March 2021, bashing the media on her way out for what she described as a lack of balanced coverage. Even before departing the station, Lake showed signs of delving into the far-right movement of the Republican Party, including an incident when she shared a debunked video about COVID-19. She’s since aligned herself with members of the Stop the Steal movement and QAnon. She’s earned the endorsement of Donald Trump for her fervent support of claims the 2020 election was stolen from the former president.

Valley business owner Scott Neely is considered a longshot candidate in the race for governor. He’s the owner of Action Concrete Pumping Supply in Mesa, and plays up his blue-color aesthetic online as the candidate for all people, “from the dirt to the boardroom.” Like other GOP candidates, Neely has praised the so-called audit of Maricopa County elections led by Senate Republicans and raised suspicions about the 2020 election.

Former U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon is running for governor for the second time — he narrowly lost a race 18 years ago to Democrat Janet Napolitano. Salmon served in the Arizona Legislature before winning three terms in Congress in the 1990s. Salmon ended his congressional tenure to follow a pledge that he would serve only three terms. He went on to run for governor in 2002, worked as a lobbyist and served two more terms in Congress from 2013 through 2016. In a video announcing his entry into the governor’s race, Salmon touted his conservative views, such as supporting gun rights and strong border security and opposing critical race theory and tax hikes.

I’d give Salmon a quadruple bogie for the following reasons:

1)    Any politician that still does not believe in stronger gun laws should not be in office.

2)   Anyone who is opposed to students learning ALL of our history should not be in office

3)   Anyone concerned about the “border crisis” is not serious about immigration reform

4)   In you examine tax cuts going back to at least the Reagan era, you’ll discover that tax cuts DO NOT generate economic growth as well as other programs

 

Karrin Taylor Robson identifies herself as a conservative leader and successful business leader — and she’s the preferred candidate of establishment Republicans in Arizona. She’s committed to protecting Arizona from the “radical left,” she said on her website. Taylor Robson also plans to focus on building and sustaining a dynamic and diverse economy, protecting property values and supporting the military. Though considered a more centrist candidate due to her political allies in the GOP, Taylor Robson hasn’t shied away from aspersions of the 2020 election, as she recently told the New York Times the election “wasn’t fair” despite President Joe Biden’s clear victory.

Another longshot bid for governor, Paola “Z.” Tulliani Zen can’t be ignored thanks to a well-financed — and mostly self-financed — campaign. She’s put nearly $1.2 million towards her candidacy through a political action committee, Z for Arizona. Tulliani Zen, the former owner of La Dolce Vita biscotti company, vows to “embrace bold traditional values of ingenuity and common sense.”

 

Here's Brennan’s law of common sense:

Any candidate that is still claiming that the 2020 election was stolen should be automatically excluded from consideration for the governor’s office. In addition, those who think that we are having a crisis at the border should also be automatically excluded from the governor’s race.

 

All of the people above have that view, and Karrin Taylor Robson vows to “complete the border wall”.

https://kjzz.org/content/1684307/2022-arizona-governors-race-candidates

What all these “Christians” forget about is what the Bible says about immigration.

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 19:33-34

 

What Does the Bible Say about Immigration? (and How Should Christians Respond) - (christianity.com)

 

So, why do so many people from “south of the border” want to come here?

Here’s the answer:

Just as Pope Francis' trip to Cyprus and Greece shone a light on the humanitarian crisis unfolding in the Mediterranean Sea, the good people at the Hope Border Institute have issued a report entitled "No Queda de Otra" on the root causes of immigration that shines a light on the humanitarian crisis at our southern border. "What led you to leave your home?" was the question posed to 51 migrants in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, and the answers provide the basis of the report. 

The study found that Central Americans tend to migrate for a variety of reasons such as poverty, gang violence or domestic violence. Among the Mexicans they surveyed, violence and threats were the primary reason given for choosing to leave their homes, especially the forced conscription of young men into gangs run by drug cartels. Virtually all those interviewed said that "their income in their country of origin was insufficient to cover basic needs." The twin hurricanes, Eta and Iota, in November 2020 pushed those struggling already into desperation. Sixty percent of migrants were traveling with their families. Hovering over all these phenomena in the past two years was the specter of COVID-19 and the economic dislocation it occasioned.

