The New York Times editorial board published an editorial Sunday calling on Congress to "give [President Donald] Trump his border money."

While they may not be on board with the idea of a border wall, they did admit that the current border facilities were in danger of being overwhelmed by the massive influx of people illegally crossing into the United States.

Wait...what did they say?

The editors acknowledged that a border crisis exists, but they don't view it in the same way Trump does.

"President Trump is right: There is a crisis at the southern border. Just not the one he rants about," the editors said at the start of the piece, immediately setting the tone.

While the sheer number of people surging toward the border is undeniable, Trump has said that he views their entry to the U.S. as an "invasion" while the Times sees them as refugees in need of assistance.

The editors noted that the number of arrests by Border Patrol agents are rising, while at the same time the number of resources, including beds in detention facilities, has failed to keep up with demand.

"Most urgently," they wrote, "the program that deals with unaccompanied minors is expected to run dry next month, requiring resources to be diverted from other programs and leading to a further deterioration in conditions," the editors said.

Specifically, the editors wrote this piece to express their support for the Trump administration's latest request for $4.5 billion in emergency border funding. This funding comes with something they believe is desperately needed: Most of it would go toward humanitarian programs, including the office in charge of handling unaccompanied children who enter the U.S. illegally.

"None of the money," the Times noted reassuringly, "would go toward Mr. Trump's border wall."

What else?

The editors worried that without this funding, the Trump administration's tough stance on detaining illegal immigrants would strain the existing detention system to a breaking point. The editors warned Democrats to keep their "tinkering" with the specifics of this funding request "as narrow and targeted as possible," arguing that the White House would have to meet a few conditions of its own if it was "serious about needing the money."

"Both sides" the paper argued, "need to dial back the fighting words, resist the temptation to finger-point and find a creative way through this minefield."