L.A. Times Once Again (Deliberately) Confuses Opposition to “Illegal Immigration” with Opposition to “Immigration”
A recent L.A. Times article opens:
Several thousand legal immigrants stood in line for hours Saturday in Los Angeles to take the first step toward becoming citizens of the United States.
Angered by the anti-immigrant rhetoric emanating from a Republican-dominated Congress, they converged on the Los Angeles Convention Center to apply for citizenship.
I challenge reporter Jeffrey L. Rabin or his editors to provide me with a single example of rhetoric levelled by Congressional Republicans against legal immigrants. I doubt they can provide even one.
Far from ranting against legal immigrants, Republican hard-liners seek to help them — by preventing the illegal immigrants from cutting in line in front of them.
Chris Reed, whose post brought this to my attention, says:
Reporter Jeffrey L. Rabin of the L.A. Times should be embarrassed, but so should his editors. . . . His lead is a parody of left-wing newspaper bias. In a just world, his career would suffer. In this world, he’s probably on the NYT’s short list.
Heh. I don’t know, though. First he may have to prove his willingness to publish classified information on legal counterterror programs. Just to show that he’s one of the guys.
Doesn’t Tancredo want to reduce legal immigration?
Part of what upsets a lot of people — legal, illegal, citizen — about enforcement rhethoric is that many immigrant families have various states of immigration in them. Thus bills which aim at deportation, or criminalizing those who deal with illegals, aim at tearing apart and criminalizing immigrant families. To many people, this is a family and community issue.
actus (6234ee) — 7/5/2006 @ 8:08 pmOf course, if they wanted to stay together they didn’t need to illegally force entrance into the United States.
DaveP. (c3d3cb) — 7/5/2006 @ 8:27 pmNevertheless, the media’s continual failure to make the distinction is a huge and biased disservice to the whole issue. I can’t decide if they’re really that dumb or they just think/hope their readers are. Probably some of both.
Anwyn (1d2652) — 7/5/2006 @ 8:29 pmOr come in legally. Or be citizens.
actus (6234ee) — 7/5/2006 @ 8:44 pmSadly, the Economist did this just a few weeks ago. It referred to the “anti-immigrant ‘minute men'”. I expect this from the LA Times, but not the Economist.
Dogbone (8e63a8) — 7/5/2006 @ 8:57 pmPart of what upsets a lot of people — legal, illegal, citizen — about enforcement rhethoric is that many immigrant families have various states of immigration in them. Thus bills which aim at deportation, or criminalizing those who deal with illegals, aim at tearing apart and criminalizing immigrant families. To many people, this is a family and community issue.
In the criminal justice system I see families ripped apart all the time. I feel very sorry for the families of the defendants. But the law is the law.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/5/2006 @ 9:04 pmIts true. But you can understand why families of defendants, even those who may have done worse than cross a border, would be upset at proposals that further tear them apart. “the law is the law” isn’t that much of an argument when we’re talking about new laws.
actus (6234ee) — 7/5/2006 @ 9:10 pmHow “new” is the law allowing deportation of illegal immigrants?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/5/2006 @ 9:22 pmAren’t we talking about having new enforcement laws? Including some that increase the penalties for those who harbor, feed, etc.. the undocumented?
actus (6234ee) — 7/5/2006 @ 9:32 pmAren’t we talking about having new enforcement laws? Including some that increase the penalties for those who harbor, feed, etc.. the undocumented?
Didn’t you say this?
Part of what upsets a lot of people — legal, illegal, citizen — about enforcement rhethoric is that many immigrant families have various states of immigration in them. Thus bills which aim at deportation, or criminalizing those who deal with illegals, aim at tearing apart and criminalizing immigrant families. To many people, this is a family and community issue.
I am fine with keeping the laws the way they are — if we enforce them.
It might split up families. But the law’s the law.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/5/2006 @ 9:39 pmBut that’s not what the congressional republicans wanted. They wanted new laws and more deportations.
actus (6234ee) — 7/5/2006 @ 9:48 pm“It is also not my business to pass judgment on these
people (politicians)…”
That’s ridiculous. Every time we vote we make a
judgement.
