You are here

Hazleton: Reuters has interesting definitions

Reuters' Jon Hurdle offers "Rights groups sue Pennylvania town on immigrant law." The "rights groups" in question are, among others, the far-left, illegal immigration-supporting ACLU and PRLDEF.

Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

A Pennsylvania town that passed one of the toughest immigration laws in the United States this week overstepped its authority, said a civil-liberties group which announced plans on Friday to sue.

I guess calling the ACLU a "civil-liberties group" is faily accurate, but only because that's in their name. In this case, they are not only trying to protect civil liberties, since those only apply to citizens. They are also specifically trying to protect the rights of illegal aliens.

And, since illegal immigration is, obviously, illegal, and there are already various federal laws on the books relating to it, one wonders whether calling it "tough" is completely accurate. Perhaps "similar to federal laws" might be more accurate. And, while all laws dealing with illegal immigration are "immigration laws", the use of that phrase might give the false impression that legal immigration is involved.

Minor points? Not really, since this is how pro-illegal immigration propaganda worms its way into news coverage, through this slight manipulation of the facts and the language.

Further on, we're informed that the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund "represents U.S. Latinos on immigration issues". Obviously, their far-left orientation does not represent the thoughts of all "U.S. Latinos". While they might style themselves as doing that, in actual fact that's incorrect.