Press Rogue — April 18, 2019, 3:00 pm

Crisis Mode

Until recently, the editorial boards of the nation’s leading newspapers agreed on one important fact: there was no crisis at the border. In March, when President Trump declared a national emergency, the New York Times said his reasoning ran “contrary to all evidence.” In February, the Washington Post declared that there was “no crisis at the southern border.” A week earlier, the Los Angeles Times had offered a similar analysis: “The nation faces many problems. A crisis at the border isn’t one of them.”

Editorialists spent the early part of this year asserting that the president’s rhetoric on the border was based on a false premise. In the Post’s words, his language was a cynical attempt to “spin fiction as fact, secure in the knowledge that minds will reel as fact-checkers labor to deconstruct his ziggurat of falsehoods.” Meanwhile, more than 200,000 migrants were taken into custody. Hundreds of thousands more are expected to be arrested by Border Patrol officers this year. Yet it was only last week, when the situation precipitated a Homeland Security leadership purge, that opinionators began to recognize that there might indeed be a real crisis. No longer able to ignore the severity of the problem, the Times and Post belatedly deployed David Brooks and Dana Milbank to bemoan the administration’s response, the latter begrudgingly writing: “I’ll admit it: President Trump is right. There’s a crisis on the southern border.”

That a paper’s editorial pontifications are disconnected from facts on the ground is hardly breaking news. But an instance in early March threw the divide into stark relief: the day the Times editorial page ran its missive stating that Trump’s declaration ran “contrary to all evidence,” a headline on the front page characterized the border as being at a “breaking point.”  It fell on a letter to the editor to point out the discrepancy. “So which is it? the reader asked. “No evidence of a crisis, or a real crisis?”

This reader was justified in his confusion. On the issue of immigration, the press has spent the Trump epoch operating under a mandate to quell the president’s sensationalism at all costs, even if it means downplaying the (largely self-imposed) difficulties the government faces in coping with migrants. This pose may explain why many editorial boards, including those of the Times and the Post, have long ignored the swelling numbers of families seeking asylum, a trend that began last summer and that analysts were highlighting as early as January. The opinionators stubbornly refused to acknowledge the developing problem, seemingly anxious that doing so might lend Trump’s rhetoric some legitimacy. Maintaining opposition to his narrative was essential to the project of checking his administration, regardless of conditions on the ground.

The current debate about whether or not the region is in crisis dates to last April, when the Department of Justice’s “zero tolerance policy” went into effect, requiring family members attempting to enter the country without documents to be detained separately. At the time, the Atlantic wrote that the administration was responding to a “largely fictitious crisis,” while most outlets observed that the crisis was not the number of migrants entering the United States, but rather the policy of family separation itself. When the midterms took center stage in the fall, Republicans ginned up another crisis: a “caravan” of a few thousand Central American migrants inching their way toward the border, a procession the president dubbed an “invasion.” The nation’s formidable fact-checking corps leapt on the story, with the Post writing up a “Caravan of Phony Claims” and the AP laying out Trump’s “distorted theories and numbers on immigration.”

The press was right to keep such close tabs on Trump’s distortions. But, inadvertently, these fact-checks played into efforts to actively diminish the situation at large. Politico noted that apprehensions had peaked at 1.64 million back in 2000 and wrote, “Border arrests over the past decade… are very low compared with recent history.” NPR echoed that sentiment, writing, “The total number of migrants apprehended at the border … remains far below the numbers that were routine in the 1990s and 2000s.” The Times returned to the well following Trump’s televised address in January justifying the shutdown. Under the headline “Trump Claims There Is a Crisis at the Border. What’s the Reality?” two reporters wrote that “illegal border crossings have been declining for nearly two decades.” A similar Post story also nodded back to 2000’s record numbers and stated that “nationwide apprehensions of migrants entering the country without authorization are at some of their lowest numbers in decades.”

While the statistics underlying this panoramic framing are accurate, it is also true that the number of detained families reached a new monthly high in December, as the Times and Post articles both clearly pointed out. Yet ideologues shrugged off the recent data, instead focusing solely on the historical numbers. For an editorial board eager to combat the president’s inflammatory stem-winding with grandiloquence of its own, it was easy to ignore a modest shift in the status quo in favor of a broad frame that confirmed the desired narrative: a president using an invented emergency to execute a power grab.

The Post has led the charge on this front. Each month this year has brought a new record tally of migrant families seeking asylum, yet the paper’s opinion pages have remained ostrich-like in their focus on absolute immigration numbers. In that February missive declaring the absence of a crisis, the Post’s editorial board stated, “Illegal crossings between ports of entry … have plummeted since the turn of the century.” The next month, even as it admitted that the number of arriving families constituted a “humanitarian crisis,” the board was resolute that “it remains the case that the migration records being broken involve the composition of migrants … not the overall number of arrests by Border Patrol agents, which remains way below historical levels.” In the past two weeks, there seems to have been a change in the national press, with many coming to terms with the gravity of the situation. Yet the Post’s star columnist Eugene Robinson has remained resolute, declaring on Monday that “tens of thousands of Central American asylum seekers, even hundreds of thousands, do not constitute a serious crisis.”

