The DREAM Act is an explicitly anti-American bill that would allow illegal aliens to take discounted college educations from U.S. citizens. Corrupt newspapers and "reporters" have offered a long line of propaganda pieces - called around here PIIPP - in support of the legislation. That propaganda is invariably strongly biased towards the Act and rarely if ever mentions its downsides.

Now, here's one in magazine form, from Tim Padgett of Time ("Can Two Kids Alter Immigration Law?", link):

When teenage brothers Juan and Alex Gomez were awakened at dawn on July 25 and arrested by U.S. immigration officials, they simply became two more among the thousands of kids who get snared in deportation dragnets along with their parents. But this week Juan's Internet-savvy high school friends in Miami have turned his case into a cause celebre in Washington - and even if the brothers eventually do get deported, the publicity they've garnered may well boost the passage of a federal immigration bill that would keep other young people like them from suffering the same fate in the future.

Their parents brought them here as toddlers on a tourist visa, which they overstayed. One would imagine that if there were any mitigating circumstances - such as the parents applying for asylum or similar - they would have been mentioned. Since they aren't, perhaps Padgett could have asked their parents what they were thinking. Oops: that's not part of the PIIPP playbook. I've yet to see a PIIPP where a "reporter" asks the parents whether they feel they have any sort of responsibility.

The rest of the article follows the playbook, using euphemisms like "undocumented" and false statements like "the current anti-immigration mood on Capitol Hill". See PIIPP for several past examples highly similar to this one.

But, give Padgett some credit. He manages to offer one (yes, just one) sentence alluding to the possibility that some might have some objections to that which "reporter" Padgett clearly supports:

Critics call the DREAM Act - which was part of President Bush's failed immigration reform package and is now a stand-alone bill - just another amnesty reward for lawbreaking.

Even that contains a half-truth: what failed was legislation written with the input of several others, not just Bush. Surely, a real reporter would have offered more than one sentence with the downsides, right?

Since they don't seem to have a reader's rep, please write letters *at* time.com with your thoughts.