Pro-illegal immigration puff pieces ("PIIPPs")
PIIPP stands for "pro-illegal immigration puff pieces", attempts by the MSM to pull your heartstrings in their attempt to advocate for illegal immigration, giving benefits to illegal aliens, and the like. Since most MSM articles about the topic try to do that, the term is usually restricted to articles that promote the DREAM Act.
Many of these PIIPPs are nearly identical; for a very clear example, see this side-by-side comparison of two articles from different papers using the same structure.
Many PIIPPs are probably planted by groups like the American Immigration Lawyers Association, racial power groups, or small student advocacy organizations. However, until a real reporter comes clean we'll never know where all these highly similar articles actually come from.
Susan Carroll of the Houston Chronicle offers "Noncitizen grads pin hopes on DREAM Act" (chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7029415.html), a cookie-cutter propaganda piece designed to support that anti-American bill. The bill she promotes would allow illegal aliens to take college educations away from needy U.S.
Why do Harvard, Drew Faust, and Elizabeth Pezza want illegal aliens to take educations from U.S. citizens? - 04/04/10
Elizabeth Pezza - staff writer for the Harvard University Crimson newspaper - offers "Living in the Shadows/Their hopes of immigration reform repeatedly unfulfilled, undocumented students endure an effectively unforeseeable future" (thecrimson.com/article/2010/4/1/undocumented-students-harvard-act). It's a PIIPP-ish article (see that link for what that means and examples) that, instead of doing news reporting, advocates for the anti-American DREAM Act. That bill would let illegal aliens take college educations away from U.S. citizens and, despite having over 3500 words, Pezza doesn't even hint at the side-effects of the bill.
Needless to say, a Harvard education is extremely valuable. Yet, those like Pezza - including Harvard University itself - when faced with the choice between giving a Harvard education to an illegal alien or to an equally-qualified U.S. citizen, would turn their backs on their fellow citizens and choose the former:
In its efforts to recruit the best students from the nation and the world, Harvard is one of very few universities with the financial resources to offer merit-based, need-blind admissions standards for all students, including those ineligible for federal financial aid... [After a lobbying campaign, President Drew G. Faust] ended up publicly endorsing the DREAM Act in a letter to federal lawmakers last spring, a step that was in line with support from the Association of American Universities and The College Board, and has since been replicated with support from presidents at other schools, including the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford.
For every illegal alien enrolled at Harvard, it would be nearly statistically impossible not to find an equally- or better-qualified U.S. citizen. Harvard is applying other criteria, and obviously that breaks the anti-American way.
She also references Harvard student Kyle de Beausset and:
Edward Schumacher-Matos, who directs the Harvard Inter-Faculty Initiative on Immigration and Integration Policy and Studies, believes the primary reason to pass the DREAM Act is that it is in the country’s best interest. “We have invested so much in training and educating this group of young people,” he says. “If they’re good enough and have responded enough to be able to get to go to college, then we as a country need these people and should want these people.”
Taking educations from U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally is a direct attack on the very concept of citizenship itself. That might be in some peoples' interest, but it's not in any way in the U.S.'s best interest. The investment we've made in those students can be put to good use in their home countries, some of which would give them free or low-cost educations. And, once again, when dealing with millions of students there are always going to be a large number at each bracket of test scores and achievements.
David Gonzalez /NYT promotes anti-American DREAM Act, in-state tuition for illegal aliens - 04/25/09
David Gonzalez of the New York Times offers "A Family Divided by 2 Words, Legal and Illegal" (link). The article is what's called around here a PIIPP: cookie cutter articles designed to promote amnesty that all have a similar structure and features. See the link for past examples. In the current case, the four-screener - part of their "Remade in America" series - is little more than a sleazy sales pitch for the anti-American DREAM Act. One of the illegal alien subjects "luckily" was able to attend City University of New York at the in-state rate; that wasn't so lucky for the U.S. citizen who could have attended in her place.
