Trump, Separated Families and the Media

The almost universal dislike of U.S. President Donald Trump is completely normal and natural. Let’s face it: His arrogant attitude, incessant verbiage, discriminatory practices and authoritarian ways, in true tropical dictator style, have made him into the loathsome person he is, and was, long before making it to the White House.

In this sense, practically any policy or initiative of Trump’s can be dismissed as an expression of racism, xenophobia or intolerance, can’t it? From the point of view of the sensationalists, the mass media and the promoters of the liberal agenda, the answer is yes. It’s very easy to hate Trump. However, from the perspective of domestic politics and the national interest, the analysis can’t be, and shouldn’t be, this simplistic. In the heat of the rant and in the name of antagonism, it may seem that anything goes, but that’s not the case, and an honest intellectual exercise requires remaining cool-headed and objective in the face of the facts.

The controversial separation of children and their parents at the southern border of the United States, within the framework of the zero-tolerance policy on illegal immigration, has been manipulated and twisted by the major media outlets in the U.S. and the world, to the point that it almost seems the journalists are secretly getting paid for presenting this perspective. On any news channel or on the average social media site, one can find a glut of images (taken out of context) of children crying inside cages with headlines such as “Cruel Family Separation Policy” or “Trump Violates Human Rights.” The president’s PR failures in managing this issue have been so huge that his many enemies seem to have completely given themselves over to beating a dead horse, and hardly anyone has cared to go over the facts and analyze them seriously.

Let’s take a look at three interesting arguments to that effect, made by American syndicated columnist Ben Shapiro and published last June 18 in The Daily Wire:

”Trump Created the Separation of Children from Illegal Immigrant Parents. This is clearly false. In 1997, the federal government reached an agreement in a case called Flores* not to keep undocumented minors in custody for more than twenty days. The agreement says nothing about the illegal immigrant children accompanied, that is, the children who crossed the border with their parents. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that accompanied children could not be detained under the terms of the agreement. This meant that the government had to free entire families, or that the government had to separate parents from children.

”Immigrants seeking asylum are being punished for seeking asylum. This is also clearly false. The immigrants who arrive at the points of entry to request asylum are not currently illegally in the country; they are not arrested. They are processed through the ICE (immigration authority) and their children stay with them. However, if illegal immigrants cross the border illegally, the Trump administration treats them now as criminals. If they choose deportation, they are not separated from their children; if they choose to apply for asylum, they remain in the country for more than 20 days, and their children must be removed by the provisions of the law.

“Trump’s facilities are terrible thanks to Trump. They can be terrible, but they were just as horrible under President Obama. There is an abundant audio-visual and documentary record that reflects the appalling state of the detention centers on the border for many years.”

The Republican Party has weighed the political cost of the media chaos caused by implementation of the zero-tolerance policy, and ultimately twisted President Trump’s arm on the issue. Last June 20, he had no option but to sign an executive order blocking the separation of families of illegal immigrants at the border.

One thing is for sure: Trump’s actions in enforcing the law were in line with the law. The problem is that the 1997 ruling is morally repugnant, and its enforcer, the president himself, is highly unpopular and politically clumsy. Therefore, the most recent backlash against his already battered image translates into potential damage – by association – to his fellow Republicans, who are up against midterm elections this coming November. Without a doubt, these midterm elections, and not humanitarian concerns, were the decisive factor that led to the White House’s change of position.

*Editor’s note: The Flores settlement is based on the 1997 federal court decision in Reno v. Flores that strictly limited the government’s ability to keep children in immigration detention.