Border chief’s use of term ‘invasion’ sparks ‘push-back’ from Fox News host

(Video screenshots)

A Fox News anchor’s behavior during a discussion Thursday about illegal immigration suggests to many viewers that the network might have bought into the left-wing-concocted lie that speaking truthfully about illegal immigration and the damage it incurs to the nation is racist and potentially dangerous.

Speaking with Art Del Cueto, the vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, FNC’s “America’s Newsroom” anchor Sandra Smith grew uncomfortable after Cueto referred to the ongoing crisis along the southern U.S. border as an “invasion.”

Hold on,” she interrupted. “Obviously, we have to push back on comments like that. People will take issues with you calling at that. It is obviously a sensitive issue right now.

Watch the full discussion below:

Source: Fox News

The specific topic of discussion had been the recent spate of attacks on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s facilities and offices. This week a still-loose suspect fired shots at an ICE office in Texas, and last month a now-deceased activist armed with an AR-15 rifle, flares and multiple Molotov cocktails attacked an ICE detention facility in Washington.

“Disgusting. It’s disgusting to see something like that,” Del Cueto said of the attacks. “I think it’s been triggered by way too many individuals that have had a platform to speak against the men and women that are trying to defend our nation’s borders, the law enforcement communities.”

“That is where it comes from. There was a recent article that attacks various reporters from Fox, attacked Fox News, it named me on there as well, saying that we were responsible for some of these attacks that happened in El Paso.”

Over the weekend, The New York Times published a potentially libelous “report” that attempted to draw a link between the right’s candid discussions about illegal immigration and the El Paso shooting by a white supremacist who hated all immigrants, period.

As evidence, the Times pointed to the shooter’s repeated use of the word “invasion.”

“There is a striking degree of overlap between the words of right-wing media personalities and the language used by the Texas man who confessed to killing 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso this month,” its “report” reads. “In a 2,300-word screed posted on the website 8chan, the killer wrote that he was ‘simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion.'”

“It remains unclear what, or who, ultimately shaped the views of the white, 21-year-old gunman, or whether he was aware of the media commentary. But his post contains numerous references to ‘invasion‘ and cultural ‘replacement’ — ideas that, until recently, were relegated to the fringes of the nationalist right.”

It appears these assertions were plucked almost verbatim from a “report” by Media Matters, a far-left propaganda outfit and veritable extremist group that produces left-wing agitprop.

Not included in the Times’ “report” was any mention of the El Paso shooter’s left-wing beliefs.

Continuing the discussion on “America’s Newsroom” Thursday, Del Cueto correctly noted that the Times’ spurious “report” was based on the belief that speaking truthfully about illegal immigration and the damage it incurs to the nation is racist and potentially dangerous.

“And what was [the report] based on?” he said. “That was based on us talking about actual facts. And the facts we spoke about are simple. When you have individuals in large quantities that enter another country by force or illegally, waving the flag of another country, that is an invasion. I stand by those words.

Fact-check: True.

The notion of an “invasion” fits the bill perfectly according to its definition — Merriam-Webster defines an invasion as “the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful,” while Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way” — and also according to basic logic and common sense.

Nevertheless, Smith interrupted him to cry foul, which raises the question of why FNC is allowing left-wing talking points and propaganda to dictate what can and can’t be said — especially when what’s being said are cold, raw facts. Social media critics opined that it was as if she was trying to censor the truth so as to appease the hall monitors in the mainstream media.

Powered by Topple

Vivek Saxena


Latest Articles