los angeles times
Los Angeles Times: Page 4
See the summary for this topic on the main Los Angeles Times page.
This is a follow-up to the story of Hispanics in Orange County having received a supposed voter suppression letter.
In this post I'm going to:
- present evidence that the letter was sent by an illegal immigration supporter...
- discuss how Arnold Schwarzenegger has been politically emasculated and how his handlers don't have the U.S.'s best interests at h
Several Orange County CA Hispanics have received a letter (written in Spanish) telling them in part:
"You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time..."
The AP version of this story has received wide distribution, even as far as France.
Here are just some:
* 10/4/06, downtown Denver: a group of Colorado Minutemen were videotaping day laborers when a group of the laborers got angry and one or more of them appear to have assaulted one or more of the cameramen. One of those involved is currently out on bond charged with trying to steal the camera. A video news report from Jeremy Hubbard of FOX31 is here.
Yesterday former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castaneda spoke as part of the Los Angeles Public Library-associated Zocalo program. I attended (after first going to the library where I thought it would be and then rushing over to the Music Center where it actually was) and was able to ask him whether Mexico had a "Fifth Column" inside the U.S. His answer was somewhat in line with what you'd expect; feel free to skip ahead to read it.
JC discussed the political situation in Latin America and, among many other points, said he thinks there are two forms of leftism there: that represented by Castro, Hugo Chavez, and others, versus the other form represented by Lula, Bachelet, and others. He's not in favor of the former group, but he thinks LA needs more of the latter. (Later on he said, in effect, that it's good that there's a needler like Chavez around, but that no one had really appointed him to the role he fills.)
Then, he moved to the topic of immigration:
* Thinks that Fox's making of immigration "accord" one of his key issues was necessary, not just to get the accord but to prevent a "wall" from being built when Fox first started pushing it. He thinks a "wall" would have been built without Fox taking such a pose.
* Thinks Fox was right about going for an all-inclusive approach (what JC called "the whole enchilada" and what "our" politicians call "comprehensive").
* Thinks it's hypocritical for the U.S. to have its only migration treaty (emphasis on the bilateral nature of treaties) with their "top" enemy Cuba, but not to have one with their "best" friend to the south.
* Thinks the Senate massive amnesty scheme is "good".
* Is "relatively confident" that the "wall"/"fence" (he switched back and forth between those terms, as others do) won't be built.
* Thinks 9/11 gave the Bush administration a pretext to pull back from previous joint statements they'd made with Mexico vis-a-vis immigration.
I asked him about this blurb from 2002:
[Mexico's foreign minister Jorge] Castaneda said Mexican officials will begin rallying unions, churches, universities and Mexican communities... "What's important is that American society sees a possible migratory agreement in a positive light," Castaneda said. "We are already giving instructions to our consulates that they begin propagating militant activities -- if you will -- in their communities."
I mentioned that some of the organizers of the recent immigration marches have links to the Mexican government, and specifically refered to a non-organizer, the ACLU, being part of a group with other groups that have such links. (Later, from the floor, I mentioned that one of his former consuls also organized a march.)
AFAIK, the only paper that published the blurb above was the Houston Chronicle, and it was on the same page as two other blurbs. (The page where it was returns a 404, but you can find it by signing in and searching their archives for parts of the text). However, he refered to something appearing in the New York Times and said that Bush and Powell had been upset about what he said, and Powell had spoken to him about it. Since this was four years ago, he may have been confused over which quote this was.
In any case, he went on to defend the quote, saying that he doesn't think there's a Fifth Column in the U.S. and that he's not aware of any links between the Mexican government and the immigration march organizers. (I made it clear later from the floor that I wasn't saying those organizers were directed by Mexico, only that there were links). He supported Mexico's right to defend their people. He also supports the country of Mexico working with groups in the U.S., and he said that when Powell complained about his statement he told him that "I'm working for you on this matter": by getting such groups involved he could help acheive the "accord" that both Mexico and the U.S. government (just not most of the governed) want.
