The Difference in Media

Yesterday, as the decision came in about the immigration law in Arizona, I was watching Fox News.  They announced the fact that SOME of the law had been shot down and then waited for their experts on matters of law to read through the 36 pages before reporting.  That's what I like about Fox.

Today, as I wandered the internet, every liberal web site, newspaper and TV station had headlines that read:  Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law.  Rather than telling the truth, the headlines make it appear that the entire law has been shot down and the protesters can go home satisfied that they made a difference.

These headlines don't tell the whole story.  Okay, headlines often don't.  But they should be truthful.  Even hear at Gather we've been given the directive that if we want to post in Gather Essential groups, we have to have headlines that are truthful (or that end in a question mark if we're not sure the information is entirely truthful).

What amazed me about the 36 pages of this judge was that although the Obama administration told us over and over again that their focus was on the fact that the Arizona law was unconstitutional, the judge's focus was on "burdens."  The judge thinks that the law unfairly burdens illegal immigrants (awww, so sad) and unfairly burdens the federal government (again....awww, so sad).  The judge made a political decision, not one based on  law.

And....what liberal media folks aren't explaining is that this is not the end.  When over 60% of Americans wants something like Arizona has put into place in their own states, we're not about to stop pushing.  We don't want amnesty for illegals already here.  We want our laws to be enforced and our borders protected and for illegals to be deported.

Oddly enough, one of the things that the judge shot down was the part about blocking traffic while picking up illegals to work.  How absurd.  Blocking traffic should not be allowed, and it's pretty easy to see what they're doing when they are blocking traffic.  I'm betting that judge has never bothered to be anywhere where they're picking up illegals to work.

Someone else pointed out that companies often use pick up trucks and buses to pick up people for legitimate jobs.  Yes, they certainly do.  But when they do, they usually do so at the unemployment office or at employment agencies that hire contract workers.  They don't block traffic.  They park in the parking lots while they load up.

In areas of the country where they don't have lots of illegal immigrants, companies that want to pay "cash under the table" show up in places where there are homeless people.  And they block traffic there while the homeless scramble for a seat and the chance to make a few bucks for the day.  (I know....  My brother was a homeless man for years.)

So....  When those trucks block traffic, they're not offering work that will be reported by them or by the workers.  And, guess what.  People who are here legally, or people who are not homeless, don't settle for such work because they know they could get more money and possibly benefits by choosing to find work otherwise.

If the liberal/progressive/Democrat/socialists in Washington want illegals to remain in the U.S. so badly (so they can get the vote, of course, and vote for them), let's send them all to Washington DC, so those idiots can see what it's like.

Every state should have laws that say that illegals are not welcome in their state and round them up and take them to the border of the next state.  That state could take them to the border of the next state.  And finally, they can be dumped on Washington DC.  Let them take care of them.

Right now, it seems that the illegals have become more bold.  In an Associate Press article I read this morning, quite a few illegals were interviewed.  They gave their names and talked about their situations.  One woman said she had been here illegally since her visa expired in 1989.  I don't think she has any fear at all at this point, since, as the liberal media reported, the "judge blocked Arizona's immigration law."

********************

Note:  One of my conservative friends warned me that mentioning my homeless brother would bring out the "best" in liberal nitwits.  So let the record show that my sisters, my parents, and I tried to help my brother.  His addiction to alcohol made him lose his home, his wife and his kids.  He chose to be homeless and a drunk.  We did, however, keep tabs on him.  Both of my sisters often had business in the town where he lived and they would stop by to take him out for a real meal and buy him a coat and gloves or put him in a motel for a few days to stay out of the cold.  But homelessness was his choice, as it is for many.  When my brother passed away, the homeless community had a special service for him and the businesses in the area - where he often did a chore or two for a sandwich - donated balloons that they released.  Then some of the homeless folks walked miles to get to the funeral home where my brother was laid out.  They were some awesome folks with huge hearts...and drinking problems like my brother's.