Since we already had at least one "treatment" of the issue from this Washington Post reporter, N.C. Aizenman, which I described in an earlier VDARE.com article [Democrat Asks: Why Did WaPo's Aizenman Spin CIS Report? 11/29/07], I have been watching to see when the other shoe (or shoes) from this open border mule for hire would be dropped.
It's dropped! In a January 10, 2008 article entitled "Two Views Of Illegal", Aizenman [email her] is at it again. ." [Two Views of 'Illegal' | Many Undocumented Immigrants Say They Resent Being Treated Like Criminals, But Some of Their Opponents Say There's No Gray Area When Laws Are Broken By N.C. Aizenman, Washington Post, January 10, 2008]
Trying to set a false agenda by noting only two sides to this complex issue, Aizenman starts, "To many illegal immigrants, sneaking into the United States is at worst a minor violation—a breach of the rules so small, and so necessary, as to be beyond even mild reproach.
Oh, I thought our Rule of Law meant something.
In the next paragraph, as if to balance the approach forecasted in the article's headline, Aizenman continues:
"To many Americans, the act of entering the United States without permission taints every aspect of an illegal immigrant's existence in the country. It points to a disregard for the law, suggests that the government has abdicated responsibility for borders and fuels outrage.
"The chasm between the views has created an emotional response to one of the newest hot-button words in the political lexicon: illegal."
You mean downgrade "illegal" to a minor role?
I would suggest that legal is legal and illegal is illegal, but of course that is not why this article has been foisted on American citizens. Who buys ads, who demands fealty from the media to open border illegal entries? You know who and we know who wants more cheap labor, ethnic voters, supporters for its church and Latino association members, many of whom can be recruited from the ranks of illegal aliens. As Claude Rains ordered in Casablanca: "Round up the usual suspects!"
Aizenman swiftly departs from reporting to snorting the coke of her employer with the standard arguments of the illegal alien promoters:
"Those opposed to illegal immigration insist on using the term instead of the more anodyne 'undocumented immigrant' as a litmus test of a person's commitment to restoring control of the borders and order in the interior.
"Among immigrants [my emphasis], the word has become a slur."
Does this apply to our legal immigrants and/or American citizens of Hispanic descent? Pretty broad brush there, Aizenman.
Aizenman continues: "'To call us illegal is to call us criminals,' said Salvadoran-born Maria Isabel Rivas, 28, who trekked across the Arizona desert seven years ago to join her husband in Herndon. 'But how can this be a crime? Our only crime is to come here and work like burros.'"
(Sob, Sob, Sob again–and, yes, of course illegal immigrants are criminals).
But the reporter wants us to really get into the dilemma of those here who have broken the law:
"Rivas, a hotel maid who obtained a temporary work permit granted to Salvadorans after an earthquake, said she considers herself law-abiding. When she set out for the United States, she said, 'Honestly, I didn't even think about the idea that I was breaking the laws of this country.'"
Rivas said she was preoccupied with the troubles that prompted her to leave El Salvador: the young daughter and son whom she could afford to feed only rice and beans; the one-room adobe hut they seemed destined to share with other relatives if Rivas remained. If there had been a realistic way to enter the United States legally, she would have tried. But without professional skills or relatives in the country who could sponsor her, she said, "I had no choice."
So—break the law! And have our elites cheering as you do so. If American businesses would pay Americans enough to do the work, they wouldn't have to import these poor souls as slaves.
In short, folks, if you want to come here and you have no choice, you come illegally and that is now regarded by the Washington Post as OK!
Certainly the role model for this attitude has been the conduct of our Federal government.
Aizenman's paymasters gave this story front-page coverage in the Metro Section, replete with two large photos, one right above the story, with two smiling men, dominating the first page of this section, bearing the caption:
"Jose Angel Fuentes, left, dines with Francisco Ramirez at Ramirez' home in Herndon. Ramirez emigrated here illegally from El Salvador but won asylum."
Message: come here illegally and by hook or crook, with the help of the sell-out American immigration bar, you too can stay and have a home and take jobs from American citizens.
The story, spread widely over seven partial columns, continues on page B10, right under the oft-read Weather section, with the caption, "For Some Immigrants, Legal Isn't An Option".
Are you angry yet? If not, you should be.
The second photo on B 10, captioned "Francisco Ramirez said he fled El Salvador's inhumane laws, but he respects rules in general." shows a smiling asylee knowing he has won the illegal immigrant lottery.
But, as we know from seeing the numerous trouble spots around the globe, fleeing from inhumane laws as an excuse to enter this country illegally would likely involve millions and millions of illegal aliens every year.
As in her 11/29/07 article, Aizenman throws in a few comments at the end of the piece from the persons who believe that illegal is illegal. But in citing the recent ABC news poll, which showed that 54% of us are against illegal immigration, the piece quickly points out that most of us favor legal immigration, which is a crude ploy to set the stage for more and more people we don't need.
The writer at least throws one sop: Mark Krikorian of the respected Center for Immigration Studies is quoted as saying, "The thing that's easiest to address is the illegality, so that's to some extent what you're seeing." But again, this quote lets the writer cast illegality as a minor tort, hardly worth our attention.
As any student of this immigration issue knows, the legal problem is just as out of control as the illegal, with special efforts coming from the same people who want open borders to raise the number of legal aliens, now approaching a million a year, to even higher levels. Ask Bill Gates what he wants in the way of special work visas.
We really have lost control of our borders. And while the Presidential candidates of both major parties are talking tough about securing our borders, we know from the horrible past record that:
Don't let the continuing biases of reporting such as by Aizenman and that ilk in most of the major US media, fool you.
As the 2008 campaign unfolds, be sure to tell your favorite, in my case Democrat, how you feel about real patriotic immigration reform.
Donald A. Collins [email him], is a freelance writer living in Washington DC and a former long time member of the board of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform. His views are his own.
