Some Media Entities “Cried Wolf” On What Was Ultimately A False Alarm For Illegal-Immigrant Roundup
Recently, AP released a conclusion-jumping article on President Trump calling for the National Guard to round up all illegal immigrants. While AP did gather some feedback from government officials, the statements read as personal opinions and suppositions. (To this day, it’s a mystery as to why people draw conclusions and make assumptions without obtaining all the information first.) Not only did AP jump the gun, but they definitely structured the writing to incite fear... While it was released just two days after President Trump’s press conference, AP used a 2015 illustration with their article and no, official statement without personal opinion.
However, the Los Angeles Times delved into the matter and availed government-official statements not loaded with opinionated conjecture. More, they discovered this draft (with the “Subject: Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies”) to be just that—a working draft that simply was on the proverbial table—i.e., nothing has been put into official action.
Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) infomed The Daily Beast AP was premature in their allusions and conclusions. “The Department is not considering mobilizing the National Guard,” Acting DHS Press Secretary Gillian Christensen said.
Further, the DHS explained that the document is “pre-decisional draft, that Kelly never approved it, and that the department as a whole never seriously considered it.”
But with the following clip, The Guardian called President Trump a liar and defended Obama’s ban—see 1:03. (Take notice of how they pull statements out of context.)
In actuality, while the news outfit referenced and ultimately rationalized Obama’s 2011 ban, the former president gave an immigration-reform speech in 2014 that didn’t necessarily cater to illegal immigrants at all:
While Trump’s administration is working to assess these issues, there has been no, officially released evidence to support AP’s indirect conclusions and accusations. Again, the leaked document is merely a draft, which entails a possible scenario with hypothetical actions—nothing in this draft has been officially approved at this time.