Members of a US-bound migrant caravan stand on a road after federal police briefly blocked their way outside the town of Arriaga, Saturday, Oct. 27, 2018. Hundreds of Mexican federal officers carrying plastic shields had blocked the caravan from advancing toward the United States, after several thousand of the migrants turned down the chance to apply for refugee status and obtain a Mexican offer of benefits. (AP Photo/Rodrigo Abd)

 

On Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security announced a 28% drop in enforcement actions at the U.S./Mexico border in June from the previous month. The number decreased from 144,278 in May to 104,344 in June. The DHS statement said “the reduction in apprehensions accounts for decreases across all demographics, including unaccompanied minors, family units and single adults, as well as decreases in migrants from all Northern Triangle countries, particularly those coming from Guatemala.” (The full statement can be read here.)

This is phenomenal news and it’s proof that President Trump’s “get tough” strategy is working. When the President announced his plan to impose 5% tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico at the end of May, he was widely criticized by Democrats as well as many Republicans. It was a gamble, they said. American consumers would be forced to pay more for imported goods. It would hurt small businesses and reduce GDP.

But Mexico caved and agreed to cooperate with the U.S. to stop the flow of illegals into our country. Anyway you slice it, Mexico’s efforts have made a big difference. Trump took a risk, and it has paid off big time.

The New York Times, however, has a hard time giving Trump credit for any accomplishments, especially as the 2020 election season heats up. So, it’s no surprise they buried the reason for the decline in the twelfth paragraph of their story.

The article is entitled “A Drastic Drop in Migrant Arrivals on the Border: What’s Happening?” The New York Times wrote:

In the sleeping quarters, green cots that were once occupied by hundreds of parents and children on a single night were stacked against the wall. For dinner on Tuesday, just two tables were set for the handful of families staying at the large shelter near the California border that takes in migrant families arriving from Mexico.

At its peak, the facility run by Jewish Family Service of San Diego held more than 300 migrants dropped off by United States immigration authorities. Some days this spring were so busy that new arrivals had to be sent to overflow sites.

Now, the shelter is almost eerily empty. The number of people arriving there has plunged in recent weeks amid a precipitous decline in arrivals along the southern border, where the Department of Homeland Security said that apprehensions dropped 28 percent in June.

Customs and Border Protection authorities encountered 104,344 people crossing from Mexico last month, compared with 144,278 in May, which had marked a 13-year monthly high. At the nonprofit shelter here in San Diego, the effects have been dramatic. On Friday of last week, not a single migrant arrived at the facility, the first time this had occurred since it opened in October.

Hot Air’s Ed Morrisey reported on Wednesday that readers had to scroll down to the twelfth paragraph to find the reason for the decline.

“The United States policy to return people to Mexico and the pressure on Mexico to stop the migration are having a big impact,” said Daniel Bribiescas, an immigration lawyer in Tijuana.”

And even further to find out that incentives work.

Mexico’s own heightened border security is also having an effect. To make good on a deal struck with President Trump last month to avert trade tariffs, more than 20,000 Mexican security forces, including members Mexico’s newly-formed National Guard, have been deployed throughout Mexico’s southern and northern border states.

At well-traveled but typically unguarded crossing points, the Mexican authorities have been intercepting buses traveling along major migrant corridors. In Tijuana, Mexican officers have been stopping and arresting migrants who do not have papers to prove that they can legally remain in the country.

This is a major victory for President Trump and the media have tried to minimize it.

The problem is that, for many Americans, The New York Times and other newspapers and media outlets with left biases are either their only or at least their primary source of news. These organizations manipulate the news by exaggerating bad news for Trump and minimizing or not reporting the positive news. This has been a huge challenge for Republicans.

The New York Times would have you believe that Trump manufactured the migrant crisis. They would have you believe that the Obama administration never put immigrant children in cages, never separated families at the border, never deported any illegals, never teargassed migrants at the border and that none of them ever died trying to cross into the U.S.

The truth is that the Obama administration built the cages that are in use today. PJ Media’s Matt Margolis wrote that not even Snopes could deny this one. “Two former Obama administration officials have publicly acknowledged this fact, and the media even reported on the migrant detention facilities that were built by the Obama administration—but those reports lacked the outrage you see today.”

The Obama administration also established the policy of separating families, they deported over 3.1 million illegals, and were found by a district court judge to be in violation of the Flores Agreement which requires the government to provide safe and sanitary conditions for immigrant minors, including food, drinking water, medical care, and other accommodations.

Also, according to the left-wing fact-checking site FactCheck.org, between the years 2012 through 2016, they used teargas on migrant crowds 79 times.

The good news is that some Americans have become wise and now seek out alternative news sources. This accounts for the fact that CNN’s ratings have cratered recently and MSNBC has seen a significant drop in readership.

Let’s hope that continues.