The immigration-related proposals of the DMI have been mentioned here in the past, and not in a good way.

Now, Andrea Batista Schlesinger of the DMI is questioning Phyllis Schlafly being selected to testify before Congress about immigration. Her post is simply an ad hominem attack, focusing on Schlafly's cultural conservatism rather than her immigration coverage, such as this important article.

In addition to a comment from yours truly, ABS's post generates this:

The problem with Andrea and other "liberals" is that they are NOT promoting the Democratic Party or liberalism. They are playing the cards of the Republicans and those in power. Who benefits from illegals? The illegals themselves? No they are underpaid, get no benefits, and have no job security. Real immigrants? No, because we are equated with illegals and get it from both sides. The American population does not like us, because they think we accept lower wages and no benefits, and, unfortunately, that is often what we get, whether we accept it or not, and not being real illegals we do not get some of the benefits those persons get, such as free medical care. We are, most of the time, just above that level, and we do have to pay taxes and other fees, that illegals do not pay.

Those who are Americans or naturalized Americans also end up with the short end of the stick, because we do not get jobs; they go to the illegals. We are competing with them.

Those who are Americans, and have paid in into Social Security and Medicare all their life, get to share that with illegals who do NOT pay one cent into those funds, not even if it is actually withheld from their paycheck. The employer keeps that. Another advantage to the employer of hiring an illegal...

Pretty good. In her post, ABS also references Heather MacDonald, pointing to this October post:

And [Heather MacDonald] tends towards sensationalist and unfounded allegations, such as that "police forces and county jails [are] reeling under the burden of illegal-alien rapists."

Note the period, because that's where the quote ends. However, if you look at HMD's essay you find this is the full quote:

[TimeMagazine's] WHO LEFT THE DOOR OPEN? catalogues the costs to the public: increased risk of terrorism; local hospitals driven out of business by borderinterlopers demanding free care; police forces and county jails reeling under the burden of illegal-alien rapists, murderers, bank robbers, and car thieves; Southwestern ranchers andhomeowners who daily face "revolting mounds of personal refuse" on their property, not to mention broken fences and missingproperty; and a corrosive assault on the "U.S. tradition of encouraging legal immigration."

Does this reader think ABS should have included all the groups that HMD lists, and that not doing so is intellectually dishonest?