Friday, February 01, 2008

"Victimitis" on the Immigration front

"If the mainstream media are to be believed (and that’s a big 'if'), the problem in the ongoing immigration debate is not lawbreakers; it’s the laws themselves. The New York Times recently ran a story on Arkansas’ newly passed Proposition 300, a law that prevents illegal aliens from receiving in-state tuition and state financial assistance to attend college.

Rather than highlight the criminality of illegal immigration itself or on the economic impact of funding services for illegal aliens, The Times, in its hallmark objective journalistic fashion, mentions these only briefly and then focuses on the plight of young men and women suddenly 'denied' help in obtaining a college education. Noting the 'disappoint[ment of] many college-aged Mexican-Americans' (we include this term loosely), The Times cites one such student who expressed dismay that many people she grew up with 'now have no future,' and 'their shot at the American dream is gone.'

In reality, the American dream is alive and well. What’s nearly gone is the once commonplace understanding that our laws are not of the pick-and-choose salad-bar variety, and that illegal aliens have no sacred right to immunity.

If The Times’ article is slanted, the Associated Press had the gall to blame an infant’s death on immigration laws. In a 'pull-at-your-heartstrings' attempt to demonize supporters of legitimate immigration laws, the AP recently faulted Oklahoma’s House Bill 1804 (the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007) for the death of the two-month-old child of illegal aliens. Fearing deportation, the child’s parents delayed seeking medical care for their sick child for ten days. When they finally brought him to a clinic, it was too late.

The AP reports, 'A ruptured intestine that might have been treatable instead killed the U.S.-born infant, making him a poster child for opponents of House Bill 1804 months before it was enacted.' Notwithstanding that the law was not yet in effect, and despite the fact that it includes an exception for emergency medical care, the AP chose to blame the bill for the infant’s death, citing bill descriptions ranging from 'xenophobic' to—you guessed it—'Nazi'-like.

The truth is that the poor boy was not denied care by the system but by his own parents. Yet, in the AP’s list of priorities, the truth apparently ranks far below partisan demagoguery."

From the Patriot Post US

1 comment:

  1. Re: the dead child. If the child had been taken to a physician - or an Emergency Room - ANYTHERE in the US, he would have gotten emergency medical treatment - no matter where he was born. The parent's status would have been irrelevant in getting that treatment.

    Furthermore, I've been doing this Pediatric medicine thing for a while. And I have yet to see the parents of a Hispanic baby born in the US (therefore cloaking the entire family in the anchor of the baby's citizenship) deported.

    The AP's slant on the parents' lack of action is total BS.