Thread by @TomJawetz

I respect a number of the @nytimes reporters that worked on this piece, but it is filled with so many inaccuracies and opinion masquerading as journalism it honestly should be retracted.

Ticking through some lowlights. nytimes.com/2019/04/10/us/…

This lede is catchy but misleading. @ReichlinMelnick has done scores of Twitter threads showing that in years past we’ve had more people trying to enter by evading detection and succeeding in doing so.

Words matter, so why say that the laws and court rulings aimed at protecting “children” have been applied to prohibit lengthy jailing of “young people.”

They’re children. I know because that’s what you wrote earlier in the same sentence.

By not mentioning that the holding pens under the bridge popped up not long before CBP showed them off to press and then quickly disappeared, the pieceuncritically delivers the agency’s desired crisis narrative.

While the piece observes elsewhere that many of the administration’s actions have significantly exacerbated the challenges at the border, quotes like these further enforce the administration’s chosen narrative.

What expert validates Trump’s “legal loopholes” frame?

Chris Cabrera of the Border Patrol, quoted a bit further down? No role at all in evaluating fear or asylum claims and precisely why USBP agents must not do credible fear interviews that will send people to their deaths.

Where has it been established that either Jakelin or Felipe became gravely ill during their journeys?

Given the incubation period, 8yo Felipe very likely developed strep B IN USBP CUSTODY and died because of medical neglect.

Does the @nytimes question whether federal courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution?

If not, what’s the point of the clause “which the courts have decided protect migrants as well as citizens.”

The implication that ‘activist’ courts have overreached is dangerous.

Along the same lines, the Remain the Mexico policy didn’t “run afoul of the courts,” it—like so many Trump policies—ran afoul of THE LAW.

It’s the job of the courts to interpret the law and that’s what they e been doing time and time again.

This closing paragraph of the piece is loaded with a journalistic version of Trump’s “and some, I assume, are good people” speech before implying without evidence or reporting that people are being coached to repeat ‘magic words’ to assert asylum claims.

I want to be disappointed by this piece but I’m overwhelmingly angry about it.

At best the piece deserves additional editing and corrections.

*influenza B, not strep B

Angry tweeting is sloppy tweeting