It is super-frustrating to me that I am compelled to explain to people that the news they are reading is utterly misleading.
First, it shouldn’t be necessary. If the Pravda Media were honest, millions of people wouldn’t get worked up over BS claims that are made simply to make them angry.
Secondly, since I am forced to contradict what people are reading in the so-called “mainstream media,” I am faced with an unreasonable burden.
“NPR says so.” Whenever I have to explain that NPR is full of crap, I haven’t dented NPR’s credibility in their eyes, but my own. If people are inclined to instantly trust an Establishment source, it is almost impossible to break through that nearly impenetrable barrier.
That seems bizarre, but it is true. No matter how many times you remind people that they have been fed lie after lie after lie by the same sources, it doesn’t seem to matter. It is an ingrained habit to believe them, and when the lies are exposed, they shrug them off as good-faith mistakes.
“Sharp as a tack.” “Cheap fakes.” If those lies didn’t shake your trust in the media, what will?
I got to thinking about this as a number of people are in a tizzy about Trump deporting a 2-year-old American citizen.
Were it true, I would be in a tizzy too. You can’t deport US citizens, and if ICE did so, it would be a travesty.
But, of course, they didn’t deport a 2-year-old citizen. They deported her mother, and her mother chose–rightly, I believe–to take her daughter(s) with her back home.
The case broke into the news because the father of the children is not an illegal alien, and he naturally wants his children with him, and would prefer that their mother remain here as well, even though she is an illegal alien. I can not only understand that, but I heartily approve of his wishes.
What father wouldn’t want to be with his children or to keep their mother here as well?
Of course, we all would prefer a lot of things we can’t have. Every parent who breaks the law and goes to jail is separated from their children. We don’t create a “parent” exemption from having to follow the law. Persons who enter the country illegally are subject to removal–this isn’t a mystery, a trap, or anything similar. It’s not a “gotcha” moment. It’s the law and has been as long as any of us has been alive.
The mother wasn’t deported because Trump was especially cruel. In fact, Trump was elected on the platform of deporting illegal aliens, and that remains his strongest issue in the polls. Open borders advocates may not like that, or, for that matter, many people may want to create an anchor baby exemption–enter the country illegally and have a child, and you are automatically a legal resident–but that is neither the law nor the desire of the majority.
That’s why all the news reports are distorting the case. If they told the truth, the mother would be far less sympathetic to the majority. The outrage would be muted and restricted to about 30% of the population.
So they lie.
I asked Grok about the case, and it answered that Trump did deport a US citizen–relying on news reports. When I pressed the AI, it admitted that the child wasn’t deported–the mother was, and chose (rightly in my view) to keep the child with her, as most mothers would.
You raise a valid point about the terminology. Legally and technically, the 2-year-old U.S. citizen, V.M.L., was not “deported” in the same sense as her undocumented mother. Deportation applies to non-citizens who are removed from the country under immigration law. As a U.S. citizen, V.M.L. cannot be deported, as she has a constitutional right to remain in the U.S.
What happened is that the mother, who was deported to Honduras on April 25, 2025, chose to take V.M.L. and her sister with her. ICE and the Trump administration have argued that this was the mother’s voluntary decision, supported by a handwritten note she provided. However, critics, including U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty and advocacy groups like the ACLU, have questioned whether this choice was truly voluntary, given that ICE limited communication with the family and deported them swiftly, before the father’s emergency custody petition could be fully addressed.
Describing V.M.L. as “deported” is imprecise and can be misleading, as it implies she was subject to the same legal process as her mother. A more accurate description would be that V.M.L., a U.S. citizen, was removed from the U.S. by her mother, who was deported, under circumstances where the mother’s ability to make a free and informed decision was disputed. The case has sparked debate over due process and the handling of mixed-status families during deportations.
In legal matters, precision does matter, and in political matters, language matters as well.
One may disapprove of the Trump policies regarding deportation–I get that and am fine with disagreements on such matters–but saying a US citizen was “deported” when it didn’t happen matters a lot. It is a far cry from “a mother took her child with her,” and we should start all discussions with the same set of facts.
This sort of misdirection happens all the time in politics, and it is an effective propaganda technique. The point is to inflame emotions, not generate discussions.
I, for one, don’t want to get in an argument where I am cornered into defending the deportation of Americans just because somebody redefined “deportation” to mean whatever they want. It is profoundly dishonest.