He thinks attempts to look for a Fifth Column are "barking up the wrong tree". He thinks it's OK for Mexico to be involved with U.S. groups provided it's done in an aboveboard, open, legal fashion. (The only problem is that, because of the corrupt press, such links aren't being publicized.)
Then, he engaged in a tu quoque argument, refering to U.S. meddling in Latin America.
In retrospect, there wasn't really much use in asking this question, aside from the fact that it probably made Andres Martinez a little uncomfortable to have someone mention facts that his newspaper, given its druthers, would rather not mention. As foreign minister, Castaneda was just doing his job. The question above, and many others, need to be asked of our elected officials and find out why they aren't doing their jobs.
Patrik Jonsson of the Christian Science Monitor offers "Crackdown on immigrants empties a town and hardens views", which is so highly similar to the story discussed in "Russ Bynum/AP promotes illegal immigration (Stillmore, Georgia)" that I barely need to add anything more: almost everything said about that slab of pro-illegal immigration propaganda applies to the current slab.
There are a few minor differences. For instance, we learn that the Crider plant "does everything from poultry processing to packing M&Ms for the military to grilling the ribs for restaurant franchises, employees say". Bear in mind that apparently hundreds of workers at that plant were illegal aliens, i.e., citizens of other countries. (See, for instance, "Poisoning the MREs Americans won't poison").
Note that both the previous AP story as well as the Los Angeles Times story discussed in "Molly Hennessy-Fiske/LAT promotes corruption in Arkansas; Huckabee" have featured locals who speak favorably of the illegal aliens and express the wish that ICE had just let the massive corruption continue. The current article is no different:
...raids and crackdowns have uncorked a phenomenon for those left behind: a sense of moral confusion about mass roundups and midnight raids.
Thankfully, the AP, the Los Angeles Times, and the CSM are here to offer us moral guidance. And, although no other information is provided, we're informed that:
But some, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, have voiced concerns about the searches.
And, as with the AP article, the news that the illegal aliens had lowered local wages and taken jobs from legal workers is hidden at the end of the piece:
Now the plant is paying a dollar more an hour than before the raid, to draw new workers from neighboring counties. "With the illegals gone, Americans have a chance to make more money," says Mr. Byrd.
David Streitfeld of the Los Angeles Times' business section offers a five-screener called "Illegal -- but Essential". It informs us that illegal labor is a "pillar of California's economic strength" and takes other steps to promote illegal immigration. While it does contain two anecdotes about workers who've been affected, and a mention of George Borjas' studies, they're overshadowed by the general feeling of sleaziness. Similar articles could have been written about the benefits of crooked cops or about how drugrunners buying speedboats props up the economy.
And, needless to say, nowhere in the article is there even the slightest allusion to such corruption and its effect on our political system.
Hundreds of thousands of immigrants have repeatedly demonstrated this year for legal recognition, sparking a backlash from many native-born Americans. Congress has been stalemated between legalization advocates and those pushing punitive measures.
Those "immigrants" were either illegal aliens or their supporters, and not all the marchers were immigrants but may have been the citizen relatives or friends of illegal aliens. (A small number were no doubt otherwise unaffected useful idiots). And, certainly not all those who were opposed to the marchers are the "native-born", but no doubt included large numbers who went through the legal process to become (real) immigrants. And, is a subtle message being sent that "Americans" include both the "native-born" and what he refers to as "immigrants"?
Then, he misrepresents the Independent Institute's Open Letter on Immigration. Contrary to what he implies, that childlike screed doesn't mention illegal immigration; it only refers to the general term without drawing any sort of distinction:
The 500 economists concede that a "small percentage" of native-born Americans may be hurt by competition from illegal immigrants who are willing to work cheaply. But any harm, they say, is outweighed by the benefits to the overall economy.