The only three things different between this and other PIIPPs - such as this earlier NYT effort or this one - are that the people involved are more middle-class; the possibility that one of the illegal aliens might commit marriage fraud; and also that the name of the organization that might have agitated for the article is given:
Though overqualified and underpaid for the job, she rarely complains. Instead, she and her boyfriend - a college student from Mexico who is also in the country illegally - spend their free time volunteering with the New York State Youth Leadership Council, an immigrant group pushing Congress to pass the Dream Act, which would grant legal status to high school graduates who were brought to the United States by their parents.
The rest of the article is the same as all the rest, and the NYT reporter just sits there constructing a heartstrings-pulling sketch instead of calling any of them on the web of illegal activity involved. And, of course, he doesn't even bring on someone for one paragraph to point out that what the NYT is promoting is horrible public policy for both the U.S. and the sending countries. Instead of encouraging the pater familias - an engineer - to remain in his country and work towards reform, the NYT is supporting braindraining third world countries and massive illegal activity.
Jamie Gold can't see problem with recent Los Angeles Times pro-illegal immigration propaganda - 02/08/09
[UPDATE: Jamie Gold's idiotic reply below]
Earlier this month, Jason Song of the Los Angeles Times offered a pro-illegal immigration propaganda piece called "For an illegal immigrant, getting into UCLA was the easy part". It generated a few hundred emails from their readers, and now Jamie Gold - that paper's feckless "Readers Representative" - offers an round-up of reaction where she can't find anything wrong (link). Summary: she seems to be taking disingenuous lessons from Clark Hoyt of the New York Times. Note also this:
"It's not either/or," responds California Editor David Lauter. "The thinking on why we did the story is pretty straightforward: illegal immigration is a major issue of public concern in California. One aspect of that issue, which has been very hotly debated, is whether students who are undocumented should be allowed in California's public colleges and universities. That issue has been debated in the Legislature and is currently the subject of a court case challenging California's tuition policies."
I left the following (HTMLified) comment:
For the backstory, see Shock: Youtube/Pulitzer contest has pro-illegal immigration puff piece as finalist. That same worthless, illegal immigration-supporting video (link) is now one of the five finalists in the Pulitzer competition and is #20 on Youtube's Featured list. Either because of that or because of creative counting, its views have jumped from around 700 a couple days ago to over 60,000 currently.
Mitch Weiss,Jeffrey Collins/AP intro new immigration article device: the Sympathetic Victim/Representative - 10/08/08
Does Tanya Schevitz understand and support fundamental American concepts? (Chris Patti, Claudia Keith) - 09/16/08
Tanya Schevitz of the San Francisco Chronicle offers "Undocumented students' college aid in jeopardy" (link) about the recent ruling reinstating a suit over the California law giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens. That law is explicitly anti-American: it gives citizens of foreign countries who are here illegally a better deal than some U.S. citizens, and laws like that prevent some U.S. citizens from going to college. In other words, illegal aliens take a chance at college from U.S. citizens. Such laws are a direct attack on the fundamental concept of citizenship.
The title of the article is about what you'd expect from San Francisco in general: putting the interests of foreign citizens ahead of U.S. citizens. While Tanya Schevitz might not be the one that come up with headline, the article itself is as bad as the title.
Before getting out your handkerchiefs, Tanya Shevitz does do one service: letting us in on the fact that the politicians who crafted the law (AB540) did it in such a way as to evade the spirit of federal law:
"The central issue in the case is whether or not the criteria for in-state fees is based on residency or not, and the Legislature carefully constructed the statute so that it was not based on residency," [University of California attorney Chris Patti] said. "It is based on whether you went to a California high school and graduated from a California high school, and those criteria are not based on residency."
The rest of the article wholy sympathizes with those illegal aliens who would be affected and doesn't show any concern for those U.S. citizens who will have their college educations taken away from them:
A state appellate court has put a financial cloud over the future of tens of thousands of undocumented California college students... ...If the law is struck down, it has the potential to financially devastate undocumented students, who are not eligible for state or federal aid. For many, it may mean the difference between attending school and dropping out, Patti said... ...The ruling was disturbing news to those undocumented students who need the subsidy to stay in school...
