New York Times admits that women are tied and gagged during illegal border crossings.

New York Times backs up Trump's migrant claim after WaPo ridiculed it : ‘Yes, there was duct tape’

The Washington Post was among many news organizations to denounce President Trump’s claim of tape being used to silence women during illegal border crossings — but a subsequent New York Times article revealed the president wasn’t making things up after all.

Back on Jan. 25, the Post published an update to a piece headlined, “Trump again mentioned taped-up women at the border. Experts don’t know what he is talking about.” It claimed the president’s "new favorite anecdote" was about tape covering the mouths of migrant women.

However.....

Last week, The New York Times published a piece headlined, “Yes, there was duct tape: The harrowing journeys of migrants across the border.” The piece – part of a limited-run series on border crossing – reveals that tape is used during border crossings.

The Times report said that women are “tied up” and “bound,” featuring first-hand accounts from several women who experienced the brutality themselves.

“For weeks, President Trump has been criticized for exaggerating the brutality experienced by migrant women on the border as he makes his case for a wall,” the Times wrote. “But there is some truth to the president’s descriptions of the threat of sexual assault and of women who have been duct-taped and bound.”

The article doesn't use the words "sex trafficing victim," but really there is no other possibility for what is happening here.

The open borders crowd are the biggest sex slave traffickers in the western hemisphere.

Of course they won't ever admit such a thing.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I love how it says "some truth" even though it is proven to be true.
The wording the press uses on stories is telling of how they operate.

I'm glad more people will realize how bad it can be for certain people trying to cross the boarder (illegally)
Just sad it took news outlets this long to report what many already knew to be true.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I love how it says "some truth" even though it is proven to be true.
The wording the press uses on stories is telling of how they operate.

I'm glad more people will realize how bad it can be for certain people trying to cross the boarder (illegally)
Just sad it took news outlets this long to report what many already knew to be true.

Where do think all those unaccompanied minors are going to? Their handler (slave master) probably tells them they're going to take them to some relative somewhere, but they're mostly going to end up in some dingy "massage parlor" or chained up in the basement of some dumpy hotel.

The original Post article cites information that claims that

those who spoke with The Post did not rule out the possibility that there are female trafficking victims near the border who have been bound or gagged. They were also careful to make clear that they could not speak for what others, such as law enforcement officials, may have told the president.

“Could it happen? Sure, it could,” Yang said.

In that article, the Post cites source after source from people who work in agencies that deal with this problem and one after another say that the story that Trump is telling is exaggerated.

So, if all those profesional's cited in the original article claim that Trump is exagerating, where did Trump get his information?

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the origins of the president’s talking point. Questions sent to the national and state public affairs offices for U.S. Customs and Border Protection were not answered

The source cited for this thread was Fox News, reporting on a Times article which according to Fox, counters the Post reporting by cherry picking parts of the Times article. The Times article does report on mouth taping but also claims that they could not find that it was as wide spread as Trump has indicated.

As well, two of the few cases cited in the Times article were of border control agents acting on their own and taking women hostage for their own sex related intentions.

So yes, there is sex trafficing across the southern border, but will a wall stop it? Not if the women are being brougt in by boat or plane. Not if the women being brought in are from other locations like Asia. As a matter of interest, those brothels in Florida that that football owner was allegedly visiting, weren't they Asian women? Did they come in from an un walled border or other means.

So yes, sex trafficing is real and it is brutal, so let's stop it. But it's nature is not as simple as this story would make it out to be. Focusing on stopping the sex trafficing across the southern border by building a wall to stop the percentage that come in through that channel will not stop the epidemic.

And oh, as to the Fox reporting on the Times rebutting the Post, well, from one vantage point that would be fake news reporting on fake news reporting on fake news.

Sounds like some "buttering-up" is underway for a failed effort to stop Trump's EO 😎

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So Fox news bad, not as many were taped up as Trump said and you are OK with sex trafficking.

Gottit.

Don't worry, it's just a temporary discomfort imposed because of Border Patrol and ICE policies. No women are hurt and is only done to protect them from the thuggish Federales.

Three women taped and bound in the back of a car crossing the border through the desert then go left.

