July 01, 2007

Jennifer Steinhauer/NYT frets massive illegal alien amnesty may have hurt GOP with Latinos

Concern troll/"reporter" Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times offers "After Bill's Fall, G.O.P. May Pay in Latino Votes". It's highly similar to and just as wrong as other such articles and pronouncements from Dick Morris and others. Consider:

Yet in terms of the politics of perception, Hispanics may have been deeply alienated by the heated rhetoric that wound around the axle of the debate, most of it stemming from a few Republican opponents and the loud echo chamber of talk radio.

"The tone of the debate, and the way it was framed in sort of an 'us against them' way, has done great harm in wooing Hispanics to the party," said [Linda Chavez], who was the director of the United States Commission on Civil Rights under Reagan.

For example, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading opponent of the measure, at one point in the debate, said, "The bill would provide amnesty and a path to citizenship for people who broke into our country by running past the National Guard."

1. The Sessions quote is not only factually accurate, I have trouble seeing anything inflammatory about it. If some have a problem with that quote, perhaps Steinhauer should have pointed out the great possibility that the problems lies with them.

2. The "tone of the debate" was scurillously lowered by sleazy people like Chavez. Instead of pointing out that being opposed to massive illegal immigration or even massive legal immigration from one particular country isn't necessarily anti-Hispanic, Chavez did the opposite, implying that all those opposed to the Senate's bill were racists. The poisonous rhetoric coming from inside the supporters camp is not even alluded to in the entire article.

3. The article doesn't cover whether it's a good idea for the U.S. to in effect turn its immigration policy over to those from one particular country or region.

4. The article assumes that all Hispanics think alike and all are supporters of amnesty. Shouldn't the GOP fight against such Gramscian - and now Democratic Party - concepts? That isn't covered.

5. The article completely fails to note the endless string of horrible provisions in the Senate bill, and that many of those who helped quash it did so because they realized how bad it was and the damage it would do to the U.S.

6. The article says "some [Democrats] held views similar to the Republican opponents of the bill" but doesn't apply its steely analysis to whether this would hurt them in the same way that opposing the bill supposedly hurts the GOP.

In brief, Jennifer Steinhauer is simply a bi-partisan hack, supporting those among the Democratic and Republican leadership who put their own interests ahead of the interests of the U.S.

Please write the New York Times ombudsman at public *at* nytimes.com

UPDATE: Odd! Ruth Morris and Elizabeth Baier of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel have similar concerns for the GOP.

Posted to Immigration2007a at July 1, 2007 10:36 AM