"The besieged border is a myth, and the arrival of a few thousand weary refugee children on buses does not make the myth true," the Times wrote. "Republicans are feeding the cycle, stoking panic about a border under assault, even to the point of demanding that Mr. Obama call out the National Guard. Nativist protesters are blocking buses of migrants in places like Murrieta, Calif."
Either the New York Times editorial staff believe what they write without looking at the actual situation (of nearly 58,000 unaccompanied minor children crossing the border since October of last year (not counting the hundreds of thousands of adults who have crossed) or they are deliberately lying to their readers to cover for the President.
Neither is unimaginable when it comes to the NY Times. At one time they were a legitimate, journalistic newspaper. Today they are shills for the President and the Democrats. Any news agency that says the crisis on the border, both from the immigration side and the humanitarian side, is a myth is either completely ignorant of what's going on or a liar. And given that the New York Times has hundreds of viable sources of information one can really only conclude that the paper, or at least that editor, is a liar.
The Times praised President Obama for asking for $3.7 billion in aid to deal with the crisis they have labeled "a myth." If the crisis is a myth then why praise Obama for asking for money for something that doesn't exist? That sounds wasteful to me. Just another example of the Times shilling for the President.
While I don't believe the President feels the situation at the border is a crisis (mostly because he is allowing it to happen), 3.7 billion dollars is a lot of money, even for a Democrat, to deal with "the arrival of a few thousand weary refugee children." Do you not think so, NYT?
The New York Times should go back to reporting accurate news rather than being a mouthpiece for the President and the Democrats. They could possibly become a respected newspaper again one day.