You are here

The WaPo and "hard-liners"

One of the cute tricks of illegal immigration supporters is to refer to those who want to enforce our immigration laws as "hard-liners" and those who want to open the door to 60 million or so legal immigrants over the next 20 years and declare a massive amnesty for more than 10 million illegal aliens as "moderates". Those who support the latter course - such as George Bush, Teddy Kennedy, John McCain and many others - are in actual fact radicals, proposing immigration levels that the U.S. has never seen before.

The latest example of this bias is offered in "In Porous Border, GOP Sees An Opening" by Jonathan Weisman:

But when the long-simmering issue of illegal immigration boiled over this year, Huffman lost his favored status in the Sept. 12 Republican primary in the 8th Congressional District and was gasping to keep up with anti-immigration firebrands in his party -- and even with some in the other.

...There seems to be little doubt that a hard line against illegal immigration is the safer position in a GOP primary. But many Republicans believe, in a year when many national trends are not blowing their way, that it is also the safer position in a general election.

...Of course, Republicans also hope to snare independents and even some wayward Democrats with the immigration issue. But they plan to do it with hot words -- not with the cool centrism that is more typical in districts where both parties have run competitively.

...But even some Democrats worry that immigration hard-liners may be accurately gauging the temper of the times -- and that the GOP has found an antidote to its woes...

...the anger of the few diehard Democrats in the district may be nothing compared with the rage being stoked among the Republicans by the anti-immigration push...

Certainly, proposing shooting illegal crossers is extremist, but simply wanting to enforce our laws is not. Weisman doesn't draw the distinction, and it's also a bit odd how he manages to find reasonable Democrats clucking their tongues over those who want to enforce our laws, and opponents to illegal immigration who sound a bit or a lot extreme. Perhaps the Washington Post should consider hiring reporters who give off an "impartial" vibe or something.