What Part of ‘Illegal’ Does WSJ Not Understand?

 

In this weekend’s WSJ, there is an article entitled “Migrant Buses Test Nonprofits, Cities.”  The so-called “migrant buses” are the ones leaving the border states of Texas and Arizona, filled with illegals, bound for the nation’s capital.  It seems that the many non-profit “immigrant-rights” organizations which advocate for and assist those who cross our newly-opened southern border are overwhelmed by the large volume of people now on their doorstep.

In the WSJ article, the word “migrant” appears 20 times.  In the same article, the word “illegal” appears exactly once, at the bottom of Paragraph Five.  I think that headline might just be a bit misleading.  The writers of the article write with a decidedly sympathetic slant, feeling bad for all those unfortunate migrants who are forced onto buses and transported to Washington, when they really wanted to go to Miami or New York.  No mention is made of the fact that those migrants are breaking our laws by crossing our southern border, and the non-profit organizations are accessories to the crimes of illegal entry and illegal residence in our country, being committed by the migrants.

Somehow, I just cannot feel too sorry for all the illegal migrants who are not supposed to be here, regardless of their poverty and wanting a better life in the United States.  And I think it’s criminal for those non-profits to be helping them at all.  Unfortunately, those at the top of our government have invited them here, and I think it’s justice for them to be confronted with the results of their policies.  More power to Ducey of Arizona and Abbott of Texas for sending the illegals to the source of their invitations.  I think Muriel Bowser needs to set up a shelter for them in her backyard, and Biden needs to set up a shelter and processing center on the White House lawn.

And the editors of the Wall Street Journal need to recognize that we Conservatives are not “anti-immigration” but anti-Illegal Immigration!  Will that ever happen?  Probably not.

Published in Immigration
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 52 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    While the WSJ is still one of the best papers around, it is clearly falling deeply into the abyss.

    • #1
  2. Jimmy Carter Member
    Jimmy Carter
    @JimmyCarter

    Illegal aliens are proof of dereliction of duty.

    • #2
  3. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Clavius (View Comment):

    While the WSJ is still one of the best papers around, it is clearly falling deeply into the abyss.

    For years the WSJ has been two papers delivered under one brand name.  The news part is a unit of the mainstream Progressivist/woke propaganda machine, delivering the same narratives and falling with the rest deeply into the abyss.  The Opinion section is still one of the best papers around.

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Clavius (View Comment):

    While the WSJ is still one of the best papers around, it is clearly falling deeply into the abyss.

    For years the WSJ has been two papers delivered under one brand name. The news part is a unit of the mainstream Progressivist/woke propaganda machine, delivering the same narratives and falling with the rest deeply into the abyss. The Opinion section is still one of the best papers around.

    Since I read parts of the Orlando Sentinel, I still believe that the news part of the WSJ is not a fraction as bad as the Sentinel, which is outrageous in its bias and presentation. I agree that the Opinion pieces of the WSJ are outstanding.

    • #4
  5. RushBabe49 Thatcher
    RushBabe49
    @RushBabe49

    Some of the opinion pieces are outstanding.  Many are not.  They have been engaging in an orgy of Trump-bashing lately, and I might just write a letter to the editors about that.  I did write a letter to the editors about the subject of this post.  And their editorial attitude toward immigration does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration-they insist on believing that we conservatives are “nativists” who do not approve of even legal immigration.  That is a wrong belief, and they need to be reminded of that fact every chance we get.

    • #5
  6. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Clavius (View Comment):

    While the WSJ is still one of the best papers around, it is clearly falling deeply into the abyss.

    For years the WSJ has been two papers delivered under one brand name. The news part is a unit of the mainstream Progressivist/woke propaganda machine, delivering the same narratives and falling with the rest deeply into the abyss. The Opinion section is still one of the best papers around.

    Since I read parts of the Orlando Sentinel, I still believe that the news part of the WSJ is not a fraction as bad as the Sentinel, which is outrageous in its bias and presentation. I agree that the Opinion pieces of the WSJ are outstanding.

    I agree that the news department of the WSJ is not the worst unit of the proggy machine. It’s a lethal cancer but there are worse cancers.