But i wanna give a general ststement:
Madison (7418e6) — 7/5/2006 @ 11:24 pmMore immigration = More terrorism
Hope they understand soon.
The Congressional Republicans want more enforcement of existing law. The provision making illegal immigration a felony was a misfire that the Democrats refused to allow amended out. Straw man arguments are their forte. The 1986 amnesty included sanctions on employers that were never enforced. The Republican provisions include better border surveillance and the fence. Those already here are less affected thann those who go back and forth. Most of the latter have no intention of permannet residence. Meanwhile, thousands of would-be legal immigrants wait decades. The anger you are reading about, and misrepresenting, is due to the lies told in 1986. Bush has a serious problem on this and seems to be realizing it.
Mike K (0b762d) — 7/6/2006 @ 1:06 am“But that’s not what the congressional republicans wanted. They wanted new laws and more deportations.”
If the new laws are intended to enforce the old laws, why are you defending illegal aliens? They are here illegally. They chose to split their families.
sharon (fecb65) — 7/6/2006 @ 4:28 amActually they’re choosing to keep them together. If the illegals didn’t come, then the families would be split.
actus (6234ee) — 7/6/2006 @ 5:29 amI think you’d be hard pressed to find a single Republican in Congress who advocates the deportation of anybody who can’t be deported under existing law.
Xrlq (f52b4f) — 7/6/2006 @ 5:54 amThats interesting. So there aren’t proposals to change eligibility for deportation, such as committing crimes, or overstaying visas?
actus (ebc508) — 7/6/2006 @ 6:29 am“Actually they’re choosing to keep them together. If the illegals didn’t come, then the families would be split.”
No, they are choosing to split them up by doing something illegal. If they were actually interested in staying together, they would stay where it is legal for all of them to do so.
“Thats interesting. So there aren’t proposals to change eligibility for deportation, such as committing crimes, or overstaying visas?”
Shouldn’t they be deported for breaking our laws?
sharon (03e82c) — 7/6/2006 @ 7:09 amI suppose. Except, that doing something (both legal and illegal) is whats keeping them together. If they were split up, then they wouldn’t be doing something illegal.
Instead, they’re interested in the american dream.
They who? Documented or undocumented? What I’m surprised that none of the proposals added new basis for deportation of the documented.
actus (ebc508) — 7/6/2006 @ 7:21 amThat exposes a bias going into this in the first place. The EEEEVil racist Rethuglicans really want America to be white, despite what they actually say. But I know what they really have in their black hearts, and I’m shocked none of them slipped up and said it. But they would have. And stuff. It’s that Rove again! [Darth Vader noises]
If you insist on interpreting everything you see or don’t see in that light, you’re pretty much always going to get the wrong picture.
Phil (f0d73f) — 7/6/2006 @ 8:42 am“I suppose. Except, that doing something (both legal and illegal) is whats keeping them together. If they were split up, then they wouldn’t be doing something illegal.”
Oh, good. Then we agree illegals should be deported.
“Instead, they’re interested in the american dream.”
The American dream is to break our laws? Which civics class taught you that?
“They who? Documented or undocumented? What I’m surprised that none of the proposals added new basis for deportation of the documented.”
We were talking about illegal aliens, right? THEY should be deported.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/6/2006 @ 8:49 amIf thats what you want to think, I’m not going to be able to stop you.
The topic of the post is the confusion of undocumented and documented. So, not “right.” Wrong.
actus (ebc508) — 7/6/2006 @ 8:51 am“If thats what you want to think, I’m not going to be able to stop you.”
Oh, I see. So you ARE wrong. Gotcha.
“The topic of the post is the confusion of undocumented and documented. So, not “right.” Wrong.”
Undocumented is just the latest PC semantic for “illegal aliens,” isn’t it? Is there some other way that politicians and people like you use the term?
sharon (03e82c) — 7/6/2006 @ 9:09 amActually, I just reread the post and nowhere does Patterico (or the person he quoted) use the term “undocumented.” Rather, the post discusses how reporters and editors refuse to use identifying adjectives (such as “illegal”) when discussing immigrants. So we WERE talking about illegal aliens.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/6/2006 @ 9:16 amAmong other things, including those who are documented. Read again the parts in bold in the post. You’ll find more than just “illegal immigrants.”
actus (ebc508) — 7/6/2006 @ 9:21 amI predict LAT will slip up soon and rail against those who are passionate about “documentation” in general.
