David Gonzalez of the New York Times offers "A Family Divided by 2 Words, Legal and Illegal" (link). The article is what's called around here a PIIPP: cookie cutter articles designed to promote amnesty that all have a similar structure and features. See the link for past examples. In the current case, the four-screener - part of their "Remade in America" series - is little more than a sleazy sales pitch for the anti-American DREAM Act. One of the illegal alien subjects "luckily" was able to attend City University of New York at the in-state rate; that wasn't so lucky for the U.S. citizen who could have attended in her place.

The only three things different between this and other PIIPPs - such as this earlier NYT effort or this one - are that the people involved are more middle-class; the possibility that one of the illegal aliens might commit marriage fraud; and also that the name of the organization that might have agitated for the article is given:

Though overqualified and underpaid for the job, she rarely complains. Instead, she and her boyfriend - a college student from Mexico who is also in the country illegally - spend their free time volunteering with the New York State Youth Leadership Council, an immigrant group pushing Congress to pass the Dream Act, which would grant legal status to high school graduates who were brought to the United States by their parents.

The rest of the article is the same as all the rest, and the NYT reporter just sits there constructing a heartstrings-pulling sketch instead of calling any of them on the web of illegal activity involved. And, of course, he doesn't even bring on someone for one paragraph to point out that what the NYT is promoting is horrible public policy for both the U.S. and the sending countries. Instead of encouraging the pater familias - an engineer - to remain in his country and work towards reform, the NYT is supporting braindraining third world countries and massive illegal activity.