Such bickering about how many or what types of migrants being detained might count as a genuine crisis betrays the tendency of Washington’s opinion makers to view immigration as just another political shuttlecock, whacked back and forth between opposing courts of crisis and normalcy. And while Trump and the national press go set after set, the human cost only grows. As the Times put it last week, “These days, thousands of people a day simply walk up to the border and surrender.” With so many claiming asylum, “the country is now unable to provide either the necessary humanitarian relief for desperate migrants or even basic controls on the number and nature of who is entering the United States.” That lack of control has manifested in glaring ways, like the recent sequestering of migrants under an El Paso bridge, and in smaller ones, like the case of Jose Arturo Gonzalez Carranza, the widower of a soldier killed in Afghanistan who was mistakenly deported to Mexico last week. The Times’ Wednesday story on Gonzalez Carranza exemplifies the strong reporting being done on the border, fleshing out the travails people are forced to endure when a system reaches its “breaking point,” even as the editorial boards hem and haw.

Semantic wrangling about whether such stories constitute a crisis is beside the point, and the reluctance of many liberal editorialists to admit that stability at the border remains elusive speaks to a childish refusal to cede any ground to the Trump administration. The fact-checkers were right to counter the conservative bombast about a caravan crisis, but their emphasis on historical context muddied the waters, making it easier for their publications’ armchair strategists to overlook the growing numbers of asylum seekers. Editorials exist to observe problems and explore policy prescriptions; the process demands long-range perspective, but must also be grounded in day-to-day reporting. Insisting for so long that there was no crisis at the border betrays a failure by opinionators to fully reckon with their colleagues’ diligent reporting. Rather than evaluate the immigration system in action, they chose to focus on political gamesmanship, and in the process, got lost in a shouting match with Trump.

Share
Single Page

More from Kyle Paoletta:

Press Rogue May 16, 2019, 4:00 pm

Playing With Fire

Press Rogue May 9, 2019, 4:00 pm

Boys on the Bus

Press Rogue May 2, 2019, 3:41 pm

Correct the Record

Get access to 169 years of
Harper’s for only $23.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

June 2019

Downstream

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Stonewall at Fifty

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Maid’s Story

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Is Poverty Necessary?

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Is Poverty Necessary?·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In 1989 I published a book about a plutonium-producing nuclear complex in En­gland, on the coast of the Irish Sea. The plant is called Sellafield now. In 1957, when it was the site of the most serious nuclear accident then known to have occurred, the plant was called Windscale. While working on the book, I learned from reports in the British press that in the course of normal functioning it released significant quantities of waste—plutonium and other transuranic elements—into the environment and the adjacent sea. There were reports of high cancer rates. The plant had always been wholly owned by the British government. I believe at some point the government bought it from itself. Privatization was very well thought of at the time, and no buyer could be found for this vast monument to dinosaur modernism.

Back then, I shared the American assumption that such things were dealt with responsibly, or at least rationally, at least in the West outside the United States. Windscale/Sellafield is by no means the anomaly I thought it was then. But the fact that a government entrusted with the well-being of a crowded island would visit this endless, silent disaster on its own people was striking to me, and I spent almost a decade trying to understand it. I learned immediately that the motives were economic. What of all this noxious efflux they did not spill they sold into a global market.

Article
Stonewall at Fifty·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Early in the morning on June 28, 1969, New York police raided the Stonewall Inn at 53 Christopher Street, the city’s most popular gay bar. The police had raided Stonewall frequently since its opening two years before, but the local precinct usually tipped off the management and arrived in the early evening. This time they came unannounced, during peak hours. They swept through the bar, checking I.D.s and arresting anyone wearing attire that was not “appropriate to one’s gender,” carrying out the law of the time. Eyewitness accounts differ on what turned the unruly scene explosive. Whatever the inciting event, patrons and a growing crowd on the street began throwing coins, bottles, and bricks at the police, who were forced to retreat into the bar and call in the riot squad.

Post
The Wrong Side of History·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Left to the tender mercies of the state, a group of veterans and their families continue to reside in a shut-down town

Article
Downstream·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The squat warehouse at Miami’s 5th Street Terminal was nearly obscured by merchandise: used car engines; tangles of coat hangers; bicycles bound together with cellophane; stacks of wheelbarrows; cases of Powerade and bottled water; a bag of sprouting onions atop a secondhand Whirlpool refrigerator; and, above all, mattresses—shrink-wrapped and bare, spotless and streaked with dust, heaped in every corner of the lot—twins, queens, kings. All this and more was bound for Port-de-Paix, a remote city in northwestern Haiti.

When I first arrived at the warehouse on a sunny morning last May, a dozen pickup trucks and U-Hauls were waiting outside, piled high with used furniture. Nearby, rows of vehicles awaiting export were crammed together along a dirt strip separating the street from the shipyard, where a stately blue cargo vessel was being loaded with goods.

Article
What it Means to Be Alive·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

My father decided that he would end his life by throwing himself from the top of the parking garage at the Nashville airport, which he later told me had seemed like the best combination of convenience—that is, he could get there easily and unnoticed—and sufficiency—that is, he was pretty sure it was tall enough to do the job. I never asked him which other venues he considered and rejected before settling on this plan. He probably did not actually use the word “best.” It was Mother’s Day, 2013.

Cost of renting a giant panda from the Chinese government, per day:

$1,500

A recent earthquake in Chile was found to have shifted the city of Concepción ten feet to the west, shortened Earth’s days by 1.26 microseconds, and shifted the planet’s axis by nearly three inches.

Gene Simmons of the band Kiss addressed Department of Defense personnel in the Pentagon Briefing Room.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Happiness Is a Worn Gun

By

“Nowadays, most states let just about anybody who wants a concealed-handgun permit have one; in seventeen states, you don’t even have to be a resident. Nobody knows exactly how many Americans carry guns, because not all states release their numbers, and even if they did, not all permit holders carry all the time. But it’s safe to assume that as many as 6 million Americans are walking around with firearms under their clothes.”

Subscribe Today