Wesson (c20d28) — 7/6/2006 @ 9:29 am“Among other things, including those who are documented. Read again the parts in bold in the post. You’ll find more than just “illegal immigrants.””
Dear, read the post:
“I challenge reporter Jeffrey L. Rabin or his editors to provide me with a single example of rhetoric levelled by Congressional Republicans against legal immigrants. I doubt they can provide even one.
Far from ranting against legal immigrants, Republican hard-liners seek to help them — by preventing the illegal immigrants from cutting in line in front of them.”
The discussion is about illegal immigrants and the fact that the reporter (and you, apparently) are loathe to call them illegal.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/6/2006 @ 10:01 am“The discussion is about illegal immigrants”
Aw Jeesus. And legals. The article included in the post was talking about legal immigrants, interchangeably with immigration. Sheesh. Get over it.
actus (ebc508) — 7/6/2006 @ 10:13 am“Aw Jeesus. And legals. The article included in the post was talking about legal immigrants, interchangeably with immigration. Sheesh. Get over it.”
The article was about how the reporter refused to discuss illegal immigration but only talked about “immigration,” which is what they do to make it sound like all immigration is legal. It’s dishonest. LOL You’re such a sore loser, Actus.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/6/2006 @ 10:20 amThats what patterico is saying. In order to have a discussion about people not differentiating between documented and undocumented immigrants, the discussion has to be about both. You said its about only one. Its not. Sorry.
I am quite the loser.
actus (ebc508) — 7/6/2006 @ 10:26 am“Thats what patterico is saying. In order to have a discussion about people not differentiating between documented and undocumented immigrants, the discussion has to be about both. You said its about only one. Its not. Sorry.”
You misinterpreted the post. Didn’t you read the headline?
sharon (03e82c) — 7/6/2006 @ 10:39 amI also read the post. Where some people are documented immigrants, and where patterico talks about no congressman wanting anything bad to happen to documented immigrants. The word legal is not only bolded, but also italicized. you know, for emphasis.
But maybe those things weren’t in there because the post is not about them.
actus (ebc508) — 7/6/2006 @ 10:53 amSo you read the part about the LAT deliberately confusing legal with illegal. I also read your snarky posts trying to blur the lines, as well. And then you went on to talk about “undocumented and documented” workers, etc., etc. But I guess you didn’t read those, either.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/6/2006 @ 10:59 amI did. In fact, thats part of what makes the post about more than just “illegal immigrants.”
actus (ebc508) — 7/6/2006 @ 11:17 amActus–If you are not the most tedious, monotonus, tiresome person in the world, you will be as soon as he dies.
MissScarlett (92d3b0) — 7/6/2006 @ 6:06 pmHeh. Good one.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/6/2006 @ 6:09 pmLet’s all cut Actus some slack. I have come to believe that he is only just trying to hone his rhetorical skills. We could help him with annouciation exercises, for example: A flea and a fly flew up a flume; said the the flea to the fy let us fly;
nk (bfc26a) — 7/6/2006 @ 8:21 pmThere is something weird going on with posting comments today. Anyway, my prior one was not all that great that I wouls want to retype it.
nk (bfc26a) — 7/6/2006 @ 8:24 pmWhat’s the problem?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/6/2006 @ 8:40 pmIt could be that I clicked when or where I should not have but also I get a DOS (Disk Operating System Message) and I have to hit the Back button and Refresh to come back to the site.
nk (bfc26a) — 7/6/2006 @ 8:51 pmHappened again.
nk (bfc26a) — 7/6/2006 @ 8:52 pmThe problem is that you get an error screen and you think you’ll have to retype your comment, but you don’t; the comment appears. If I get it this time I’ll detail the error.
Anwyn (1d2652) — 7/6/2006 @ 9:19 pmGot it again. I’ll email you a copy of the error page in case you need it.
Anwyn (1d2652) — 7/6/2006 @ 9:20 pmactus,
Let me make it really simple for you.
See, the post is about how *legal* immigrants are getting upset by alleged “anti-immigrant” rhetoric, when in fact the rhetoric is against *illegal* immigrants.
