
The breakdown at the border has at once become a symbol of our polarization and an accelerant of it.
In raising the issue of immigration during his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Donald Trump repeated online allegations that migrants were eating people’s pets in Springfield, Ohio. Those claims and the media response to them have overshadowed the bigger policy picture. While some anti-border control activists portray immigration as being like the tides and thus immune to human interventions, the past few years have demonstrated how much policymakers’ choices can influence immigration rates. This is especially the case with the executive branch, charged with enforcing and administering immigration law.






NPR media reporter David Folkenflik appeared on their “news” show Weekend Edition Saturday to discuss Team Trump-Vance and the eating-pets thing from Springfield, Ohio. Host Scott Simon marveled at how “even after being debunked, fringe ideas and lies can still become major campaign themes.”






… My question is not about his guilt or innocence. The U.S. attorney will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt his charges to a jury in New York. That the case will before a federal judge and not some NYC hack whose daughter collects his bribes gives me hope that Diddy will receive a fair trial.