Visiting our "Top Websites" listed on the ANP front page, as I do every morning, brought me to America's Frereedom Fighters, where I saw a piece titled "Liberal Journalist Goes to Border to See if Trump Is Right, What He Finds Out Shocks Everyone," which highlighted a minute-and-a-half MSNBC interview clip, where we are told a "liberal journalist" from Esquire Magazine was sent to the Texas/Mexico border with instructions to visit the 800-mile border and “talk to whoever you see and let them tell us what's really going on and whether we need a wall."
After watching the short clip, I found the actual Esquire article and the description of "Hispanic, Anglo, Democratic, Republican, uncommitted, clueless, whatever- they want the WALL!," is actually a massive understatement as to the findings the reporter describes in his article.
The article begins:
Trump is right.We must build the Wall.
I say this as a classic liberal journalist, flanked by my awards from Planned Parenthood and the pro-labor Sidney Hillman Foundation. Like most liberals, my first reaction to the Wall was disgust. How un-American!
Then I went to the border."
While the reports shows that the journalist did find a few people that didn't think the wall should or would be built, the vast majority of those he spoke to were 100% behind the idea of a wall, even the few found that didn't support Trump himself, but it is the first specific highlighted portion of the report that show how shocked this self-described liberal was at the diversity of demographics regarding those that wholeheartedly endorse the wall, aka the "Tortilla Curtain, as a Mr. Marty Martinez calls it.
He shrugs off Trump's more hostile comments about Mexicans. "The Mexican government won't allow people to go in there and live wherever they want to. They're more racist than we are, probably."
And he's all for the Wall—or, as he calls it, the Tortilla Curtain.
"Like Trump said, let's make it fifty feet tall. Let's go up as high as it can."
Peppered throughout the article are segments highlighted in large lettering and in bold print, the very first, stating "Along the border, Anglos were more sympathetic to the border crossers and often spoke of compassion, but seven out of ten Hispanics wanted strict enforcement. Even the ones who didn't speak English."
While the Esquire reporter was sent with instructions from his editor-in-chief, Jay Fielden, to "go down there with no preconceived notions, just an empty notebook," throughout the article the writer, John H. Richardson, does allow his far left leanings to show clearly after describing one conversation with a man by the name of Chris Jimenez who says of illegal immigrants "They're taking our jobs," where the writer determines "But surely Jimenez is an anomaly."
Here's another Hispanic dude just outside the border gate, Javier Velez. He's in his fifties and has also lived here his whole life, but he just became a naturalized citizen ten years ago. He must understand the plight of the undocumented. What does he think of Trump's Wall?
"It would be a good thing," he says. "You can divide both countries—you know where the United States is and where Mexico is."
The threat to jobs is real, Velez says. "It's not fair," he says. "I think it's not fair."
As described in the highlighted quote above, Anglos were more sympathetic to illegals already in the U.S., while agreeing a wall needs to be built, one of the harshest criticisms against illegal immigrants just sneaking over the border and being provided de-facto amnesty, came from a man that spoke no English, who says the idea of the wall does sound a bit racists but the fact is you have got to stop the illegals.
Here's Arturo Vargas, a fifty-year-old American citizen who listens with a puzzled expression to my high school Spanish. Finally, he gets it. "Sí, la barda."
Meaning "Yes, a wall."
"Qué piensa usted?"
With a gentle, musing expression on his face, Vargas says the idea does sound un poco media racista and he certainly gets that, but the fact is you've got to stop the illegals. He's quite firm on that point. "No me gusta que pasan sin papeles porque cuando nosotros estamos aquí bien con papeles, ellos vienen muchas veces y hacen cosas que no deben de hacer. Y por ellos la llevamos nosotros que somos de desendencia mexicana."
Which means, in rough translation, F**k those people without papers—let 'em get in line.
The entire Esquire piece is well worth the read, covers many angles, those that agree with Trump and are supporters, those that agree but are not supporters, those that disagree, who are in the minority along the border, and everything in between, but what comes through the loudest is the "tone" from the journalist himself, who discovered that it is very easy for liberals, like himself, to wave away the thought of a "wall" to call it a "racist" idea, to claim the very notion of the wall would drive Hispanics away from anyone suggestiong such a thing, only to find that first generation Hispanics, those that came to the U.S. legally, are the most critical of illegal immigration and amnesty for those that come here illegally.
BOTTOM LINE
With the news that that illegal immigrant households receive an average of $5,692 per year in federal welfare benefits while the average American household receives $4,431, reported by Stefan Standford on June 10, 2016, this is an issue that concerns not just "American" born U.S. residents but as seen in the Esquire article, it disturbs first generation Hispanics even more so.
Perhaps all those "social justice warriors" holding their signs and paid to protest at Trump rallies, should be forced to spend seven days and seven nights along the Texas/Mexico border and I would dare them to call those Hispanics "racist" as they try to label every American concerned about open borders and the strain being put on the U.S. economy because of illegal immigrants just walking on through and living off the taxpayers of America.
ANP would be happy to start a Go Fund Me account to pay to bus them all down there.
