Here's the second paragraph of the Associated Press article "Civilian patrols branch out, though poll finds opposition" [1] from Elliot Spagat:

Many of the hundreds who make up the self-appointed civilian patrols monitoring the border to deter smuggling of people and drugs are unemployed or underemployed ex-military men who have long resented Mexicans who come to the United States illegally and, in their view, compete for jobs, crowd hospitals and schools and threaten English as the nation's dominant language.

Let's analyze that to the extent that our patience will allow. "Hundreds" implies at least two hundred, right? What subset of two hundred people would you consider "many"? Ten? No, that won't do. "Many" would have to be at the very least thirty or forty. Did Spagat interview that many people and can he say they all share that profile?

And, is Spagat sure that the "resentment" is directed at the illegal aliens themselves? Even if some is directed at them, isn't most of it directed at those leaders who enable massive illegal immigration?

And, is it only "in their view" that those illegal aliens do the things specified, or aren't those facts?

The AP does mention some of the harassment those on the other side inflicted on the border watchers, but I'm still waiting for anyone in the MSM to do a similar piece on the pro-Mexico, open borders types. It doesn't have to be a hit piece at all. Just something telling the truth would be very damaging to those who oppose the MMP and similar groups.

If the AP doesn't do that, shouldn't we just assume that they're completely biased? Let's send an email to feedback *at* ap.org and encourage them to provide their readers with the whole truth.

----------
[1] signonsandiego · com/news/state/20051001-1001-ca-bordervolunteers.html