    • #6
  7. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Clavius (View Comment):

    While the WSJ is still one of the best papers around, it is clearly falling deeply into the abyss.

    The competition is such that “best” does not amount to “good”. Or “competent”. But with the US national security apparatus partisanly weaponized, they are not likely to grow a spine in the near future.

    • #7
  8. Mark Camp Member
    Mark Camp
    @MarkCamp

    Sisyphus (View Comment):

    Clavius (View Comment):

    While the WSJ is still one of the best papers around, it is clearly falling deeply into the abyss.

    The competition is such that “best” does not amount to “good”. Or “competent”. But with the US national security apparatus partisanly weaponized, they are not likely to grow a spine in the near future.

    I miscommunicated. I conveyed the opposite idea from what I am saying.

    I think the news department of the WSJ is extremely competent.  More powerful and more competent in brainwashing the public in Progressivist ideology than the more outrageous, low-brow front-line units in the war, like the one Susan referred to or the one in my town, the Cincinnati Enquirer.

    • #8
  9. Retail Lawyer Member
    Retail Lawyer
    @RetailLawyer

    Maybe the WSJ was just trying not to tell us facts we already know.  Does anybody else get irritated when they are tricked into reading a story because of a claim in the headline, only to be bored by a recitation of facts obvious and already known?  Of course the immigrants are illegal.  Who didn’t know that?  At least the article didn’t blame the problem on climate change.

    • #9
  10. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Sisyphus (View Comment):

    Clavius (View Comment):

    While the WSJ is still one of the best papers around, it is clearly falling deeply into the abyss.

    The competition is such that “best” does not amount to “good”. Or “competent”. But with the US national security apparatus partisanly weaponized, they are not likely to grow a spine in the near future.

    I miscommunicated. I conveyed the opposite idea from what I am saying.

    I think the news department of the WSJ is extremely competent. More powerful and more competent in brainwashing the public in Progressivist ideology than the more outrageous, low-brow front-line units in the war, like the one Susan referred to or the one in my town, the Cincinnati Enquirer.

    Where you say competent, I would say corrupt. They do not seek their proper end.

    • #10
  11. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    Maybe the WSJ was just trying not to tell us facts we already know. Does anybody else get irritated when they are tricked into reading a story because of a claim in the headline, only to be bored by a recitation of facts obvious and already known? Of course the immigrants are illegal. Who didn’t know that? At least the article didn’t blame the problem on climate change.

    They hand it off to MSNBC etc for that.

    • #11
  12. Fritz Coolidge
    Fritz
    @Fritz

    In a just world, these NGOs would be prosecuted for conspiring to aid and abet illegal entry, their assets foreited, and their corporate existences extinguished. They are much worse criminals than, say, Enron.

    • #12
  13. Clavius Thatcher
    Clavius
    @Clavius

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    Maybe the WSJ was just trying not to tell us facts we already know. Does anybody else get irritated when they are tricked into reading a story because of a claim in the headline, only to be bored by a recitation of facts obvious and already known? Of course the immigrants are illegal. Who didn’t know that? At least the article didn’t blame the problem on climate change.

    That would be click bait.

    • #13
  14. Headedwest Coolidge
    Headedwest
    @Headedwest

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Some of the opinion pieces are outstanding. Many are not. They have been engaging in an orgy of Trump-bashing lately, and I might just write a letter to the editors about that. I did write a letter to the editors about the subject of this post. And their editorial attitude toward immigration does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration-they insist on believing that we conservatives are “nativists” who do not approve of even legal immigration. That is a wrong belief, and they need to be reminded of that fact every chance we get.

    The lawns on the estates of the executives of the WSJ aren’t going to mow themselves!

    • #14
  15. Gary McVey Contributor
    Gary McVey
    @GaryMcVey

    This isn’t some fashionable new woke thing at WSJ. They’ve always had the up-front, stated attitude of “This country will have open borders”. The reason is obvious: they want cheap workers, and they really don’t care how many existing Americans have to lose their jobs to get those payroll costs down. 