See?
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/6/2006 @ 9:22 pmAnwyn,
Please.
Patterico (50c3cd) — 7/6/2006 @ 9:23 pmSent.
Anwyn (1d2652) — 7/6/2006 @ 9:31 pm“I did. In fact, thats part of what makes the post about more than just “illegal immigrants.””
No, dear. That’s what makes the post about illegal immigrants.
sharon (fecb65) — 7/7/2006 @ 4:51 amThere’s no doubt that its about that. Its also about more. Sorry we don’t live in small, circumscribed world of controlled thoughts.
actus (6234ee) — 7/7/2006 @ 5:38 am“There’s no doubt that its about that. Its also about more. Sorry we don’t live in small, circumscribed world of controlled thoughts.”
Sounds like you do, actually.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/7/2006 @ 10:23 amYou can tell from my insistence that things are only due to one topic and that we can only learn what the press wants us to learn. Also, my outdated views that people should’t be expected to work during vacations.
actus (4f2df7) — 7/7/2006 @ 10:36 am“You can tell from my insistence that things are only due to one topic and that we can only learn what the press wants us to learn. Also, my outdated views that people should’t be expected to work during vacations.”
My God, man. You never give up a post, do you? Well, if you’re determined to keep this going, let’s get a few things straight, Actus.
1. The post was about the misuse by the LAT of the term “legal” in describing immigrants. It was not about legal immigrants, per se, but about the misuse of language to include illegal immigrants in a discussion of immigration. You, of course, did exactly the same thing in your numerous posts. Even Patterico affirmed that the post was about the LAT’s misuse of the language and not about legal immigration. Is this more of your creative imagination getting something *different* from post than what the writer intended?
2. No one ever said “we can only learn what the press wants us to learn.” Well, unless I include you. Again, you missed the point which wasn’t what you, the reader, steadfastly determined you would get from the NYT article on SWIFT, but what good the NYT *expected* to come from the story. To this date, you and your ilk haven’t produced a single plausible item. And even the NYT is backtracking, which doesn’t say much for you.
3. I can’t hold it against you that law school makes you a little cranky. Most 1Ls are. But even the 1L who flunks out should recognize sarcasm. Particularly someone who tries to employ it as often as you do.
sharon (03e82c) — 7/7/2006 @ 11:14 amIn a story about documented immigrants. Where the discussion was about republican attitudes to documented immigrants. Chill out.
I got your point. What I said is it doesn’t matter. We don’t have to limit ourselves to that when we talk about what good came of it.
actus (6234ee) — 7/7/2006 @ 1:02 pm“In a story about documented immigrants. Where the discussion was about republican attitudes to documented immigrants. Chill out.”
Patterico said:
“I challenge reporter Jeffrey L. Rabin or his editors to provide me with a single example of rhetoric levelled by Congressional Republicans against legal immigrants. I doubt they can provide even one.
Far from ranting against legal immigrants, Republican hard-liners seek to help them — by preventing the illegal immigrants from cutting in line in front of them.”
The reporter tried to make it about “anti-immigrant rhetoric from Republicans.” The rhetoric was against illegals. I think it’s time for you to chill out.
“I got your point. What I said is it doesn’t matter. We don’t have to limit ourselves to that when we talk about what good came of it.”
If you got the point, why do you continue to argue it? Better yet, why do you misinterpret what I said?
sharon (03e82c) — 7/7/2006 @ 1:08 pmI know. As opposed to the documented. I understand.
Because you keep telling me we can’t look at the good beyond what they intended.
actus (6234ee) — 7/7/2006 @ 1:17 pm“I know. As opposed to the documented. I understand.”
Oh, good. Then you’ll quit posting on this.
“Because you keep telling me we can’t look at the good beyond what they intended.”
No, I said it is irrelevant.
sharon (fecb65) — 7/7/2006 @ 2:11 pm[…] ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION The paper continually confused opposition to illegal immigration with opposition to immigration in general … The paper seemed to show an acute sensitivity about reporting the immigration status of people who committed serious crimes. … h/t Patterico […]
Traction Control » Blog Archive » Headline Summaries: Border Security (9f9139) — 1/2/2007 @ 6:49 pm