Unlike Schvitz, my concern is with the U.S. citizens who are victimized by laws like this. Those who are "undocumented" should be encouraged to repatriate themselves and their home countries should be encouraged in one way or another to take care of them. Needless to say, the California State University doesn't agree:
"What we are concerned about are the students who are caught in the middle of this legal dispute," said CSU spokeswoman Claudia Keith.
Near the end of the article Tonya Shevitz plays a common trick in articles like this, quoting a sympathetic "undocumented" victim. As has been done in countless other articles, the "undocumented immigrant" doesn't give her last name, and also stresses that she's only used to the U.S. Considering all the other articles containing those exact same components, a real reporter might consider whether they were being played:
Gesel, who declined to give her last name because of her immigration status, has lived in California since she was 9 but is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico with no path to legal status under current immigration laws... "We were raised in this country. Most of our life is here," she said.
Considering the number of times that something very similar to the above has been used in other articles, does anyone think Schveitz is a real reporter?
Note also that Tyche Hendricks was involved in some way with the article.
Send your polite thoughts to tschevitz *at* sfchronicle.com
Nicole Bode/NY Daily News, New Sanctuary Movement pretend laws to blame for family separation - 06/18/08
Eleven-year-old Fanta Fofana spoke barely above a whisper as she described the day immigration officers burst into her Bronx apartment and took her dad.That's definitely unfortunate. But, did he bring it on himself? Let's find out:
"I was sleeping with my sisters and my cousins," Fanta said, her eyes downcast. "The police came and took my father away from my family. I was born here and I can't believe my country would do this to me."
an immigration court determined that Fofana improperly overstayed his visa, in violation of a prior order to leave the country in 1998So, the person responsible for the situation would seem to be Fofana himself, and not our laws.
Despite that, the New Sanctuary Movement, an ad for which occupies seven paragraphs of the article, is giving him help. However, there's probably little chance of the family being reunited, aside from in Senegal.
Bode also promotes the "Child Citizen Protection Act"/"Anchor Baby Bill" from Rep. Jose Serrano.
As the United States Senate is expected to take up consideration of the DREAM Act as an amendment on the Senate floor, several immigrant youth will join national organizations and coalitions in Washington, DC tomorrow, Wednesday, September 19, 2007 to urge their Members of Congress to support the DREAM Act under the chorus, "Our Dreams Can't Wait."They brought along two students; compare their descriptions in the release from the first paragraphs offered by "reporters" in "news" stories. The release is basically just a PIIPP in raw, unprocessed form:
Rodrigo came to the United States, at the tender age of six, after his father was killed in front of him. After graduating high school as valedictorian with a 4.0 GPA, Rodrigo entered the University of California, Berkley where he majors in Rhetoric and Ethnic Studies. Rodrigo aspires to attend medical school.I don't know about those professions; wouldn't it help pull the heartstrings better if they wanted to join the FBI or the CIA?
At 14 years old, Lizbeth left her native Oaxaca, Mexico where the family's financial situation was crumbling to embark a new life in the United States. After plenty of sacrifices, Lizbeth is one year away from graduating on the Dean's honor list in Chicana Studies at the University of Southern California. She wants to become an immigration or civil rights lawyer.
You can see Corpeno - at that time with CHIRLA, a group that's allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government - on this (youtube.com/watch?v=CT6RkaWtei8) video where she basically states that Mexicans and others have a right to migrate to the U.S. at will.
UPDATE: The title originally said this was from CHIRLA, but that's just the organization Corpeno was previously with and with which CCC is linked.
Douglas McGray (douglasmcgray.com, dmcgray *at* comcast.net) of the New America Foundation offers "A uniquely American DREAM" (link), a guest editorial supporting the anti-American DREAM Act. In addition to being a massive and nearly unlimited amnesty, that bill - currently attached to a defense bill - would allow illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens. Please contact your Senators and let them know you oppose it or just go here to send a free FAX.