That is not quite the same at all.

originally posted by: neo96
The open borders crowd are the biggest sex slave traffickers in the western hemisphere.

Of course they won't ever admit such a thing.

So anyone who would like to see a functional open border are also sex traffickers?

Fox news is that you?

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: neo96
The open borders crowd are the biggest sex slave traffickers in the western hemisphere.

Of course they won't ever admit such a thing.

So anyone who would like to see a functional open border are also sex traffickers?

Fox news is that you?

WTF is a "functional open border"? SMFH

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: neo96
The open borders crowd are the biggest sex slave traffickers in the western hemisphere.

Of course they won't ever admit such a thing.

So anyone who would like to see a functional open border are also sex traffickers?

Fox news is that you?

WTF is a "functional open border"? SMFH

An example of such can be found in many places. The closest examples are county and state borders. There are reasons why no one is calling for walls between the states. Such examples are functional open borders and are enforced through cooperation and valid laws.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: neo96
The open borders crowd are the biggest sex slave traffickers in the western hemisphere.

Of course they won't ever admit such a thing.

So anyone who would like to see a functional open border are also sex traffickers?

Fox news is that you?

WTF is a "functional open border"? SMFH

An example of such can be found in many places. The closest examples are county and state borders. There are reasons why no one is calling for walls between the states. Such examples are functional open borders and are enforced through cooperation and valid laws.

You can't be serious.

That has to be one of dumbest things I've read on here in awhile.

Guys, I'm sure they only covered their mouths to shut them up.

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: neo96
The open borders crowd are the biggest sex slave traffickers in the western hemisphere.

Of course they won't ever admit such a thing.

So anyone who would like to see a functional open border are also sex traffickers?

Fox news is that you?

WTF is a "functional open border"? SMFH

An example of such can be found in many places. The closest examples are county and state borders. There are reasons why no one is calling for walls between the states. Such examples are functional open borders and are enforced through cooperation and valid laws.

You can't be serious.

That has to be one of dumbest things I've read on here in awhile.

I am glad i could empress you.

The fact is that very many borders exist without walls and ours has existed for a very long time with no walls or a minimum amount.

There are several steps we could take in order to keep our sovereignty and not be walled in.

Walls are for commies!

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

In that article, the Post cites source after source from people who work in agencies that deal with this problem and one after another say that the story that Trump is telling is exaggerated. 

Well I see you took a fancy to those rebuttals...

It's all okay because it's exaggerated...

Shame.

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: stosh64

originally posted by: UncleTomahawk

originally posted by: neo96
The open borders crowd are the biggest sex slave traffickers in the western hemisphere.

Of course they won't ever admit such a thing.

So anyone who would like to see a functional open border are also sex traffickers?

Fox news is that you?

WTF is a "functional open border"? SMFH

An example of such can be found in many places. The closest examples are county and state borders. There are reasons why no one is calling for walls between the states. Such examples are functional open borders and are enforced through cooperation and valid laws.

A better example would be the Canadian border...

You missed the boat.

The Canadian border is wide open. There's a reason for that....

a reply to: UncleTomahawk

How many of them have people crossing illegally?

originally posted by: Lumenari
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

So Fox news bad, not as many were taped up as Trump said and you are OK with sex trafficking.

Gottit.

Hell no you don't ''gottit. How do you come off making such ugly personal allegations like that against me, huh? Just who do you think you are anyway. Did you not read my post? Did you just skip through it with your blinders on finding only that with which you could disagree so that you could make sweeping generalizations built entirely on your own fantasies?

Did I not clearly say, ''So yes, sex trafficing is real and it is brutal, so let's stop it.''... huh? Did you not read that ? Or did you just decide to ignore that part of my post so that you could spew more of your all to often venom against anyone who offers points of view that differ from your own? Huh?

You know, sometimes I can learn things from your posts and that is why I still read them but all to often all you have to offer is crap like you posted above. If you want to discuss the issues and share perspectives then fine, but out right obfuscation of the facts as you have offered above get oh so tiresome.

originally posted by: willzilla
a reply to: UncleTomahawk

How many of them have people crossing illegally?

Mostly all of them! Due to people breaking laws.

I am back on the boat now.