    This is also why I’ve never been a huge fan of Victor Davis Hansen. Despite his other good qualities, he’s typical of his class, a farmer/grower who wants that big, cheap, docile workforce. That’s why I give a sour grin to pious right wing complaints about California Democrats and immigration. Democrats? What about the Republicans, the owners and managers of agriculture, restaurant chains, and hotels? They’re the ones who imported the Mexican workforce. Back when I moved here, it was the Democrats who were afraid that Mexicans would displace their Black clientele, and they were right; that’s just what happened, so the Dems happily switched sides. 

    Remember Karl Rove saying, “I don’t think many Americans want their children growing up to pick fruit or make beds?” 

    • #15
  16. genferei Member
    genferei
    @genferei

    The “proper end” of modern journalism is the promotion of elite progressivism. The default stance of the WSJ editorial board is going to be chamber of commerce cheap labour open borders stuff anyway. 

    • #16
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Some of the opinion pieces are outstanding. Many are not. They have been engaging in an orgy of Trump-bashing lately, and I might just write a letter to the editors about that. I did write a letter to the editors about the subject of this post. And their editorial attitude toward immigration does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration-they insist on believing that we conservatives are “nativists” who do not approve of even legal immigration. That is a wrong belief, and they need to be reminded of that fact every chance we get.

    The opinion page has gotten a lot more GOPe since the days when it cheered Newt Gingrich’s takeover from the stale old guard.  Now it allows Karl Rove and Peggy Noonan to waste space on its page.

    • #17
  18. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    What I have never understood completely is why the media and politicians have been so vociferous in their determination to ruin Trump from the day he left the White House. Usually, we allow a president to walk off into the sunset, but not this one. Ordinarily I am no conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that big, big money has been  behind his troubles beginning with the night he was elected and even earlier.  

     

    • #18
  19. Sisyphus Member
    Sisyphus
    @Sisyphus

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    What I have never understood completely is why the media and politicians have been so vociferous in their determination to ruin Trump from the day he left the White House. Usually, we allow a president to walk off into the sunset, but not this one. Ordinarily I am no conspiracy theorist, but it seems to me that big, big money has been behind his troubles beginning with the night he was elected and even earlier.

     

    Look around you. The lynch mob is bought and paid for. Trump already had money and wanted to do an objectively good job to sway the voters. The lynch mob overreached big time in stealing the election and now hide behind walls in kangaroo courts while turning the DC Jail into a concentration camp and reeducation center.

    • #19
  20. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):

    Some of the opinion pieces are outstanding. Many are not. They have been engaging in an orgy of Trump-bashing lately, and I might just write a letter to the editors about that. I did write a letter to the editors about the subject of this post. And their editorial attitude toward immigration does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigration-they insist on believing that we conservatives are “nativists” who do not approve of even legal immigration. That is a wrong belief, and they need to be reminded of that fact every chance we get.

    They’ve also never seen a war they didn’t love. I thought they were egregious with immigration. I thought they were lunatics after 9/11 and quit subscribing or reading. The editors wrote lunatic articles about terrorists shouldn’t be given due process. So we wind up with Guantanamo. And torture. Abu Ghraib wasn’t a mistake, it was a feature. The CIA had several such facilities. And all of that blows back on our shores with these same psychopaths deciding that it’s a good thing to have coups in the US and that the government should be run for their benefit. 

    • #20
  21. Phil Turmel Coolidge
    Phil Turmel
    @PhilTurmel

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    This is also why I’ve never been a huge fan of Victor Davis Hansen. Despite his other good qualities, he’s typical of his class, a farmer/grower who wants that big, cheap, docile workforce.

    Say what?

    That is totally the opposite of the content of his rants on the topic.  Almost slanderous.  Have you read his Mexifornia?

    • #21
  22. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    A “migrant” is an animal that travels to another place during certain seasons.  Illegal aliens are not “undocumented workers” or “migrants.”  Refugees are not “migrants.”

    However, I’m not surprised the Wall Street Journal would use the language of the left.  The editorial page may have conservatism in it, but the rest of the paper has been drinking the Kool Aid for a long time now . . .

    • #22
  23. Timothy Landon Member
    Timothy Landon
    @TimothyLandon

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    At least the article didn’t blame the problem on climate change.

