The WaPo offers us "Bush Immigration Plan Meets GOP Opposition", an article that contains several hidden assumptions just ripe for a fisking. However, it's not bad enough that I want to expend the effort. Therefore, a mini fisk:
1. Are you sure you want to use the phrase "[Bush's plans to] liberalize the nation's immigration laws"? Are you sure what he wants is "liberal"? Perhaps "feudalize", or "NWO-orize", or "elite-scam-ize" might be better terms.
2. You say "[some House Republicans are] seeking to ratchet up enforcement efforts against undocumented workers". Whew! First off, they aren't "undocumented workers." They're "illegal workers" or "illegal aliens." Even more importantly, that quote implies that they mainly want to crack down on the illegal aliens themselves. Most realize it's the employers and the sending countries that are the root of the problem.
3. You say "Congress will begin the year on an anti-immigration note". Yet, your entire article makes it clear the House Republicans and others are talking about illegal immigration, not immigration in general. In other words, you're not telling the whole truth.
4. You discuss the "ineffectiveness of the nation's immigration laws." Isn't correct to say that the laws are not the problem, it's the enforcement of them?
5. You refer to the National Immigration Forum as an "immigrants' rights group". Looking at the organizations who employ their board members, would other phrases be more appropriate to describe this group? Not that it isn't a respected group, just that its members might have their own racial or monetary agendas.
Immigration2005a · Sun, 01/02/2005 - 23:09 · Importance: 1