"The only people to benefit from the deportation of millions of low-skill workers would be other low-skill workers, who would get an immediate increase in pay rates," said Timothy Kane, an economist with the conservative Heritage Foundation. "However, they would also be the first to lose their jobs during a recession — which would be inevitable if the economy were shocked in this fashion."
UC Berkeley economist David Card has challenged those findings, saying cities such as Los Angeles are absorbing large numbers of laborers without wages being affected... The plentiful supply of workers, Card speculates, has led companies to keep people at jobs that might otherwise have been automated.
In other words, having access to endless cheap labor has reduced innovation.
And, we get the thoughts of "urban affairs expert and Economic Roundtable President Daniel Flaming":
"When manufacturing collapsed, there was no effort to salvage the infrastructure for other purposes... The formal economy here has been stagnant since the beginning of the 1990s. The only growth has been in under-the-table employment, predominantly fueled by desperate workers and in particular undocumented workers... [Without immigrants, Flaming said, Los Angeles would be smaller and weaker and poorer — Detroit or Pittsburgh or Cleveland with better weather.] We should be thankful to immigrants... Without them, things would be much worse."
Then, just so the reader can be absolutely assured where the LAT stands, it ends on a PIIPPish note.
This article is symptomatic of the "Fahrenheit 451"-ish trend of journalism. Newspapers that used to "follow the money" now try to cover up the trail. I don't expect any MSM source to ever "follow the money" in the case of illegal immigration and find out exactly who's profiting from massive illegal activity and what steps they take - perhaps by encouraging a certain type of immigration coverage - to promote their goals.
It looks like Katie Couric is spreading pro-illegal immigration propaganda. Last night, CBS Evening News' "freeSpeech" segment featured an illegal alien whose identity was concealed. This was the video version of one of the other PIIPPs ("pro-illegal immigration puff pieces") discussed in this category, and like many of the others it promoted the anti-American DREAM Act.
The L.A. Times lifestyle columnist and infamous hat-wearer offers "Border Fence Is Borderline Insanity". In brief, she thinks it's just a stunt and won't be built anyway because it won't be funded.
What a coincidence. Yesterday the Wall Street Journal offered "As U.S. Debates Guest Workers, They Are Here Now".
Immigration issues, which concern voters most, also may cost Schwarzenegger with his opposition to driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and dispatching of troops to the Mexican border.Those two paragraphs should have probably be
Latino voters favored Angelides over the governor 39 percent to 25 percent in the poll.
The California Assembly has passed Gil Cedillo's latest attempt to give driver's license to illegal aliens, SB 1162. This is just a week after the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committe shelved his earlier attempt.
Needless to say, that minor setback didn't deter "One Bill Gil" from his life's work of giving U.S.
Here's a post just for my "liberal", "conservative", and lunatic libertarian illegal immigration apologist and supporter readers! Please consider this fun quote:
"We're in a state [Kentucky] where there's nothing but Americans. The police control the streets. It's clean, no gangs. California now resembles Mexico - everyone thinks like in Mexico.
Molly Hennessy-Fiske of the Los Angeles Times offers a fine slice of pro-illegal immigration propaganda called "Arkansas Immigration Raid Reaches Beyond Workers" (link). It "reports" on the aftermath of the raid at the Petit Jean Poultry plant in Arkadelphia, Arkansas a year ago. We're informed that "[i]nstead of feeling reassured that immigration laws were being enforced, many felt that their community had been disrupted":
The extended entry has a few reports about 1995's Latino Summit Response to 187 which was discussed in this entry about Fabian Nunez.
Paper: Press-Enterprise, The (Riverside, CA)
Title: Hispanics call illegal immigration issue racist
Author: Skip Morgan
Date: January 5, 1994
A coalition of Hispanic activists vowed yesterday to fight back
against what they see is an attempt by Gov.
In 1995, current Speaker of the California Assembly Fabian Nunez spoke before the "Latino Summit Response to Prop 187" at UC Riverside and "allegedly" said, among other things, this:
There's only two forms of power in this country and in this world. One is economic power, We certainly don't have the economic power because we don't own the means of production, but there's another form of power, and that's the power of the masses.
