Jill Capuzzo/NYT: corruption, illegal activity are good for Riverside, New Jersey

Jill Capuzzo of the New York Times offers a ludicrously transparent article in support of illegal immigration: "Town Battling Illegal Immigration Is Emptier Now".

Don't you feel sad and all just by reading the headline? It continues. The lesson the NYT wants you to learn is that the best way for Riverside NJ to prosper is just to give a wink and a nod to illegal immigration. If they don't, cue the tumbleweeds.

The first paragraph calls up images of a ghost town as we learn that the streets are empty because the town has passed an ordinance that - whether ultimately proved constitutional or not - only seeks to reinforce federal laws against hiring or providing shelter to illegal aliens. In other words, unlike the New York Times those who actually live in the town want to help stop illegal activity there.

In the second paragraph, we're informed that one resident compared [a "heated" town meeting] to The Jerry Springer Show. That's certainly an entertaining comment, but one wonders whether it being placed there was intended to influence the reader in any way.

Then, in the third paragraph, we get the thoughts of a local merchant (many or most of whose customers are no doubt illegal aliens), and that person is given a few more paragraphs to expound, including this:

Ms. Martiniano said that immigrants here were scared in the aftermath of the vote, and that those who have been most vocal against immigrants "are not working and have nothing better to do."

Damn those lazy Americans! Of course, many of those might actually be working, and those that aren't might be patriotic Americans who are retired and who - unlike the NYT - oppose corruption and illegal activity. And, since the ordinance deals with illegal aliens, the use of "immigrants" is highly questionable.

After that, we get this interesting bit:

Ingrid Reinhold said that the new ordinance smacked of discrimination. She and her husband, Gustav, own three businesses along Scott Street: a music store that features mostly Latin music, a Brazilian cafe that is undergoing renovations, and a bustling Western Union office, where many of the immigrants can stay in contact with relatives back home...

Of course, many or most of those "immigrants" are actually illegal aliens. And, those at the Western Union office are almost certainly "staying in touch" by sending money home, a multi-billion dollar "industry".

In the real world, remittances encourage political corruption both in the U.S. and in receiving countries. In the NYT's world, wire transfer offices are just comfy Internet cafes.

Then, we're informed that Riverside is a city of immigrants.

Then, it's implied that those opposed to illegal immigration are drunks:

...Its new distinction, recognized at one point by the Guinness Book of World Records, was having the most bars and liquor licenses in a mile-square town... Many of those bars remain, and in some of them there is talk about what needs to be done to slow the tide of immigration...

I don't know exactly why they do, but the New York Times supports illegal activity and corruption.


Yes..let us just put the welcome mat out for all illegal aliens. Come on in! Plenty for everyone. Free education for your children, charity healthcare for the whole family and lots of tax-free U.S. dollars to send to the poor folks back home! Get it while it's hot though because very soon the good ol' U.S. of A will be just as filthy, destitute, corrupt, disease-ridden and unstable as they country you've "immigrated from". We'll leave the light on for ya...

Hey LW, of course along with retired or working there exists a third option, they have lost jobs to illegal aliens.

In LA, though, Mayor Reconquista proposes a bond issue to fund low cost housing for the poor (read illegal immigrant).


New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the nation, it could use some population reduction.

It is intriguing that ad hominem has to be used in support of illegal aliens 'right' to hostile immigration.
I don't recall those favoring welfare increases being described as unemployed busybodies or drug addicts.
There is no need to use such a fallacious approach, since a perfectly rational argument, the desirability of not increasing the aggression on the net taxpayer, is available.
The same argument applies here; we shouldn't use tolerance of illegal immigration to increase the aggression on one to whom we owe loyalty, namely, the net taxpayer of America.
As for the fullness of towns and how it feels; it all depends on the quality of those filling in the last interstices, which must decline as standards are lowered to allow for an additional increment of 'fullness'. A third-world fullness is not a joy to behold, not when higher standards prevailed earlier, and someone one is forced to pay for the additional plenitude, by means of state aggression.