NY Times misconstrues meaning of word “few”

The definition of few is defined as “not many persons or things.” The overwhelming (99%) majority of Americans understand this without question. But it would appear that the NY Times is not among the majority. At least that is the conclusion to be drawn from the January 20, 2016 article Few Foreign Visitors to U.S. Overstay Visa, Federal Report Says.

According to the NY Times, 450,000 is a “few”. Specifically, the number of people who have entered America and overstayed their visas and many have disappeared within the nation. This figure is derived from a Homeland Security report (that is 20 YEARS past due from when it was supposed to first be presented to Congress).

To be fair, 450,000 people is only 1% of the 45 million people that have entered the US on visas. But to confuse a small percentage with a massive number of people is blatantly gimmicking the news to benefit a political agenda, in my opinion. That’s like saying the Lotto was $45 million and you just won a few dollars – $450,000. That would change your life. Because 450,000 of anything can never be confused with “few”. To put it in a figure context, slightly more people have illegally overstayed their visas and are now illegal immigrants than the number of people that attended Woodstock in 1969.

400,000 people attended Woodstock in 1969

400,000 people attended Woodstock in 1969, which is smaller than the number who have overstayed their visas and are in the US

It would seem that this is obviously an attempt to obfuscate a troubling reality. The Federal government has failed in its job to protect the nation. Sanctuary Cities have failed their residents by hiding and protecting illegal aliens from just enforcement of laws. But with a presidential election, as well as State and local elections, on the hook a declaration of reality is a political handicap. Luckily, millions have stopped reading articles in favor of 30 second soundbites and a scan of headlines. An absence of a photo (considered essential for online news coverage) further dissuades reading the details.

The reason why this matters? If just 1% of 1% of the total number of people that received a visa had malicious intent, that’s 4,500 troublemakers. Considering it only took 2 Islamic radicals to kill 14 in San Bernadino, and 19 to cause 9/11, the total missing is not only the direct opposite of “few” it is scary.

For the NY Times to insult the intelligence of the public in this manner is depressing. The fact that the only discernible reason for such deceptive wording is the political gain of a very select group of people is enraging. The fact that 450,000 people are hidden in the nation illegally is a direct attack on the safety of the nation and inexcusable. No matter how the NY Times tries to excuse it.


******************************************************************************************

We appreciate your support, every day. It’s your support that allows us to have the funding for maintaining our equipment, traveling to cover events, and keeping the site alive. Please donate $2 (or more if you like).





About the Author

Michael Vass
Born in 1968, a political commentator for over a decade. Has traveled the U.S. and lived in Moscow and Tsblisi, A former stockbroker and 2014 Congressional candidate. Passionate about politics with emphasis on 1st and 2nd Amendments.

Be the first to comment on "NY Times misconstrues meaning of word “few”"

Thank you for lending your voice. We appreciate hearing what you have to say.

%d bloggers like this: