NYT: Many don't like illegal aliens marching in our streets

David D. Kirkpatrick offers "Demonstrations on Immigration Harden a Divide":
..."The size and magnitude of the demonstrations had some kind of backfire effect," said John McLaughlin, a Republican pollster who said he was working for 26 House members and seven senators seeking re-election. "The Republicans that are tough on immigration are doing well right now..."
Of course, the NYT has its own issues to deal with. Such as the idea that those who don't support strong efforts to reduce illegal immigration have a "moderate" position:
Mike Hellon, one of the more moderate candidates in the current primary [to replace "guest" worker advocate Jim Kolbe], said: "The marches have hardened positions on both sides. People who really want the border closed — who want to put troops down there — are more passionate than ever, and the other side is more sympathetic." He added, "It does escalate the risk factor for a moderate like me."
And, the NYT also has this:
But many Hispanics said opinions had changed dramatically in the past few weeks, partly because of the hostility they perceived in some proposals from Mr. Hayworth and other conservatives.

"When people are talking about shooting people who come across the border," said Harry Garewal, chief executive of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, "yeah, I think that causes some angst."
One way to read that - and perhaps the intended way - is that J.D. Hayworth has advocated shooting people crossing the border. Somehow I doubt that he has, and the only people who've done that are on the fringe of the fringe. How could the NYT let such a statement go unopposed? Well, because they're the NYT.

We learn that supposedly many Hispanics see HR4437 as anti-Hispanic and are thus engaging in shows of ethnic power by marching in the streets. Obviously, those who profit from such beliefs are the Democrats as well as those Republicans who support illegal immigration.

The article also includes a quote from proud former MEChA member Rep. Raul Grijalva in which he promises demographic retribution:
"You might be getting a momentary bump [from being opposed to massive illegal immigration] but in the long run you are going to lose."
Needless to say, the NYT doesn't disclose Grijalva's past membership in that racial separatist group, nor do they spend any time discussing the propriety of an argument based on demographic hegemony.

Please write public *at* nytimes.com and ask them to correct the many errors in their reporting.


That's "fewer drug addictions".

...shooting people who come across the border. Yes, nations have traditionally defended their borders with guns, large irritable dogs, barbed wire, minefields -- whatever is required. And we can do the same. Perhaps such a policy would result in fewer deaths of Mexicans crossing the desert and fewer drug additions in the USA. Sound good to you?

what don't people understand about illegal?

can i march in mexico city against drug dealers? i don't think so.
basically if this government can't understand lawsit has no right to rule over people, if a government allows millions of other people to come here as illegale aliens; that government has no right to rule its people and needs to disappear from the face of the earth, do you understand?