In a recent New York Times article, David Leonhardt compares those who favor border control with the burning of a Catholic Church in Philadelphia (in 1844).
He inaccuately refers to Representative Tom Tancredo as “the most emphatically anti-immigration candidate.” Except Tancredo favors legal immigration. He opposes illegal immigration. The first is legal. The second is illegal. See?
Leonhardt includes this lie: “The mere fact that so many immigrants are here illegally, living in the shadows, may make it harder for them to achieve the usual American success story.”
Except they’re not “in the shadows.” Atleast they were not when they were protesting (publically) while disrespecting the United States flag.
My e-mail to Leonhardt and his bosses: leonhardt@nytimes.com
Dear Editors,
I was surprised and disappointed at the unfair depiction David Leonhardt made of illegal alien opponents. For Mr. Leonhardt, if you favor the enforcement of immigration law, then you are much like the “nativist,” violent, racist mobs from over a century ago.
Leonhardt misleadingly refers to “anti-immigration movements” of long ago as if people today are “anti-immigrant.” This is inaccurate and insulting. Nor is Representative Tom Tancredo “anti-immigrant.” I will clarify for Mr. Leonhardt, who has permitted his ideology and personal biases to confuse him thoroughly:
Tancredo and those like him oppose the flauting of immigration law and thus oppose ILLEGAL immigration; they favor LEGAL immigration.
It is unfortunate Mr. Leonhardt must desperately resort to smearing the many Americans who merely want our borders controlled, our laws enforced, and our jobs protected. He misleadingly compares the current political environment to the history of the past as if to give his essay a tone of authority, but this reader was not fooled.
Filed under: What Liberal Media? , Illegal immigration, What Liberal Media?
