Thursday, October 26, 2006

More on the border fence.

Media bias:

"President Bush signed a bill Thursday authorizing 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border, hoping to give Republican candidates a pre-election platform for asserting they're tough on illegal immigration." (CNN)

Does CNN have a mind-reader on staff? How could they know this? It's believable that the president wanted to help Republicans in the midterm elections, but CNN is positioning this as his primary motivation. It's plausible, but it's purely speculation.

An assertion of speculative political motivation has no place in a news article, unless the article is reporting on the response of others to the particular action. If this had said "Critics say the president was hoping to give Republican candidates a pre-election platform for asserting..." then it would be (appropriate) reporting on the response.

Anyway, some of the issues here:

-National security and a country's right to regulate its borders.
-The PR angle: Does the US want to be seen as a fenced-in country? What will this do to our relationship with the Mexican government?
-The money: Is this the most efficient way to secure the border? Will it even work? Could the money be better used elsewhere?
-Is this closet racism or classism? There's no proposal to build a fence on the Canadian border, where (theoretically) the same threat exists (people or materials crossing the unregulated border illegally.)

There are many other issues involved, and feel free to comment.

I was in San Diego this summer, in the area where much of the fencing will go. The only regulation on the border going into Mexico was a red light that turned green when you paid a toll.

1 comment:

~Virginia~ said...

We have to start regulating somewhere, in my opinion. If immigration continues the way it has as of late, can you imagine the amount of $$$ that has to be shelled out to pay for their medical care? Not to mention school overcrowding once the kids they have here start going?