CommonSenseAmerica takes issue with the "ism" factor in the in a Ruben Navarrette column. The post can be found beneath my ramblings or by clicking here.
The NAHJ or National Association of Hispanic Journalists represents Hispanic print and broadcast journalists. It's efforts are directed at making the media a racially diverse environment, which only makes the media facially diverse.
Groups like the NAHJ; Asian American Journalism Association, National Association of Black Journalists, National Federation of Press Women, Association for Women in Communications, Association for Women in Sports Media, National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association, Native American Journalists Association, and the National Association of Minority Media Executives, to name just a few make it their business to keep the news media politically correct. This often allows for the exclusion of newsworthy information about a subject from being reported. This in turn only gives the viewer(s)/reader(s) only part of a given story, which results in the story not being told accurately or honestly.
Ruben Navarrette, Jr of the San Diego Union-Tribune, a likely member of the NAHJ, finds Lou Dobbs stance, which is critical of illegal immigration, as a means of "growing fame and fortune." His means of arriving at this belief is the fact that "he panders to racists and xenophobes," that he lacks sincerity and is contradictory.
Why does Navarrette believe this? Because Lou Dobbs says he is "only against illegal immigration," which is fine. "But on his show he sounded the alarm bells when the Heritage Foundation put out a report warning that offering illegal immigrants a path to legalization could mean taking in as much as 100 million more legal immigrants."
Navarette why "if you're sincere about one, why freak out over the other? Unless, of course, you're not as pro-legal immigration as you pretend to be."
Interesting, Navarrette nails the issue on the head, but it's not the one he thinks it is. Dobbs is following the story as a journalist should; Navarette is touting a cause based upon his bias. There is nothing underhanded or pandering to racists and xenophobes on the Dobbs side.
This is part of what is wrong in the "illegal" immigration debate. The wrong side wants everything, yet if the opposition strays even slightly from it's minute stance allowed by the Left and the media they've got you nailed as something you are not. It's a disengenuous way to approach the debate or the news for that matter.
CommonSenseAmerica questions the "ism" angle of the Navarette "piece," which is how I discovered his "piece" in the first place.
Cross posted from CommonSenseAmerica
There seems to be some confusion in the illegal immigration debate, as this article illustrates:
From The San Francisco Chronicle:
Ruben Navarrette Jr. writes:
Dobbs has said repeatedly that the only thing that concerns him is "illegal" immigration. But on his show he sounded the alarm bells when the Heritage Foundation put out a report warning that offering illegal immigrants a path to legalization could mean taking in as much as 100 million more legal immigrants.
If you're sincere about one, why freak out over the other? Unless, of course, you're not as pro-legal immigration as you pretend to be. Unless, of course, what concerns you — or those you're trying to pander to — isn't just that people are coming illegally, but that they change the language and cultural landscape of the country once they arrive.
There are words to describe that sort of thing. Unfortunately for those who have trouble accepting the truth about what this debate is really about — and what it's been about for more than 200 years — the words all end in "-ism."
I agree that the word ends in "-ism". The word is Patriotism. It is not racism that compels people who love their country to expect their laws to be enforced against those that would enter illegally.
The only "-ism" we should all be concerned with is the fact that "racism" is most definitely a part of this debate but it is constantly being used against the wrong groups.
While some are still trying to play the "race card" against anyone that does not agree with their open border agenda, I would like to ask a couple of questions. And I'm going to go ahead and ask them out loud.
If the definition of racism is "belief in racial superiority" then;
Wouldn't it be racism that would cause a neighboring country to spit on the laws of another nation and encourage its citizens to ignore them?
Wouldn't it be racism that would cause some to believe their race is entitled to demand that a foreign country change its immigration laws for them?
Wouldn't it be racism that would cause some to believe that their race should be allowed preferential treatment above all others on earth when it comes to immigrating to the United States?
And perhaps even more telling, wouldn't it be racism that would cause some to believe that their race is above the laws of any nation?
Just curious.
**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**
tag: Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII) tag: DeMediacrat tag: Illegal Immigration Reform