The editorial is highly similar to the "news" reports in this genre; if you aren't familiar with them read a few of those then compare them to McGray's spiel. This is truly propaganda by the numbers:
...[Congress] might start by considering young people like Lucia... By seventh grade, she made it from remedial English classes to the gifted-and-talented program. She joined the California Cadet Corps, a kind of junior ROTC. She was voted queen of her high school prom and named valedictorian of her graduating class. She had a plan. She wanted to enlist in the Marines, go to college and apply to work for the CIA -- she liked spy movies... ...[Her parents] told her they had come to the United States illegally all those years ago. That meant she was an illegal immigrant too... ...She graduated two years ago. But she couldn't apply for a paying, professional job and start returning America's investment in her...
Supporters of illegal immigration are really cranking up the pressure: just yesterday another propaganda piece featured an illegal alien who wanted to be an FBI agent. Could this be a sign of some form of coordination between those who produce or who push these articles?
Note also that this is a bit of a retread for McGray. In April he offered an "This American Life" (NPR/Chicago Public Radio) segment "Just One Thing Missing" (newamerica.net/publications/articles/2007/this_american_life_5124). You know what's coming!
Martha doesn't like to talk about her future anymore. She'd wanted to go to med school, become an OB-gyn...
Etc., etc. No word on whether she also wants to join the NSA.
As for Wall's propaganda, if you aren't familiar with these type of articles, look at the two examples presented side-by-side here. Then compare them with his and consider - despite the quotes in the article from critics - whether he's a reporter or just a hack:
Maria Duarte is clinging to her dream of becoming a social worker.
But she will need the support of Congress to achieve her goal.
Duarte, a 20-year-old Cal State San Bernardino student, is one of the thousands of illegal immigrants who could become legal residents and eventually citizens under a bill pending in Congress...
...Even if she graduates from college, Duarte's degree will be worthless unless she can become a legal resident. Besides social work, she is thinking about entering the field of criminal justice and becoming an FBI agent...
The DREAM Act is an explicitly anti-American bill that would allow illegal aliens to take discounted college educations from U.S. citizens. Corrupt newspapers and "reporters" have offered a long line of propaganda pieces - called around here PIIPP - in support of the legislation. That propaganda is invariably strongly biased towards the Act and rarely if ever mentions its downsides.
When teenage brothers Juan and Alex Gomez were awakened at dawn on July 25 and arrested by U.S. immigration officials, they simply became two more among the thousands of kids who get snared in deportation dragnets along with their parents. But this week Juan's Internet-savvy high school friends in Miami have turned his case into a cause celebre in Washington - and even if the brothers eventually do get deported, the publicity they've garnered may well boost the passage of a federal immigration bill that would keep other young people like them from suffering the same fate in the future.
Their parents brought them here as toddlers on a tourist visa, which they overstayed. One would imagine that if there were any mitigating circumstances - such as the parents applying for asylum or similar - they would have been mentioned. Since they aren't, perhaps Padgett could have asked their parents what they were thinking. Oops: that's not part of the PIIPP playbook. I've yet to see a PIIPP where a "reporter" asks the parents whether they feel they have any sort of responsibility.
The rest of the article follows the playbook, using euphemisms like "undocumented" and false statements like "the current anti-immigration mood on Capitol Hill". See PIIPP for several past examples highly similar to this one.
But, give Padgett some credit. He manages to offer one (yes, just one) sentence alluding to the possibility that some might have some objections to that which "reporter" Padgett clearly supports:
Critics call the DREAM Act - which was part of President Bush's failed immigration reform package and is now a stand-alone bill - just another amnesty reward for lawbreaking.
Even that contains a half-truth: what failed was legislation written with the input of several others, not just Bush. Surely, a real reporter would have offered more than one sentence with the downsides, right?
Since they don't seem to have a reader's rep, please write letters *at* time.com with your thoughts.
"Dreams Across America"  is the latest stunt from supporters of a massive illegal alien amnesty, consisting of about 100 people taking a train Washington DC to lobby for "reform".
Via this, Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times offers "Family crossed the border to success". The family in question is that of Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.
