Cross posted from Conservative Common Man:
I receive two daily e-mails from The Washington Post, one with “news” headlines and the other with political headlines and editorials. Given the Post’s reputation for being a typical liberally biased newspaper, I fully expect to see immigration sob stories or other reports detailing the plight of downtrodden illegal aliens and the vicious laws that restrict them when I read these e-mails, but today’s offering was a double dose. One article is the usual fare detailing the bad people that want illegal immigration laws enforced and the subsequent ill will and damage to the community caused by the desire for order and lawfulness. The other article bemoaned the border fence and its possible impact on plants and animals.
It seems Prince William County in Virginia has become an example of how not to deal with illegal immigration. The Washington Post’s preferred method for communities coping with the problem of illegals is more of a “hands off” approach or more specifically, a “not at all” approach. Kristen Mack wrote an article titled “Immigration Fight Has New Target, Stewart Hurts Pr. Williams’ Prospects With Harsh Rhetoric Some Say.” The target of this fight is Corey Stewart, Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chairman. The following excerpt from Ms. Mack’s article paints a grim picture of ill will in Prince William County:
When Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart dressed down the police chief for hosting a public meeting with the Mexican consul to discuss the county’s controversial immigration policy, Elena Schlossberg-Kunkel was appalled.
Elected officials and business leaders in Prince William say they are worried that the county’s focus on illegal immigration is hurting Prince William’s image at a critical time in its growth and effort to remake itself.
Virginia’s second-largest county had been known for years as a center of cheap housing and bargain shopping. But in recent years, Prince William leaders have tried to change course by attracting high-tech employers, building luxury homes and supporting good schools much as neighboring Loudoun and Fairfax counties have done.
Now, several supervisors in both parties and business leaders said, those efforts could be set back if county officials do not shift their focus from illegal immigration, which has divided the community and brought Prince William negative national exposure. (”The Road to Dystopia,” one newspaper said of the crackdown.)
Apparently Prince William County should shift its focus from the illegal alien issue. One wonders why the board of supervisors would have passed the “controversial immigration policy” if there hadn’t been a problem with illegal immigrants in that particular county. Of course the need for and events preceding the passage of the policy are not to be considered by The Washington Post, for they do not further the agenda. All that will be presented is opinion and the arguments that support demonizing the advocates for tough policies for dealing with ILLEGAL immigrants. The Post, like the other entities that seek to portray theses situations as anti-immigrant chooses to intentionally avoid the most important adjective that describes the targeted immigrants: ILLEGAL! These disinformation dissemination devices do occasionally slip the word “illegal” into their text, but not often enough to accurately depict the fact that these policies and laws are not “anti-immigrant.”
The Post also actively ignores the fact that Prince William County’s national exposure has not been entirely negative. It is true that the most widely read and heard exposure is negative due to the liberal media its place of prominence in reporting. Those of us that find alternative sources of information have heard positive reports regarding the county’s policies. As a matter of fact, negative national exposure at the hands of liberal vessels such as The Washington Post is the goal of this particular article. Chairman Stewart seems to be doing his job as opposed to giving in to the pro-illegal liberal agenda and therefore the liberal press views him as a threat. The more effective and outspoken someone like Stewart is, the harder the press must try and silence or discredit him. If they are not successful in destroying the credibility of public officials that strive to do the right things and uphold the laws regarding illegal aliens, then others may follow. The Washington Post editors would really have its work cut out for them if the majority of counties across the nation took the problem of illegal immigration seriously.
The anti-enforcement movement at The Post does not limit its focus to personal sob stories and the effects on humans. Roxanne de Luca, filling in at Haemet (www.conservablogs.com/haemet) wrote a great piece on the fence story Environmentalists Throwing Themselves Under the Bus :
The Washington Post reported that the border fence between the United States and Mexico may damage the environment. (Story here.) Specifically, the fence may prevent various animals and plants from crossing the border and mating. (The WaPo was unclear on how plants, which are not locomotive, would be affected by a fence.) Some environmentalists are so incensed that the pronghorn and long-nose bat will be affected by the Bush Administration’s policies that they are threatening civil disobedience.
The environmentalists want to allow for the free flow of illegals across our southern border because stemming that flow would harm the terrain and possibly have an affect on plants and animals in the area. The article referenced by Roxanne, written by Juliet Eilperin is titled “Researchers Fear Southern Fence Will Endanger Species Further.”
“This wall is so asinine, and so wrong, I am one of a dozen scientists ready to lay our bodies down in front of tractors,” Healy Hamilton, who directs the Center for Biodiversity Research and Information at the California Academy of Sciences, told colleagues at a recent scientific retreat here. “This is one thing we might be able to stop.”
“Make it 13!” said Allison Jones, a conservation biologist at the Wild Utah Project, an advocacy group.
Hamilton and Jones have yet to throw themselves before bulldozers, but their call to arms reflects the researchers’ growing fears that the wall will imperil species that, in Hamilton’s words, “walk, fly or crawl across that border.”
The environmentalists appear to show deep concern for the environment as long as one only looks at part of the situation. That is unless the trash and backpacks left behind by the people sneaking over the border pose no threat to the environment. I am also curious how a fence will affect those species that would fly “across that border.” That must be one tall fence!
These enviro-nuts embody the typical liberal mindset, the central tenet of which is gross hypocrisy. Much like pro-abortion activists that oppose the death penalty for criminals while advocating its use on the most innocent, these activists choose a side of an issue and ignore the environmental impact of the immoral or illegal behavior they support. This is definitely in line with Al Gore jet-setting around the world to reduce carbon emissions or the Clintons opposing all wealth… other than that of themselves their closest friends.
I wonder if The Washington Post and the environmentalists would be satisfied if the border fence was constructed with recycled materials and built by illegals? It might work out as long as they are on the Southern side of the fence once it is completed.
**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 brianbonner90- at-gmail- dot-com and let us know at what level you would like to participate.