Sarah Weaton of the New York Times offers "Huckabee Immigration Plan Emphasizes Security". Most of it consists of a summary of that scheme and, since the plan itself is almost as short as the article, why not just read the source?

She also misleads about this:

Mr. Huckabee has taken heat in recent weeks from his rivals for the Republican nomination, especially after his impassioned defense at a Nov. 28 debate of merit scholarships to children of illegal immigrants while he was governor of Arkansas. In that debate, he responded to attacks on his immigration record by saying, "We're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did."

As detailed at the last link:

1. Whatever The Huckster was refering to, the bill itself, as voted on, was for all post-secondary educational benefits, not just "merit scholarships".

2. The benefits were for illegal aliens themselves, irrespective of their parents' statuses.

And, Weaton also helps show just how misplaced the priorities of the MSM are:

[Mitt Romney] endured tough questioning from reporters in Des Moines yesterday about revelations last week that a yardwork company he employed was found for a second time to be using illegal immigrants... [after being "pressed", he "grew testy".]

Even another part of the NYT admits that this question has already been asked for "like, the millionth time" (link). So, why keep asking it, knowing you're going to get the same response?

And, of course, perhaps the NYT should actually try to analyze Huck's plan and get expert input and then subject him to "tough questioning" about his actual policy proposals. Apparently that's too much for those "reporters".