Nina Bernstein: illegal immigration opponents are meanies
The New York Times' Nina Bernstein - a frequent author of pro-illegal immigration propaganda - is back with the three-screener "On Lucille Avenue, the Immigration Debate".
It tells the story of illegal immigration opponent Patrick Nicolosi, who's portrayed as a busy-body who complains to the local authorities about local illegal aliens and who's generally disliked by his neighbors for doing so. On the other side are a legal immigrant family who are falsely accused of being illegal aliens and a family with a developmentally disabled child. All of the latter are - surprise! - portrayed as the salt of the earth.
Obviously, there's no "debate" in the article. It's just a one-sided hit piece designed to portray illegal aliens as wonderful people and those who oppose illegal immigration as bad, mean people. An actual debate might consist of Nina Bernstein finding someone who can ask her some tough questions, and then those questions being printed. That's something that the NYT won't do, because they know they'd lose.
Comments
joeD (not verified)
Tue, 06/27/2006 - 08:41
Permalink
I read it; it was ridculously slanted. The only thing from the illegal sie was whinging: "He's got nothing to do but watch!" etc...to me, living in a city where there are thousands of TRULY illegal converted garages, I realize the truth is that these dwellings are illegal for a very good reason(btw, could you believe the cozy description of the "nice" windowless, converted garage those legal folks were providing--for a fee, of course--illegally to illegal residents? And what relevance did it have that one of the three kids the illegal woman had was "developmentally disabled"? It's touching but it's totally irrelevant). There's such a thing as a quality of life issue, not to mention safety. Example: Santa Monica is one of the most liberal cities in the US, but listen to their city council meetings: ALL of the residents there are hard core against over-stuffing ANY neighborhoods--their codes of occupancy are STRICTLY enforced, no exceptions. One house gets only so many parking spaces alloted to it, and the same goes for apartments: sq ftg=pperson. That article was pure silliness and might as well have been a picturebook for open borders. Couldn't she at least have addressed WHY it is, in fact, illegal to illegally rent out garages etc. for a family, or anyone? And that this guy has just as much right as Nina Bernstein to report that crap? See, the Big Problem is that the reporters like Bernstein have a snowball's chance in hell of EVER being in the situation of her neighborhood filled with over-crowded housing, causing all kinds of other problems. Jesus.
John S Bolton (not verified)
Mon, 06/26/2006 - 22:39
Permalink
Of course, the featured immigration restrictionist had to be unemployed; as though only those with time on their hands could be for America first.
Reading between the lines, though, you can tell that the illegal family is a net liability, and perfectly willing to impose aggression on the net taxpayer.
Does freedom really mean freedom for aggression, as liberals would have it?
If we had 10,000 times as many such busybodies, our freedom from aggression would increase greatly, and this is good.
Are those who report 'hate crimes' busybodies?
Are those who look for discrimination nosy parkers?
Are journalists with a preferential option for the poor, foreign and criminal, more accurately to be called meddlesome and overinquisitive?