Jeremy W. Peters of the New York Times offers "For the G.O.P., Fine Line Seen on Migration" ( peekURL.com/zHAWFE5 ). It misleads about an effort by the anti-illegal immigration group ALIPAC, and it makes a key assumption that isn't backed up by reality.

1. Of ALIPAC, Peters writes "Some anti-immigrant activists responded to news that the government was buying new clothing for the detainees by organizing a campaign to mail them dirty underwear." First, ALIPAC isn't "anti-immigrant". Second, their campaign (which I oppose) was to send "gently used underwear to Barack Obama and John Boehner" in addition to illegal aliens ("Mail your used underwear to illegals, Boehner, and Obama", peekURL.com/zzV8DaM ). While it's true that they wanted to send underwear to illegal aliens, Peters ignores the part about Obama, Boehner, and other DC politicians. Why omit that part? In order to make ALIPAC look worse.

2. Peters writes "Gestures of sympathy, like a trip to the border by Glenn Beck, the conservative radio and television personality who has raised more than $2 million to buy teddy bears, shoes and food for migrant children, were met with scorn and derision." That also is true, but it misleads by ignoring those (including that site) that pointed out that Glenn Beck would just make things worse by encouraging more kids to try to cross the desert. See the longer explanation here: 24ahead.com/n/12058

3. Peters assumes throughout that the most compassionate response to the issue of UACs (border kids) is something that would allow many UACs to remain in the U.S., and that sending them home would not be compassionate: "Today, as a wave of unaccompanied minors fleeing Central America poses a new crisis for Congress and the White House, Republicans are struggling to calibrate a response that is both tough and humane... Some senior Republicans are warning that the party cannot rebuild its reputation with Hispanics if it is drawn into another emotional fight over cracking down on migrants - especially when so many are young children who are escaping extreme poverty and violence. But pleas for compassion and even modest proposals for change are dividing the party, and setting off intense resistance among conservative Republicans who have resisted a broader overhaul of immigration..."

In fact, as discussed at the link above, the most compassionate response would be to send them home (perhaps accompanied by other policies to make it easier for them to remain in their countries). What Jeremy Peters presents as compassionate will lead to more kids dying while trying to cross the desert or the Rio Grande. It won't solve the problems in Central America, in fact it will make them worse (both by providing a safety valve for bad policies and by braindraining those countries). It will encourage more dependence on the U.S. (via remittances). And, it will have a negative impact on the U.S. both through increased crime and through lower wages for struggling American workers.