EFE Executive Vice President Emillio Sanchez said a freelance writer for the news agency inaccurately described Goldwater's plan.Of course, on June 23 I pointed out that that claim was simply a smear and that the characterization of the camps was coming from the reporter and not from Goldwater.
"Upon further reflection, our investigation has determined that your plan to house illegal prisoners in a tent city is consistent with accepted practices for nonviolent American prisoners in your area," Sanchez said in the letter released Tuesday by Goldwater's campaign.
The letter also acknowledged that the freelance reporter never interviewed Goldwater or any of his staff for the story.
To help the reader with determining who's credible and who's not, let's take a look at who helped promulgate the smear.
* EFE, of course
* the AP rewrote the EFE story. Much more weight was given to the reporter's characterization than to the note that it was simply a characterization and not a quote. And, considering the weight of the charge, that was not enough.
* Unfortunately, Br'er Drudge posted the smear in red type, without bothering to do a little bit of research.
* All the various papers that printed the AP article, some of which have control over which AP articles they print.
* Jim Kolbe and John McCain, who tripped over themselves to condemn Goldwater
Now, we get to the small-time smearers:
* Dave Weigel at Reason Magazine with "In Your Heart, You Know He's Batshit Insane": How much of this has been hyped by the "Mexican news service"? Apparently not much; Goldwater has said the same thing before. (reason.com/hitandrun/2006/06/in_your_heart_y_1.shtml)
* "Joe in DC" at AmericaBlog: "GOPer proposes forced labor camps for illegal immigrants": Those right wingers...they're thinking has really evolved, hasn't it? Always looking for the solution. (americablog.blogspot.com/2006/06/ goper-proposes-forced-labor-camps-for.html)
* An unnamed contributor to TruthDig hedges a bit, but doesn't bother digging for the truth. (truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/ 20060624_goldwater_jr_calls_for_forced_immigrant_labor_camps)
* AZCongressWatch reprints the article but provides little hedging or analysis. Based on its past entries the reason why is clear.
* Buffalo Pundit offers a report subtitled "El Trabajo Libera" (translation of Arbeit macht frei).
* alabamian.net uses the same phrase.
* Badattitudes' hedging falls a little short: "True, Goldwater is claiming he was quoted out of context, that he was talking about work programs for convicted felons. But he's apparently expressed such sentiments more than once... ...How does this talk of the US melting pot being polluted by immigrants differ from the ideas of the Nazis?"
* And, Man Eegee printed both the original smear and the retraction, but is unapologetic.
You can find various other blogs discussing this - before and after - with this search.
And, note that Goldwater's claim that illegal aliens are "polluting" the "Arizona desert" are based on things like this. Even the Los Angeles Times has noticed:
At Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, 2 1/2 million pounds of garbage [left by illegal border crossers] is scattered through broad valleys and desert arroyos every yearUPDATE: Showing his true sleazy, no-class nature, John McCain is refusing to back down:
"It is critically important that we improve the security of our borders and that we treat people humanely in the process, which I don't believe Mr. Goldwater's proposal, however he characterizes it, does," McCain said in a statement.McCain might be supporting EFE's false charge because of a true charge made against him:
Goldwater, the nephew of former Arizona Sen. Barry Goldwater, advocates detaining illegal border-crossers in tent-style jails and using them to help build a wall along the state's border with Mexico. The labor would be voluntary, he said, and modeled after work programs and tent-city jails run by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
"This is not an idea that's new," Goldwater said Tuesday. "All we're doing is taking a page out of Sheriff Arpaio's book."
In April, Goldwater penned a letter that appeared in The Arizona Republic in which he was critical of the path of immigration reform in Washington, D.C. He asked voters to "send a strong message to President Bush, McCain and Congressmen Jeff Flake and Rick Renzi that we are not going to accept their selling (out) of America."Jim Kolbe is also refusing to back down.