The report contextualized the survey responses with important data points. Despite progress in recent years lifting people out of extreme poverty, in 2020, 4.7 million people in Latin America and the Caribbean were "pushed out of the middle class into poverty." They found that in Honduras, one country where migration is the most pronounced, only 25% of the population was fully vaccinated, and in Guatemala that number dropped to 16%.

The most shocking data point was this: “Nearly 70% of our interviewees were extorted or threatened by a criminal organization or gang at some point in their life. Despite having few resources to hand over, gangs pursued them with an incredible degree of persistence and violence.” We in the U.S. are right to worry about the health of our democracy, but perhaps helping these failing states to our south would be one way to recognize anew the preciousness of living under the rule of law. Our police and legal systems have their problems, to be sure, but we are not a failed state.

The report looks at the impact of climate change on the region and notes we can expect additional migration due to it. Especially in agricultural regions, the cycles of increased drought and heavy rain are destroying a way of life that goes back to the time before the Conquista. Hurricanes have long been a threat to the region, but they are now more frequent and of greater intensity than they were even a few years back. The people most affected, who work the land in the poorer regions of Central America, were not the ones adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, yet they have already begun to pay the environmental cost of our industrial revolutions.   

Statistics are important, but they are dry and do not capture the uniqueness of each person's story, so the report includes accounts of some of the individuals they interviewed, changing the names to protect their anonymity. Some of the stories are heartbreaking:

For example, Luz, a woman from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, had a degree in marketing, a good job at a bank and a home in a gated community where she was raising two sons as a single mother. When the pandemic began, her salary at the bank was cut by 65% and she took out a $5,000 lempira (approximately $200 USD) cash loan to cover basic expenses. The lenders began extorting her after she had paid off the loan and forced her to pay them over $70,000 lempiras (approximately $3,000 USD) as they stalked her, photographed her coming and going to work and made death threats. She tried to report the crime at two separate police stations but was told at both to keep paying. While family support helped her cope with the greatest dangers, it was not enough to stop the extortion. Several months later in Ciudad Juárez, she was still suffering sadness, depression and guilt from having left one son in hiding in Honduras because she could not pay to travel with both.

This woman went from a good job to refugee status in a matter of months due to some bad actors and a police force unable to enforce the law. No wonder she fled.

Luz’s story is one you wish everyone could learn. The next time you hear an anti-immigrant blowhard on Fox News or in the church hall after Mass, tell her story. Do they not admire her motherly protective instincts in fleeing a situation that compromised her ability to raise her children? Do they think this woman would not find ways to contribute to America? In what possible understanding of the term is this woman not a refugee? Why did the interview have to occur in Mexico rather than Texas?

Another woman who started poor found herself completely devastated by the hurricanes:

Sara, a 43 year-old woman from a small community in Huehuetenango, Guatemala, lived in a home made of earth with a tin roof. She made 15 quetzales (about $2 USD) per day doing laundry and cutting wood in the absence of more steady work, hauled water from outside her home and struggled to manage her colic and gastritis. She noted that drought in the summer and heavy flooding during hurricane season had become a feature of life. This precarity came full circle when the hurricanes destroyed her home entirely. 

One wonders how she found the wherewithal to make it to Ciudad Juárez? When people refer to someone like Sara as "illegal," what law decreed she must be consigned to extreme poverty because climate change had made major storms more frequent and more devastating? Is it a crime to live in the path of a hurricane?

The report finishes with some recommendations. I would put reducing gang violence and strengthening the criminal justice system at the top of the list: Until the rule of law is in place, no other changes are going to improve the lives of people in the countries of origin. The other items are important too: providing economic development support; making “climate change mitigation and adaptation a central pillar of development efforts and root causes policy”; and getting COVID vaccines to the people.