    I read an AP article in the early 2010s that blamed climate change in the headline for human suffering in the wake of a cyclone.  When you read the article, it was clear the reporter summarized a UN report.  The details revealed that a lot of the human suffering was, in fact, directly the result of the current regime in Burma rejecting or delaying foreign aid to alleviate the suffering.  

    So, yes, anytime the press decides not to blame climate change, that is a victory for sound reporting.

    • #23
  24. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    This is also why I’ve never been a huge fan of Victor Davis Hansen. Despite his other good qualities, he’s typical of his class, a farmer/grower who wants that big, cheap, docile workforce.

    I’ve been reading and listening to VDH for years now, so, based on what I know of his thinking, respectfully ask you to reconsider this statement by either reading some of his articles or listen to his podcasts. His opposition to the illegals flooding California and the ensuing damage they cause or have caused is a fact and hardly sounds like a farmer encouraging them to be a “big, cheap, docile workforce.”

    • #24
  25. Mad Gerald Coolidge
    Mad Gerald
    @Jose

    RushBabe49: And the editors of the Wall Street Journal need to recognize that we Conservatives are not “anti-immigration”, but anti-Illegal Immigration!

    Yes.  It’s like the difference between shoppers and shop-lifters.  One pays the agreed price, and the other steals.

    But the left constantly tries to conflate legal and illegal activity.

    • #25
  26. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    I agree with almost all of this post.  I have an objection to one part:

    RushBabe49: And the editors of the Wall Street Journal need to recognize that we Conservatives are not “anti-immigration”, but anti-Illegal Immigration!

    At the moment, I am anti-immigration, legal or illegal.  I’d like to see legal immigration reduced substantially, and wouldn’t mind if it was reduced to zero.  Not all conservatives agree with this, but my guess is that I’m not the only one.

    So I don’t agree with this characterization of the position of “we Conservatives.”  I think that there are a range of views on this issue among conservatives.

    This leads me to address the comments about Victor Davis Hanson:

    Goldwaterwoman (View Comment):

    Gary McVey (View Comment):
    This is also why I’ve never been a huge fan of Victor Davis Hansen. Despite his other good qualities, he’s typical of his class, a farmer/grower who wants that big, cheap, docile workforce.

    I’ve been reading and listening to VDH for years now, so, based on what I know of his thinking, respectfully ask you to reconsider this statement by either reading some of his articles or listen to his podcasts. His opposition to the illegals flooding California and the ensuing damage they cause or have caused is a fact and hardly sounds like a farmer encouraging them to be a “big, cheap, docile workforce.”

    My impression is that VDH is very strong on opposition to illegal immigration, but permissive of legal immigration.  I may be incorrect about this, but it is my impression.  Do any of you know more about his precise position?  

    I did find this summary of a book called The Immigration Solution by Heather MacDonald, VDH, and Steven Malanga.  The summary begins with this line:  “Undoubtedly the United States needs a liberal and welcoming immigration policy, geared to the needs and interests of the nation.”

    I don’t agree with this assertion.  I think that the United States would be better off with a very restrictive immigration policy at the present time.  My suspicion is that Gary is on my side on this issue, which may be the source of the disagreement.  (Gary, please let us know, if you wish.)

    • #26
  27. Mad Gerald Coolidge
    Mad Gerald
    @Jose

    Biden Considers Giving ID Cards to Illegal Aliens Released into U.S.

    • #27
  28. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Mad Gerald (View Comment):

    Biden Considers Giving ID Cards to Illegal Aliens Released into U.S.

    No. No. No. Just no.

    • #28
  29. Buckpasser Member
    Buckpasser
    @Buckpasser

    Everyone in media is “woke”.  It’s just a matter of degree.

    • #29
  30. Goldwaterwoman Thatcher
    Goldwaterwoman
    @goldwaterwoman

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    I don’t agree with this assertion.  I think that the United States would be better off with a very restrictive immigration policy at the present time. 

    It was not my intention to discuss immigration policy in general. My post was strictly a reaction to Gary’s assertion that VDH is  a farmer who supports immigrants in order to gain cheap labor. You might have a point in restricting immigration at this particular time, but I do wonder how much such a policy would raise wages and further contribute to inflation. Everywhere I go there are help wanted signs.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.