The Washington Post and other sources frequently use the term "immigrants rights" when they're in fact refering to the rights of either illegal aliens together with legal immigrants, or simply illegal aliens. This abuse of the language goes hand in hand with, for instance, refering to those who want to enforce the law as "hard-liners" and refering to those who want to bring in sixty million legal immigrants - and countless illegal aliens - over the next twenty years as "moderates".
A case in point is the article "Immigrant Rights Groups Split Over Senate Bill" by Anushka Asthana.
Various groups are refered to as "pro-immigrant rights groups", "liberal immigrant rights advocates", "pro-immigration groups", "liberal, pro-immigrant rights advocates", or "Immigrant rights groups". The ILRC is a "San Francisco-based organization that aims to advance immigrant rights".
Read up on the groups quoted and see if they fit the WaPo's definitions or not:
One of those quoted is Michele Waslin. Here's more about her:
Consider this e-mail from Michele Waslin, La Raza's director of Immigration Policy Research, to her members denouncing Sen. Lamar Alexander's proposal to provide government grants to immigrants who want to learn English and American history and to organizations offering those courses. (I'd be happy with a law that simply trained new immigrants not to be "offended" all the time.)
Even though this potentially meant free money for La Raza, Waslin - of the Guadalajara Waslins - ominously warned that while the amendment "doesn't overtly mention assimilation, it is very strong on the patriotism and traditional American values language in a way which is potentially dangerous to our communities."
Can you really trust whether the Washington Post is telling you the truth?