The report also makes recommendations to humanize our immigration policy. I fear that the Biden administration has not been able to conceptualize a political path forward on these issues, let alone flesh out such humanization into specific policies that could pass through Congress. I wish we could foresee the day when the administration would revoke the Title 42 expulsion policy, which denies entry to people from a country where a communicable disease was present — that is to say every country now — but we can't.

Our friends at Hope Border continue their splendid work of advocacy and, with this report, strengthen that work with research. Their findings will not melt the cold hearts of too many Americans, and they won't convince the people at Fox News that the humanitarian crisis south of the border creates a moral crisis on our side of that same border. At this time, both crises are at fever pitch and, on our side, there is nothing but shame. 

 

The most cost-effective way to reduce the number of people crossing our border is provide enough financial assistance so that they can safely stay in their own country, and earn enough income to pay for their basic expenses.

 

https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/migrants-were-asked-why-did-you-leave-your-home-heres-what-they-said

 

Congress has passed bi-partisan legislation to provide aid to Central America. In fiscal year 2017, the amount pledged was $180 million. For fiscal year 2018, the amount approved was $370 million.

 

On June 17, 2019, the Trump administration cut all those funds.

Lawmakers, including some of Trump’s fellow Republicans as well as Democrats, have chafed against the president’s repeated decisions to disregard spending bills passed by Congress, some of which he has signed into law himself.

Lawmakers who opposed the plan said it was cruel to cut off aid to countries grappling with hunger and crime and that the move would be counterproductive because it would more likely increase the number of migrants than decrease it.

“As feared, a presidential tantrum will limit our nation’s ability to actually help address the challenges forcing people to flee to the U.S.,” Democratic Senator Bob Menendez said on Twitter.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-trump-idUSKCN1TI2C7

 

According to CBP data provided to FactCheck.org, the Trump administration secured a total of $15 billion during his presidency for wall construction. Some of it was appropriated in annual budgets by Congress, and some was diverted by Trump from counternarcotics and military construction funding. But it has all been borne by American taxpayers.

Back in August of 2020, when Trump was accepting the Republican nomination, he boasted: “The wall will soon be complete, and it is working beyond our wildest expectations.”

Most of the wall constructed to date has been replacement for existing dilapidated or inadequate fencing, despite earlier plans to build new barriers where none existed before. In 2018, an administration official testified that his agency would build 316 miles of new pedestrian barriers “in addition to what is there now.” But to date only about 40 miles of such new fencing have been built.

Other border experts warn not to minimize the impact of the replacement fencing. In some cases, the new barriers erected replaced fencing made from Vietnam-era landing mats. U.S. Customs and Border Protection also has replaced nearly 200 miles of vehicle barriers — the type that people could walk right through — with 30-foot-high steel bollards, lighting and other technology.

That’s a dramatic change. Below are before-and-after photos of vehicle barriers replaced by fencing in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona. The first was taken in April 2019, the second in January 2020:




 


 But it may be years before we are able to tell how effective the wall has been at stopping illegal immigration. Many factors that have nothing to do with the wall — COVID-19, the economy, civil unrest — all play a role in attempted illegal border crossings.

Experts use figures on border apprehensions to gauge the level of illegal border crossings. The data from CBP present a mixed bag when it comes to making Trump’s case.

Border apprehensions spiked in fiscal year 2019, and then fell by about half in fiscal 2020, which ended on Sept. 30. It is impossible to tease out how much of that drop may be as a result of the new barriers constructed under Trump, but a Pew Research Center report documenting the decline attributed it mostly to a worldwide decrease in the movement of migrants due to the COVID-19 outbreak, and governments fully or partially closing their borders as a result.

Most immigrants who cross into the U.S. illegally come from Mexico and Central American countries that have passed measures restricting the movements of their residents due to COVID-19.

During the time period that money was being spent on the wall, infections from COVI skyrocketed, and over 1,000,000 Americans have died, in part because the Trump administration downplayed the severity of the pandemic, and also did not allocate adequate funding for vaccinations.

 

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/trumps-border-wall-where-does-it-stand/

 So, what’s the REAL cause of the border crisis?

Donald Trump.

Remember that in November.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)