Janet Murguia, president of the extremist-funding group National Council of La Raza, will be the keynote speaker at Monday's Martin Luther King Unity Breakfast in Birmingham, Alabama.
Part of the story involves some spin from the Associated Press. An AP story that says at the bottom "Information from: The Birmingham News" contains this paragraph:
Organizers said they chose [her]... because of her message of unity and her opposition to a resurgence of hate speech in the immigration debate.
Now, let's take a look at this paragraph from Erin Stock of the Birmingham News itself (link):
Janet Murguia... is speaking Monday morning at the 22nd annual event. She is bringing a message of unity and denouncing what she said is a resurgence of hate speech in the immigration debate.
Clearly, the AP lifted the "resurgence" bit from the Birmingham News. However, BN's Stock made it clear that that "resurgence" was only Murguia's opinion. The AP article gives the impression that it's an accepted fact.
And, from the NCLR's press release :
Murguia will urge members of the Hispanic and the Black communities to renew their commitment to realizing Dr. King's dream of civil rights for all Americans. She will challenge the two communities to confront injustice, specifically the recent rise in hate speech in the media and in the presidential primaries surrounding the issue of immigration.
It should be obvious to anyone that there has been no such "hate speech" in the media (unless she considers obscure talk radio personalities "the media"). And, none of the presidential candidates have engaged in "hate speech". Some supporters who are unaffiliated with the campaigns might have engaged in something that a far-left panel at a far-left university might consider "hate speech", but I suggest that we don't make that our gold standard. And, I'm sure that if we looked into the supporters of the NCLR we'd find a lot of interesting people, and not just in the U.S.
So, her complaints about "hate" won't wash. She's just trying to hide the NCLR's support for illegal immigration behind the dodge of calling those who support our laws "haters".
And, I wonder exactly how she defines "Americans". In the Civil Rights era that only meant U.S. citizens, yet I'd imagine that in her view the definition is a bit broader and her goal is bringing civil rights to those who are neither citizens nor here legally.
Immigration2008a · Sun, 01/20/2008 - 14:59 · Importance: 1