Order a new batch of hankies, because the NYT has a new PIIPP ("pro-illegal immigration puff piece"). It's called "More and More, Women Risk All to Enter U.S." and it's from Lizette Alvarez and John M. Broder. Here's the first paragraph of this specimen:

It took years for Normaeli Gallardo, a single mother from Acapulco, to drum up the courage to join the growing stream of Mexican women illegally crossing the border on the promise of a job, in her case working in a Kansas meatpacking plant for $5.15 an hour.

Like other PIIPPs, it drones on and on informing us of the plight of her and others with whom we're supposed to have sympathy. But, as usual, there are a few things the NYT doesn't discuss.

First, didn't Americans used to do meatpacking jobs for a much higher wage? (See "Tamar Jacoby dissed, discredited"). Of course, that was before illegal aliens were brought in to bust unions and lower American wages.

So, why is the New York Times supporting union busting and lowering wages for low-skilled American workers?

And, another uncomfortable question: did Lizette Alvarez' ethnicity "inform" her coverage?

And, if the Mexican government paid the NYT to promulgate pro-illegal immigration propaganda, how would that differ from this article? Was the Mexican government - or one of our own Fifth Columnist organizations - involved in the genesis of this article in any way? How exactly did the NYT run across Ms. Gallardo? (These questions aren't that far-fetched, at least for the Denver Post).

And, let's consider this:

...a growing number of single women... are coming... to find jobs, send money home and escape a bleak future in Mexico.

Why is that, New York Times? Why is the country of Mexico - a country with more millionaires than Germany - unable to take care of its own people? Has the NYT looked into that, or was it too busy writing articles that Sally Struthers would consider too treacly?

...They come to find work in the booming underground economy...

Is that a good thing? Perhaps the NYT should look into whether that "booming underground economy" is actually having an extremely corrosive effect on our country, undercutting our laws and spreading corruption. What other kinds of underground economies are OK? Will we see weepy articles about streewalkers, pimps, crack dealers, or those who sell illegal animals?

Now, let's look at this bit and see if we notice anything questionable:

[The NYT's victim spent] eight hours at night and committ[ed] $500 to a coyote, she stumbled down a rocky hill near Tucson and broke her ankle. The coyote left her sitting on a nearby highway in the desert, where the Border Patrol eventually found her, took her to a local emergency room and deported her to Nogales, Mexico, the next day... A Mexican immigrant group, Grupo Beta, took her to a Mexican hospital where she was told she needed surgery on her ankle at a cost of 3,000 pesos, or seven weeks' salary. She also owes the friends who gave the coyote $500.

The NYT won't tell you this, but Grupo Beta is funded by the Mexican government. Simply calling them a "Mexican immigrant group" is misleading.

And, note how things changed when the NYT's sympathetic victim crosses the border: she's immediately expected to start paying for things. On our side - the side where the NYT believes that money grows on saguaros - she wasn't asked to pay - or will not pay - for the emergency room visit. On the other side, things aren't quite so generous.

Please write public *at* nytimes.com and suggest they find less biased reporters and editors.