Yet, when a major American newspaper offers the illegal immigrant as its person of the year, one has to wonder whether or not the sun really has begun rising in the west, and if Keith Olbermann isn't sticking his foot in his mouth every time he opens it.
To drive home the point, consider the following published in Saturday's Dallas Morning News (emphasis added throughout, h/t NBer motherbelt):
He breaks the law by his very presence. He hustles to do hard work many Americans won't, at least not at the low wages he accepts. The American consumer economy depends on him. America as we have known it for generations may not survive him.
We can't seem to live with him and his family, and if we can live without him, nobody's figured out how.
He's the Illegal Immigrant, and he's the 2007 Dallas Morning News Texan of the Year – for better or for worse.
Disgraceful, yes? Or, maybe not, for this lengthy essay at least addressed the matter from a economically honest fashion quite different than a recent Reuters piece which strongly avowed that illegal immigrants are suddenly fleeing America due to declining economic conditions here. By contrast, the News presented some truths most media members eschew:
If there are jobs in America, Latino immigrants will come, no matter the risk. And why not? They may be at the bottom of the economic ladder here, but they're making about four times, on average, what they could back home.
Antonio, a waiter at a North Texas restaurant, was an accountant in Mexico. He and his wife thought they could make more money in Texas, so they came illegally.
"In the time I've been here, this country has been very good to me. I am a responsible person. I pay my taxes. I pay my bills on time – utilities, mortgage. I pay federal taxes, too," he says.
This country good to people? With George W. Bush in the White House? Unfortunately, the article wasn't completely devoid of Democrat talking points:
It's unclear from the data whether illegal immigration is a plus or minus for the nation's economy overall. Harvard economist George Borjas reports that it's more or less a wash. On close inspection, Dr. Borjas, a leading expert in the field, found that immigration's financial benefits accrue to those at the upper end of the economic scale, who can buy labor and its fruits at a lower cost, at the expense of those Americans at the lower end, whose wages go down.
Ah, well...what's a piece about illegal immigration without a little of the seemingly requisite liberal class envy that comes out during every election cycle? Or, for that matter, the race card:
It's easy to say, as many immigrant advocates do, that opposition to illegal immigration derives from racist sentiment, because that's undeniably part of the mix.
Yep. All those awful Americans wanting laws to be upheld while borders are secured, especially in the middle of a war on terrorism, only feel this way because they're racist.
It's so predictable, one has to wonder why newspapers even bother, for sadly missing from this article was the concern shared by many citizens from both sides of the political aisle that a porous border represents a clear and present danger in a post-9/11 world.
In fact, the issues of terrorism and national security in this piece were totally ignored. So too were illegal drugs, and just how much narcotics, marijuana, and methamphetamine are crossing into this nation from points south.
The absence of such matters so crucial to what many Americans feel about illegal immigration makes one wonder why the News dedicated so much print space to this subject until the likely modus operandi appeared in the conclusion:
People waging a culture war – and that's what the struggle over illegal immigration is – don't give up easily. What you think of the illegal immigrant says a lot about what you think of America, and what vision of her you are willing to defend. How we deal with the stranger among us says not only who we Americans are today but determines who we will become tomorrow.
Yep. Despite some of the candor apparent in the economic section, the authors chose to arrogantly and condescendingly point fingers at folks whose sentiments in this regard, contrary to liberal dogma, go way beyond culture.
That a newspaper serving citizens so close to the problem can't see the forest beyond the trees is almost sick-making.
