"Illegal" Immigration

Candidates Walk a Tightrope on Immigration by Michael Luo

Read the Article at NYTimes.com

"The Republican presidential candidates talk about illegal immigration as if they were in an arms race on toughness. The Democratic candidates have begun to tread more warily on the issue, as their debate last week in Las Vegas showed, but they still favor the language of accommodation over alarm."

“Arms race,” “alarm,” and “toughness” versus “tread warily,” “favor,” and “accommodation.” Already through his language Luo has constructed a clear dichotomy between the Republicans and Democrats, portraying the latter as thoughtful while the Republicans are vying for who’s the most macho. By connoting war and the military with his phrase “arms race,” he highlights the constant accusation among the New York Times staff that Republicans are somehow testosterone and aggression laden men obsessed with war. The democrats throughout the article, however, “tread warily,” contemplate, but ultimately want to “accommodate.” In my opinion, they’re “treading warily” because, as we saw with Clinton in a former debate, they don’t actually have a firm stance. The Democratic Party is split on the issue of immigration (remember, illegal immigration affects all Americans), therefore they’re afraid of alienating a group of their supporters with a clear statement one way or another. Their need for personal power impedes on America’s need for a truthful politician.

"They sound just as tough as the candidate who has been the angriest on immigration, Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, whose shoestring campaign recently began to run a television commercial in Iowa declaring that Islamic terrorists roam free in the United States because of an unsecured border."


Setting aside that within this “fact-based” article Luo himself judges the Republican candidates as sounding “tough,” setting aside that he makes the qualitative comparison that they sound “as tough” as Tancredo, and finally setting aside the subjective word “angriest,” (which further depicts Republicans as aggressive), this paragraph is teeming with sarcasm. The last clause hangs there because the journalist never mentions the association between terrorism and unsecure borders again, nor does he offer any facts or statistics that would either refute or support Tancredo’s claim. Its purpose is to dismiss him as a candidate, only supported by the unnecessary comment that he’s been unsuccessful with his campaign.
Tancredo, however, is very astute in his observations about illegal immigration. After inquiring with the Department of Homeland Security, he publically announced to Congress that 51 men who were arrested as terrorist suspects between October 2004 and December 2005 had crossed the US border illegally. (1).

Also, I consider gang activity a form of local terrorism, and

“A confidential report by the California Department of Justice indicated that 60% of the 20,000 members of the 18th Street Gang in Los Angeles was composed of illegal immigrants in 1995. About 60 percent of the membership of the Columbia Lil' Cycos gang was illegal, according to a 2002 statement by former U.S. attorney Luis Li.” (2 , quoted from Wikipedia).

Imagine what will happen if terrorist organizations pay gangs to help them smuggle across weaponry and fellow extremists. Imagine what will happen if the terrorists utilize the gangs’ ties with the multi-million dollar operation of identity theft, which would subsequently allow terrorists to function easily in our society.

Or if you’re a Democrat, don’t imagine it at all and continue to pretend like no threat exists.



"The Republicans have railed against 'amnesty' and 'sanctuary cities.' They have promised to build a fence on the Mexican border to keep 'illegals' out."

AND

"Perhaps recognizing the need to temper his comments, Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate who is increasingly using immigration to go after his rivals for the Republican nomination often hastens to add, after a weighted speech about 'sanctuary cities' and 'amnesty,' that he has no problem with 'legal' immigrants."

Why are there quotation marks? Is a person’s “legal” status (sorry, had to mock his usage of quotation marks) within the US somehow subjective now, a mere matter of opinion? Also, why does Luo point out that Romney welcomes legal immigrants, when in fact every candidate (including the “angriest” one, Tancredo) welcomes them as well? Also, look at the phrase, “increasingly using immigration to…” Do you see it? No? Well, look at these, too:

“They sound just as tough as the candidate who has been the angriest on immigration”

“Many Democrats point to the Republican Party’s precipitous slide in California after Gov. Pete Wilson’s re-election in 1994 as proof of the cost of a harsh tone toward immigrants”

“it[s] shortsighted for the Republicans to use immigration as a ‘weapon’”

“they are perceived as overloading on anti-immigration bombast”

“Pat Buchanan’s runs for the presidency in 1992 and 1996, which were heavy on anti-immigrant talk”

Luo consistently omits the word “illegal.” It’s subtle, yet greatly alters the meaning, and produces a sense of xenophobia and racial tension.


"Nevertheless, the sound bites on the trail are dominated by denunciations. Fred D. Thompson, the former Tennessee senator, has coupled his plans for border enforcement with a call for English to be made the country’s official language."

Definitions of denunciation, according to the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. The act or an instance of denouncing, especially a public condemnation or censure.

2. The act of accusing another of a crime before a public prosecutor.

Notice nowhere in there is “wanting a secure border” or “establishing a national language.”



Consider a recent forum for Mr. Thompson at a retirement community in Bluffton, S.C. Four out of six questions from the audience were on the topic. Most were similar in tone to a comment hurled by one woman, who described herself as a ‘'Law and Order’ freak': 'If you go to KFC, unless you call out a number or something, they don’t understand what you’re saying.'"


This completely irrelevant paragraph firstly portrays Thompson supporters as favoring him because of his career as an actor. Then, Luo picked the most poorly articulated portion of the most poorly articulated question about immigration. Why? They want to convey that Thompson supporters are fried-chicken loving (i.e. southern hicks) who do not have the mental capacity to understand why they are voting for Fred. It's the typical Northern-elitist attack, and one of the few that Democrats have in their arsenal for the well-regarded former senator of Tennessee.