MALDEF: Truth in Immigration website

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), has launched a new website called "Truth in Immigration" ( Per this:

John Trasvina, president of Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said Thursday the airwaves are dominated by anti-immigrant sentiment. His group launched the Web site to provide facts and contrary arguments to statements in media and on the Internet, Trasvina said... "Our idea in this Truth in Immigration Web site goes back to Thomas Jefferson's point of let us hear both sides," Trasvina said.

Gosh, it's so difficult for MALDEF to find their point of view presented. Except, of course, when the Associated Press interviews him for a promotion of his website, and it's then printed in the Houston Chronicle. And, of course, except for all the countless other AP, NYT, LAT, etc. etc. articles lying, misleading, or offering incomplete information about this issue.


1. MALDEF has at least an indirect link to the Mexican government.

2. The page implies they want to accuse those who oppose illegal immigration of encouraging illegal acts. I wouldn't put trying that past them.

3. The page falsely implies that being here illegally is always just a civil matter, when in fact reentering (and, AFAIK, remaining here) illegally can be a felony.

4. That page also confuses some types of assimilation with full assimilation to our laws and culture. Many Hispanics do not want to culturally assimilate, and many - including MALDEF - seem to think some of our laws don't apply to those who are Hispanic. And, a small group - but one with political power - believes to some degree in Aztlan/reconquista.

UPDATE: Another MSM source promotes the new site, this time with Gary Martin of the San Antonio Express-News offering the almost completely pro-MALDEF "Immigration group looks to clear myths" (oddly enough, located in their Mexico section). Martin says the site is in "response to anti-immigrant sentiment", without quotes and without noting that most of the sentiment is opposition to illegal immigration and not so much against illegal aliens themselves and with very little sentiment being against immigrants, i.e., the legal variety. Martin then discusses a recent SPLC smear against FAIR in which they were named a "hate group". He fails to put that term in quotes, despite it simply being the SPLC's (incorrect) opinion. The term "anti-immigrant rhetoric" is used, without quotes and without any sort of analysis of how accurate that term is. Out of 13 paragraphs, two form as a sort of rebuttal by FAIR, but Martin prejudices the reader against them by first noting the SPLC's smear.


It seems every anti-immigration law enforcement group has their own little 'myths vs. facts' page. Basically, what they believe is a 'fact' and anything contrary to that has to be a 'myth'. And since when is the opinion of Morton Kondracke a fact? The 'fact' is they never acknowledge anything negative related to immigration (unless it's something they claim CIR will magically fix), rarely make a distinction between illegal and legal, not pass up a chance to smear someone who disagrees with them. "Our idea in this Truth in Immigration Web site goes back to Thomas Jefferson's point of let us hear both sides," Trasvina said. That is odd considering the third thing they ever posted on this website is 'Does the First Amendment Protect all Speech?' Obviously intended implication they wish to convey: NO! But are they underplaying how virtually all speech IS protected? Or do they want people to think the right is more limited than it actually is under law, i.e., being intentionally misleading? 'Speakers and broadcasters who incite violence against immigrants and/or Latinos, for example, may be legally required to make injured parties whole through financial or other means.' And then they mention Lou Dobbs in the very next sentence. Are they implying that the incredibly limited exceptions to the First Amendment might apply much more broadly than they actually do and to people like Dobbs? I guarantee you some of their readers will get that impression and I doubt Trasvina hate speech is another thing. What does she mean by 'draw the line'? Who draws the line? Is she implying there's a legal difference between protected and 'hate' speech?

Remember, LaRaza and MALDEF are self-described 'civil rights' organizations yet they are both playing cute with civil right #1--freedom of speech. A true 'civil rights' group should not go around trying to create the impression that freedom of speech is more limited than it actually is. Even if we give them the benefit of the doubt on not wanting the government to suppress what they consider 'hate speech' (obviously they would if they could), they are still openly trying to bully their opponents out of the marketplace of ideas which is not in the spirit of the First Amendment. So give us a break that you want both sides represented. Your pressure tactics are not promoting the civil right of freedom of speech, it's an attempt to suppress it.