The New York Times Acknowledges Biden’s Border Failures—But Only After the Election

During a rally in 1982 for Poland’s anti-Soviet Solidarity movement, leftist author Susan Sontag faced backlash from her peers for stating that readers of the pro-American Reader’s Digest (the so-called “deplorables” of today) were more knowledgeable about communism than those who read left-leaning intellectual publications such as The Nation.

Similarly, The Post’s audience has been granted a far clearer understanding of America’s immigration crisis compared to those who rely on legacy media like the New York Times.

Until this week.

Now that the election is behind us, the Times has finally revealed to its readers that, surprise, “the immigration surge of the past few years has been the largest in US history” and that “the Biden administration’s policy seems to be the most significant factor.”

Well, color me surprised.

Just as the legacy media reluctantly admitted the accuracy of The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story, it seems that only when the facts no longer threaten their chosen candidate does America’s Newspaper of Record decide to share the truth.

The article itself is well-crafted and full of valuable information — information that has always been accessible to anyone willing to look. For example:

• “Even when accounting for today’s larger U.S. population, the recent surge is the fastest since at least 1850.”
• “Approximately 60% of immigrants who have entered the country since 2021 have done so without legal authorization.”
• “High levels of immigration do pose challenges, including increased pressure on social services and greater job competition.”
• “The scale of recent immigration accounts for why this issue has become a pivotal topic in American politics in recent years.”

Captain Obvious, please report to your office!

The extent to which the Times and other legacy media have betrayed their audience over the last four years was highlighted by a reader’s comment on the article: “What frustrates me is that although I consider myself well-informed, I never had a clear understanding of the immigration situation.”

This sentiment serves as a strong critique of an institution that claims to deliver “All the News That’s Fit to Print.”

I had always interpreted “fit to print” to mean that the Times would avoid presenting its readership with sensational or trivial content.

It seems, however, that “fit to print” actually translates to “doesn’t conflict with our desired narrative.”

That reader expressing frustration over their incomplete understanding might have improved their knowledge by following Jennie Taer’s reporting for The Post, or my colleague Steven Camarota’s analysis of the same data that the Times recently examined. Alternately, they could refer to Todd Bensman’s 2023 book, “Overrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History.”

Or, for that matter, my colleague Steven Camarota’s analyses of the same data evaluated by the Times. Or explore Todd Bensman’s 2023 book “Overrun: How Joe Biden Unleashed the Greatest Border Crisis in U.S. History.”

To be fair, the writer of the Times piece, David Leonhardt, has been attempting to alert his liberal colleagues regarding the political and policy challenges stemming from their relentless pursuit of open immigration.

He curates the Times’ “The Morning” newsletter and has managed to address immigration a few times over the past year.

However, it’s noteworthy that until recently, his most detailed coverage of the subject was not published by the Times but rather by The Atlantic magazine.

It’s detrimental to democracy when premier media institutions (and yes, I mean that while stifling laughter) skew their news reporting to align with a political agenda.

If the Times’ newfound commitment to delivering the truth about border issues signals a shift, that would be a positive development. But I won’t be holding my breath.

Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.