Alicia Robinson of Orange County's Los Angeles Times-affiliated Daily Pilot offers "ID card seen as ticket to a brighter future" about Mexico's Matricula Consular cards, aka "IDs for illegals". Mexico passes those IDs out to their citizens in the U.S. irrespective of their immigration status, and they're mostly used by illegal aliens in order to obtain some form of legitimacy. Legal immigrants and visitors already have all the ID they need to obtain state driver's licenses and such, and have no need for the MC cards.

The article is so similar to other articles about the Mexican consulate passing out the cards that I have to wonder what's going on. Did Robinson write this article from scratch? Did she follow a template and, if so, who provided that template? Or, was it derived from some earlier article, or from a press release from the government of Mexico or from one of the organizations involved?

For instance, here's the first paragraph:

Like many teenagers, Ivan Hernandez wants to buy a car someday. On Sunday, he went to get a wallet-size laminated card that may help.

This is similar to other PIIPPs, and in the particular case of ID cards, compare that to the first two paragraphs of "Mexican Consulate helps locals with their papers" from September 2004:

Yara Duran wants to open a bank account to start saving money for her 1-year-old daughter, Ashley... With two babies in her arms, Duran spent two hours Friday at the Cristo Rey Parish, 800 Wisconsin Ave., waiting for her "matricula consular," a form of identification issued by Mexican consulates all over the world that identifies her as a Mexican citizen. With that document, she will be able to open a bank account.

Like all the other articles, the benefits of the cards are then enumerated:

For people who don't have another photo ID or can't get one, the cards are important if they need to they apply for a library card, enroll children in school or identify themselves to the police.

Then, like some of the articles, just a few of the downsides of the cards are mentioned. And, as in all other articles that mention those downsides, those objections are quickly countered:

"I think it's misunderstood," [Patrice Mariscal, an organizer with the Unico Foundation] said. "This is a Mexican document for Mexican people, so we're not doing something wrong; this is just simply saying people are Mexican because they proved they're Mexican."

(Usually someone from the Mexican consulate provides that answer, but apparently he was tied up.) Since this article is so similar to just about every other Matricula Consular card article I've seen, what's going on?

Let's ask publisher Thomas H. Johnson (tom.johnson@latimes.com) and editor S.J. Cahn (s.j.cahn@latimes.com) or the reporter herself (alicia.robinson@latimes.com). Due to those email address, let's throw in readers.rep@latimes.com for good measure.

Note that the Catholic church - or at least the St. Joachim Catholic Church - was promoting this event at masses, and Bank of "America" had a table at the big event. In addition to Unico, another group involved was the Orange County Congregation Community Organization.

Here are some of the previous posts about similar stories:

Florida Times-Union helps Mexico distribute illegal alien ID cards
"Immigrants" get Matricula Consular cards in Watsonville; some downsides noted
Bank of "America", Part 2
"Mexican residents gain ID benefits"
No, I'm pretty sure Salem, Oregon is in the U.S. Why do you ask?
"New ID Cards Help Immigrants Keep Their Money Safe"
"Conferring Legitimacy, This Card Draws a Crowd"
Their money or your safety (several articles)
"Mexican Consulate helps locals with their papers"
"Mexican ID opens doors for undocumented workers in U.S."