I was anxious to read The Signal opinion piece, Our View (June 23). This was the first opportunity to assess the journalistic philosophy of the new ownership team. To say it was disappointing is putting it mildly.
The second paragraph caught my attention: “2,200 children in the past couple of months, separated from their parents who sought to bring them into the United States illegally.” It is arguable that most actually sought to enter legally, seeking asylum, but were turned back at the entry points. As a consequence, many crossed illegally, their only option after a harrowing 1,300-mile desperate journey through Mexico to the U.S. border. They simply could not return.
After continuing reading, I note this statement: “Through all the hue and cry, and all of the piling-on targeting a president who always seems to misstep even if he is trying to do the right thing — like keeping the border secure.” While the president did campaign to keep the borders secure, and that is entirely appropriate, the motives for President Trump’s zero tolerance policy that separated children from parents may have been more motivated by politics to cater to his base, and using them as pawns to get his wall. In fact, illegal immigration has been largely reduced in the past year, as may from Mexico have opted to stay home instead of illegally crossing the border. If the president was truly focused upon border security, he could have put resources in place to stop drug trafficking through entry points and elsewhere on the border. Another focus should have been on those who overstay their visas. This large but unknown number of undocumented aliens is much more likely to include terrorists like those who attacked our country on 9-11. Yet, we hear nothing being done to find and track and deport them.
The key message of your editorial is to suggest that we have lost track of personal responsibility, targeting in particular the parents of minor children who crossed the border illegally. Rhetoric from the Trump supporters was prominently displayed, blaming the “left” for accepting the notion that our borders should be open (the dog whistle of amnesty), and noting the high costs of illegal immigration, including feeding, educating and providing health care for the illegal border crossers. This suggests a change in political philosophy of the new ownership and management of The Signal. Have we lost the notion that a balance of opinions from the left, middle, and right is welcomed? I am concerned.
Thomas Oatway
Valencia
Editor’s note: Please rest assured that we absolutely welcome and respect opinions from the left, middle and right, including those that disagree with our editorial positions.
