Marc Santora and Sam Roberts of the New York Times offer the largely pointless "Candidate Giuliani Shifts His Tone on Immigration" (link). The most important word there is "tone"; his pro-illegal immigration stance hasn't changed and, of course, the NYT doesn't call him on it.

"First thing is, there should be no amnesty," Mr. Giuliani said in response to a reporter's question in Atlanta recently. Amnesty means varying things to various candidates. For Mr. Giuliani, it means no blanket forgiveness of illegal status... These days, when he says he opposes amnesty, Mr. Giuliani says he does not mean that the millions of people here illegally should be deported, but rather, that they should have to earn their citizenship and that nothing should be accorded automatically.

This is the fake non-amnesty amnesty: millions of prospective illegal aliens around the world will see it as an amnesty, meaning that that's exactly what it is. The NYT "reporters" could have done a public service by pointing that out; why didn't they?

We're also given a sales job and a misleading one at that:

Mr. Giuliani's approach is similar to the one proposed by President Bush, advocating an orderly flow of immigrants by providing a clear path to citizenship and thereby easing the pressure at the border.

Bush's latest proposal actually has a rather convoluted path. And, if the NYT is going to print things like that shouldn't they do it in some form of a quote? The way that's written makes it sound like the Bush/Giuliani approach is objectively valid, when it actually isn't.

Then, we're given the most-likely-false claim that Representative Tom Tancredo "railed against illegal immigrants."

Then, the back-handed praise designed to reduce support for the candidate:

It was a role he seemed to cherish, becoming a national leader for the cause of welcoming immigrants in the 1990s. To the surprise of many people in both parties, he also spoke passionately about helping those here illegally become citizens, advocating for $12 million to start a city agency that would assist those seeking citizenship. He vigorously defended the city's policy of forbidding city employees, including police and hospital workers, from asking a person's immigration status...

Then, they parrot Giuliani's strawman argument:

...As other anti-immigration movements spread across the country in 1990s, Mr. Giuliani consistently pushed back. "The anti-immigration issue that's now sweeping the country in my view is no different than the movements that swept the country in the past," he said in 1996. "You look back at the Chinese Exclusionary Act, or the Know-Nothing movement — these were movements that encouraged Americans to fear foreigners, to fear something that is different, and to stop immigration."