In the topsy-turvy world of modern media, up is down, and down is up—or at least that’s the impression one might get watching how certain outlets champion causes that leave rational thinkers scratching their heads. Case in point: the latest saga involving a gentleman whose alleged ties to the infamous MS-13 gang have turned him into an unlikely media darling. It seems as though some folks at CNN have decided that defending this chap is their new hill to die on, painting him as a misunderstood soul caught in the crosshairs of immigration policy.
One can’t help but notice how the left has perfected the art of twisting truths into a pretzel of paradoxes. They extol virtues like “due process” and nobly wave the flag of fairness, all while subtly suggesting that perhaps the borders should resemble more of a revolving door than a secure blockade. It’s as if they’re whispering at every turn, “Come one, come all! America’s open for business, no vetting necessary!” But here’s the real kicker—despite their fervent cries and accusations of cruelty against any who dare prioritize national security, there’s a silence so loud you could hear a pin drop when it comes to why exactly this wide-open border policy is beneficial for Americans.
Between the constant vilification of anyone who argues for a secure border and the glowing spotlight on supposed victimhood narratives, there’s a glaring omission in the conversation: the straightforward question of why unvetted mass immigration is advantageous. The immediate past administration proved that solid border management could be achieved promptly and effectively—a point lost on their successors, who seem to act as if their hands are tied.
Let’s not forget Mayorkas from Homeland Security confidently assuring everyone the border was secure. Now, whether this was a misstatement or a misguided belief is anyone’s guess, but it begs the question: If the border’s as secure as Fort Knox, then why the extravagant show of busloads marching across state lines? Actions and narratives from the current administration seem more like they’re stuck in a fever dream of globalist utopia rather than a grounded plan to protect American interests.
In the midst of all this, it’s heartening to hear voices like Steve Miller’s cut through the clamor with clarity and conviction. His directness is a breath of fresh air in a media landscape saturated with foggy logic and opaque motives. What the Supreme Court opines about due process may be significant in a legal sense, but it does little to solve the underlying quandary of how America should prioritize its citizens while navigating the tumultuous seas of immigration policy. After all, it’s a balancing act when protecting both freedom and ensuring security—a lesson the left seems intent on skipping.
