Since very few people ever click a the link, the NY Times is saying more money is needed to help the immigrants. More for food, beds, medicine, etc. Not for the wall.
More specifically, they are arguing that Congress should approve Trump’s $4.5 billion emergency funding request for border control, which contains funds allocated to humanitarian aid, among other things. This opinion is notable as it rejects the quoted Democratic argument that more funding should not be granted to border control. By recommending that Congress authorizes this funding, NY Times is also directly agreeing on the existence of a “border emergency”, although they used the word “crisis” instead.
The point I was making is that NY Times has struck an uncommon reconciliatory tone in this Op Ed, and this action consciously repudiates the left wing Democrat opinion. There is a political struggle even within the Democratic party.
I’m guessing he didn’t read the article or the first three comments of this thread. There’s very little to nothing there that the right (Trump’s “right”, anyways) would approve of. Though I didn’t draw the same conclusion from the piece you did, so maybe we’re all wrong…or right.
they definitely arent criminals but they are definitely fleeing poverty. but jsut because they are flleeing poverty does not make it right for us to subsidize these poorer countries by taking care of their cancer for them. their people need to rise up and be the change in their environment instead of turning traitor to their motherland.