By New York Post (Opinion) | Created at 2024-12-11 23:02:25 | Updated at 2024-12-12 01:49:39
2 hours ago
People walking to a migrant shelter at Floyd Bennett Field in Brooklyn on Dec. 11, 2204.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Five weeks after Election Day, The New York Times just came out with a useful explainer on one of the voters’ top concerns: the Biden illegal-immigration surge.
All the news that’s fit to print . . . once it doesn’t matter for Democrats?
David Leonhardt, the Gray Lady’s crack numbers guy, lays out key info (all of which has already been reported in The Post): “The immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in US history,” and, “Total net migration during the Biden administration is likely to exceed eight million people” — “a faster pace of arrivals than during any other period on record, including the peak years of Ellis Island traffic.”
The result: “the share of the US population born in another country” hit “a new high,” 15.2%, topping the 1890 figure of 14.8%.
And even: “the Biden administration’s policy appears to have been the biggest factor” in the surge. Really?
Leonhardt even names some “downsides, including the pressure on social services and increased competition for jobs,” and how the surge will reduce “wage growth for Americans who did not attend college” — which is a win for higher-income folks who thus pay less for services.
Pretty important info — that the Times’ editorial board has been denying for Joe Biden’s entire term.
Of course, the Times still sticks to some favorite chestnuts, complaining that “some” Republicans push “falsehoods about recent immigrants, claiming that they have caused a crime wave” even though “immigrants have historically committed crime at lower rates than native-born Americans.”
The “historically committed” claim is based on a few small, outdated studies — and even then, can’t tell us anything about today’s migrants, so how does “falsehoods” apply? We look forward to the Times expose of Tren de Aragua’s crime spree in the United States, which, based on its track record, should come sometime in the spring.
The whole thing amounts to a belated and still hesitant explanation to Times readers of why its candidate lost, on the (probably all too true) assumption that they’d only been getting their facts from the Times and like-minded outlets.
Conspicuously absent is any note from the paper’s editors along the lines of, “Sorry we’re only telling you the truth now, but we figured you didn’t want to know.”
Of course, if the paper’s decided to truly join the reality-based community, it’ll do climate change and energy policy next.
