Rachel Swarns and Randal Archibold of the New York Times offer "Immigration Movement Struggles to Regain Momentum Built in Spring Marches". Let's compare some of the things that they say with the truth:

Swarns/Archibold	The truth
"Immigration Movement Struggles to Regain Momentum Built in Spring Marches"	'Dear "immigrant" rights movement: Your demonstrations have been wonderful, and we appreciate your hard work. However...'
For a moment, it sounded like one of the spirited crowds from this past spring. There, at the foot of the Capitol, flag-waving immigrants chanted and cheered and warned lawmakers in Congress to take notice.	Foreign citizens who are here illegally - those who are called "illegal aliens" in the U.S. Code - were marching on our Capital, making a show of force and demanding rights to which they are not entitled. And, of course, the NYT doesn't indicate whether those were U.S. flags or Mexican flags that they were waving.
..."immigrant demonstrations"... "immigrant protests"... "political analysts, policy makers and immigrants alike are questioning the staying power of the fledgling immigrant rights movement"... "immigrant rights organizations"... "immigrant communities"... "immigrant marchers"... "immigrant groups"... "[s]ome 2,700 immigrant workers were caught up in those [raids]"...	They can't match Teddy Kennedy: in his speech he used "immigr*" 13 times when what he was really refering to was the illegal variety. Now, certainly, not all of those marching were illegal aliens. But, despite attempts to say otherwise, a majority of them probably were. Many of them were probably U.S. citizen relatives of illegal aliens. But, I'd imagine that only a fairly small number of them were legal immigrants, not least because supporting illegal immigration makes a mockery of the process that they followed. Unless the NYT is intentionally trying to mislead their readers, they should make that distinction clear.
"National Council of La Raza [is] an immigrant advocacy group"...	...and so much more.
[gives three paragraphs to UC Riverside ethnic studies professor Armando Navarro]	A hint to the NYT: unlike the Walter Duranty years, it's so much easier to do basic research nowadays. Isn't anyone who simply plugs his name into their favorite search engine going to doubt anything else you say? Another hint to the NYT: Navarro is probably too mainstream; next time, consider quoting the folks from aztlan.net.
But the political outlook has changed enormously since then [presumably refering to just a few months ago, June and July]. President Bush, who championed legislation that would put illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, has found his stature weakened. And conservatives in Congress, who once seemed on the defensive, have rallied.	Yes, but in our universe, Bush's approval rating hit a low of 31% in early May 2006, and it's slightly moved up since then, reaching 42% in mid-August (source: this USA Today Flash page; other polls are probably slightly different). There's the possibility that they're refering to something other than approval ratings, but most of those leaders who've been opposed to Bush because of his open borders policies have held that opinion for a long time. And, if "conservatives" have rallied, perhaps it's because even sources like the NYT have had to deal with the reality that their support for illegal immigration is wildly unpopular with most U.S. citizens.
Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who favors legalization of illegal immigrants, said the protests were ultimately counterproductive because they galvanized conservatives who criticize legalization as amnesty for lawbreakers. "Looking back, the massive protests with immigrants waving Mexican flags was detrimental to those of us who wanted comprehensive reform," Mr. Flake said. "It just polarized us."	It's good to see an elected U.S. representative realizes that there's a problem with foreign citizens marching in our streets, making a show of force and waving the flags of the foreign countries to which they owe an allegiance. It's unfortunate that his only issue with it is that it helped reduce the possibility of "reform".

If you get a chance, please write public *at* nytimes.com with your thoughts on their article.