The Washington Post featured a chat about immigration with one of their reporters earlier today, and it shows the only type of "debate" that paper is willing to have about immigration.

The chat featured Michael Leahy, author of a recent article about the Minuteman Project in Virginia ("Crossing the Line", 3/19/06). And, it was quite a "show chat": almost all of the questions were complimentary and from opponents of the MMP, in some cases including smears.

Only three of the questions that Leahy or the WaPo screener chose to print were from those who oppose illegal immigration, and only one of those had any actual meat. Even that was from someone who's not a fan of the MMP:

The Minutemen sound like unpleasant, confrontational zealots. However, I tend to think they're on the right side of this issue. Illegal immigration unambiguously hurts the United States by driving down wages and workplace protections for low-income workers. It hurts Latin America by siphoning away able, intelligent workers. Illegal immigration to the US also saps political energy for reform in Latin America, allowing corrupt or ineffective regimes to stay in power longer, prolonging and deepening poverty. Most Americans don't care about these bad consequences because they want cheap laborers to keep their azaleas looking good, but this hardly constitutes the moral high ground.

Notably, the three questions I wasted my time typing in were not answered by Leahy (see the link above). Two of those directly contradicted statements he made in the chat, and all three presented a side of the story not to be found from Leahy or the Washington Post.

Specifically, Leahy gave the impression that most "Latinos" support illegal immigration, when the truth is that not all do. And, some of those who do have links to the Mexican government.

He also stated the "Border Patrol has made it clear that it does not believe the Minutemen's presence at their April rally last year was of any real help to its operations." He should have made it clear that many front-line BP agents support or do not oppose the MMP. And, if he were serious about getting to the truth of this issue, he would have asked why the Washington BP officials think differently. And, no one else in the chat discussed one of the most pernicious affects of illegal immigration: political corruption. Needless to say, Leahy did not bring that up.

What could Leahy or the WaPo be afraid of? Why are they unable to discuss this issue other than in the most simplistic, emotionalistic terms? Since the Washington Post wholeheartedly supports illegal immigration, shouldn't they at least give a passing nod to the downsides of what they support?

Note also the introduction to the chat by Emily Messner, which I responded to here.

Does the Washington Post think it enhances its reputation by featuring such ignorant commentary or those who refuse to discuss subjects in anything other than the "show chat" format?