Reporter: Vanessa Bauza
Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel
Date: April 23 2007
Title: "For young undocumented immigrants, 'Dream Act' offers avenue to success"
Contact: vbauza *at* sun-sentinel.com, 954-356-4514
Student last names: not used
Common threads: One student apparently to go to Palm Beach Community Coll
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal: let illegal aliens deprive U.S. citizens of college - 02/18/07
Victoria Perez traveled to the state Capitol Tuesday to ask for a future... Perez, a senior at New Haven's Wilbur Cross High School, aspires to go to college next year to prepare for a career in criminal justice. But she has no idea how she'll foot the bill... The problem: She's in the United States illegally, and therefore doesn't qualify for in-state tuition rates at Connecticut's public colleges and universities. Out-of-state tuition costs three times as much.Showing either a complete lack of understanding of logical reasoning (or perhaps a knowledge that there are a lot of useful idiots about), Perez doesn't think that's fair:
"We're all created equal. I mean, we're all humans."Needless to say, James doesn't try to help her understand fundamental concepts.
And, we get the news that Perez et al have friends in high places:
"These kids were brought here, sometimes without any choice or against their will," Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said. ...[Regardless of the cost], Blumenthal said, the price would be fully justified, calling it "an investment that will repay itself many times over."Partially redeeming himself, James includes some critics:
During Tuesday's hearing before the higher education committee, Sen. Dan Debicella, R-Shelton, called the bill "a massive subsidy" for illegal immigrants.
"If someone has not followed the laws of the U.S. to become a citizen, why do they deserve to get the same level of tuition as legal residents?" Debicella asked.
"This seems to reward behavior that we seek to deter," the senator said.
Rep. Pamela Z. Sawyer, R-Bolton, worried the measure could hurt the state's aspiring college students by heightening the competition for admission. Many community college students are single mothers struggling to make ends meet, she said.
"There are a lot of pressures on education dollars currently in the state of Connecticut," Sawyer said.
During a recent visit to the Gomezes' tidy Los Angeles apartment, all four family members spoke of the importance of hard work and education. Cesar and Thania's father, Felipe Gomez, who came here illegally in 1990, said his main motivation was to give his two children opportunities.This follows a slight promotion of the DREAM Act, and while there might have been others this is the first article I can recall that sought out the parents of those who would be given college discounts under that anti-American bill. Unfortunately, Watanabe didn't ask him the follow-up questions: "so, what you're saying is that all those benefits we give to illegal aliens served as an incentive? And, without those incentives, you wouldn't have come here, right? And, as long as we continue to offer such incentives, more people will come here illegally, right?"
Indeed, Gomez said, he wouldn't have brought his children here if they could not have attended public schools.
Cesar Gomez works full time, volunteers with the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) and last year marched for immigrant rights.I tend to strongly suspect that Watanabe was introduced to him through CARECEN, but unfortunately she doesn't disclose how that happened. And, while illegal aliens do have human rights, those rights aren't to be confused (as he does) with citizenship or legal resident rights. If he's a citizen of Mexico or another country, he should talk to them about his citizenship rights. Needless to say, Watanabe ends on his misleading statements rather than challenging them.
"Whatever sentiments people have toward immigrants," Cesar said, "everyone is human and deserves equal rights and equal opportunities — especially in this great country, especially those who have tried so hard to stay ahead."
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
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.
A discussion of foreign sources that support illegal immigration is a bit rare around here, but Catherine Philp is a U.S.-based reporter for The Australian, so if you run into her you might want to ask her about the article "Whites drive out Latinos who saved their town". Yes, that's the real headline.
You might ask whether she come up with that headline, and if not whether she supports it. Does she think it's accurate?
SAN FRANCISCO a
Unfortunately, Crummy interviewed a single Georgian, State Sen. Sam Zamarripa, who voted against the reform package.
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.
Nathaniel Hoffman and Andrew Becker of the Contra Costa Times offer separate articles that support illegal immigration.
Hoffman offers "Immigration rights advocates contemplate their next steps". From the headline on down it's completely biased towards supporting illegal immigration and foreign citizens marching in our streets.
Giovanna Dell'orto of the AP offers "Citizenship by birthright up for debate". Here's the first, PIIPPish paragraph:
Laila Montezuma was 16 when she sneaked across the Rio Grande from Mexico with her mother, only to be abandoned by the smuggler paid to get them into the United States.