Days later, Goldwater issued a clarification in which he took back the "selling out" remark, especially with reference to Renzi.
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.
They are the backbone of post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction: Workers who converge at dawn and wait to be picked up for 14-hour shifts of hauling debris, ripping out drywall and nailing walls.
But because many are in the country illegally, immigrant workers rebuilding New Orleans are especially vulnerable to exploitation, according to a study released Tuesday by professors at Tulane University and the University of California at B
They offer the editorial "The right words". Their only quibble is that he wasn't specific enough:
The president has given the process some much-needed direction, urgency and even a moral framework.
As I briefly described here and in other posts, allowing illegal aliens to come or stay here is actually immoral.
We all awoke to headlines in our nation's most important newspapers reminding us that this is "A Day Without Immigrants." Not illegal immigrants, mind you, but immigrants.
USA Today headlined today's demonstrations and boycott "On Immigration's Front Lines." The New York Times headlines its story "With Calls for Boycott by Immigrants, Employers Gird for Unknown." The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times are both calling their coverage "The Immigration Debate."
Did you know there's a growing "Immigrant" Rights Movement? Of course, most Americans will refer to that "movement" as "foreign citizens who are here illegally marching in our streets making a show of force and demanding rights to which they aren't entitled", but many news/propaganda organizations seem to prefer the first term. And, not just because it's shorter but - of course - because it's highly misleading.
There are currently hundreds of articles in Google News that use the titular phrase.
Steven Hill of the CFR-linked "New America Foundation" offers "Time for a Tex-Mex Marshall Plan". In brief, he proposes ending illegal immigration by ending the U.S.: creating an "American-Mexican union" out of the two previously independent, sovereign countries with borders and things like that.
The Pulitzer Prizes have been announced. If they wanted to be a bit closer to the past and present reality, they'd have a Propaganda category. What would that look like? Let's imagine:
The letters and e-mails have been overwhelmingly negative, maybe 500 to 1, maybe a little more... But I think we're elected to do what's right, not necessarily what's popular.Yes, but 500 to 1?
The New York Times, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and just about every other newspaper or media outlet that's tried their best to spin foreign nationals marching in our streets and making demands as "immigration marches".
I previously linked to Networks Champion Cause of "Americans" Marching for "Immigration Reform", but since that shows just how much the network news tried to lie about this issue I might as well link again.
Now comes "CNN's Dobbs Scolds Paper
A blogger went undercover at an ANSWER meeting and has a report. The meeting mostly concerned ANSWER's upcoming Monday April 10 rally for illegal aliens in Washington DC and their NYC rally on the 29th.
I believe the best way to characterize it is as a lame attempt to further divide Bush from his base. The subtext of the article is that the latter are opposed to illegal immigration because - quite unlike Bush - they're opposed to Hispanics or Mexicans.
You can practically smell the patchouli as the aging hippies at the Times celebrate the youthful activists fighting the power, man.
...The Los Angeles Times duly reported, "Some Republicans fear that pushing too hard against illegal immigrants could backfire nationally, as with Proposition 187 (the 1994 ballot measure that sought to deny benefits for illegal immigrants that) helped spur record numbers of California Latinos to become U.S. citizens and register to vote.
Costa Mesa in Orange County CA will be checking the immigration status of those arrested for violent felonies.
Now, at first glance you might think most residents of that city would support that idea, rather than, for instance, telling lies about the proposal or complaining that it hurts their businesses (more here).
A full page ad from the government of Mexico appeared in the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and the Washington Post on Monday. While they do have a right to take ads even from foreign governments, the choice was particularly apt considering that all three papers support illegal immigration.
Mountains of trash, recurring fires, despoiled natural springs, vandalized historic sites and disappearing wildlife are part of the devastating toll that the government's running battle with smugglers and migrants is taking on national parks and wildlife refuges along the U.S.