The Minneapolis Star-Tribune offers the unsigned editorial "Immigration is an asset, not a liability". Virtually everything in the article concerns illegal immigration, which they consistently refer to without the "illegal" qualifier, only using that word twice.
Not to put too fine a point on it, the "Strib" is lying to their readers. You can see a version with the magic word "illegal" added here, or consider this paragraph:
The big fight is likely to center on the Dream Act, which would extend in-state college tuition rates to immigrant students if they have attended a Minnesota high school for three years and earned a diploma.
They may be refering to the MN-specific version of that bill, but otherwise those "immigrant students" they refer to are actually "illegal immigrant students".
If the only way the Strib can support their argument is through lying, do they really have any argument at all?
Immigration2007a · Mon, 02/26/2007 - 14:16 · · Importance: 1
Independent, in-depth coverage of immigration, politics, and media bias since 2002. Also: multiculturalism, Los Angeles, California, privacy, and occasionally celebrities and wacky humor...
If you can't find what you're looking for, see the About page or use the navigation features to the right.
Atom feed · RSS 2.0 feed · RSS 0.91 feed · WML
Immigration 2008a · Immigration 2007b · Immigration 2007a · Immigration · Immigration (6/05 to 12/05) · Immigration (1/05 to 6/05) · Immigration (8/04 to 12/04) · Immigration (before 8/04) · Immigration & Terrorism · Immigration & Driver's Licenses · Immigration & Consuls · Immigration & Media Bias · Immigration & Europe · North American Union
Blogging Across America
MultiCulti Madness ·
General Politics ·
Privacy ·
Miscellaneous ·
The "Peace" Movement
Los Angeles ·
California ·
Outdoors and sports ·
Celebrities ·
Wackiness ·
Inside Blogging
Iraq ·
Beltway Sniper ·
Terrorism & Extremism ·
The Saudis ·
Warblogging ·
War On Drugs
Comments
Is this some kind of comedy routine? I mean, the subject of the proposed legislation specifically concerns *illegal* immigrants/aliens and is inapplicable to legal aliens. But apparently the writer(s) just can't bring themselves to write the dreaded 'i-word'. So I guess the only way to make sense of their writing is if you know ahead of time what they are afraid to say and why. PC communication at its finest.
Posted by: Amanda at Feb 28, 2007 4:26 AM
Since most immigrants are Hispanic, did they explain how importing people who are 1) more likely to be criminal, and 2) less likely to do well in school (which describes Hispanics) can be an "advantage"? If so it would be a first.
Posted by: eh at Feb 27, 2007 12:00 PM
Seems the wives of illegals have put up a web site wanting the US to send their husbands home and start enforcing the immigration laws.
http://www.artcamp.com.mx/venga/
to funny
Posted by: mrbill at Feb 26, 2007 7:28 PM