Yesterday, Politico immigration reporters Seung Min Kim and Burgess Everett published an absurdly slanted article on new Senate legislation targeting sanctuary cities. In both the title and the first paragraph, the authors refer to the bill—authored by Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. David Vitter (R-La.)—as “controversial.” Considering the bill only targets sanctuary jurisdictions—state and local jurisdictions with policies that obstruct immigration enforcement—one has to ask: to whom is such a measure controversial? Criminal illegal aliens who not only violate our immigration laws but have committed additional crimes? Obviously they would find the bill “controversial,” but I didn’t realize that a major inside-the-beltway publication gave such deference to that class of individuals.
But the spin continues as Kim and Everett’s use twice (again in the title and first paragraph) the phrase “so-called sanctuary cities.” Ask Kate Steinle’s family if there is anything “so-called” about San Francisco’s sanctuary policy that resulted in the death of their daughter. Perhaps the authors were unaware (or didn’t care) that Francisco Sanchez admitted he went to San Francisco because he knew it is a sanctuary city. And Kate Steinle is not the only American to lose their life at the hands of criminal aliens who were protected by sanctuary city policies.
Perhaps more outrageous, the Politico article downplays Sanchez’s criminal history. First, they blatantly omit the fact at that Sanchez had seven felony convictions under his belt. Kim and Everett then fail to report that Sanchez was in ICE custody about to be deported a 6th time when San Francisco law enforcement stopped the removal proceedings, claiming they wanted to prosecute Sanchez on a decades old drug offense. Or that within days of Sanchez being in San Francisco law enforcement custody they dismissed the charges and released him onto the streets.
Finally, in case the article wasn’t biased enough for your liking, they go out of their way to mention that Sen. Vitter, who is running for Louisiana Governor, “has been struggling in the campaign.” That nugget certainly seems relevant to a piece on federal legislation seeking to protect American lives and stop jurisdictions from defying federal immigration law.
One would think that ending sanctuary cities is low hanging fruit that enjoys universal support, Politico has successfully demonstrated that isn’t the case.
14 Comments
All public entities that offer sanctuary to those breaking our laws be it for anyone should have all state and federal funding cut off. It’s very simple, ‘if you don’t, or won’t, live by our laws then you have become ineligible for any assistance we offer to those that do comply’.
It’s a common sense approach that’s very easy to implement. But it will never happen because no one holding a position in any government agency uses a common sense approach to any issue.
I don’t read Politico anymore due to the obvious bias in its ‘so-called’ reporting on immigration and many other issues.
But has FAIR responded to this incredibly flawed article in the form of a Letter to the Editor, a column, contacting the ombudsman (if Politico has one) and/or by contacting the authors and/or editors for a correction/clarification?
I’m interested in knowing and knowing what, if any, response, FAIR has received.
and what is that going to do?….ZIPPO
Thanks for the insightful comment, Neville.
Exactly your time and my time on giving feedback is the time we just missed for the rest of our lives genius…..
Exactly who is it behid the onslaught of propaganda on illegals spewed from corporate mass media? These articles are not balanced nor fair and have no respect for the people who end up getting stuck with the bill. It’s just the old Nazi “Great Lie” technique of tell a lie so often some people will believe it. The only way you could have such a uniform push in direction is from the top to the minions, so who exactly is it pushing the button.
It should come as no surprise that Politico would publish such a slanted article. After all, their advertising revenue comes from companies who profit from the increased consumption and reduced wages that mass immigration creates.
Anyone who doesn’t believe me can check out the following:
http://www.politico.com/about/advertising :
“POLITICO is a must-read for the most influential people in the country, an audience we call “politicos.” Top companies advertise with us to reach thought leaders, with the goal of influencing their views and agendas. Our team of industry experts work tirelessly to connect advertisers to our audience by providing thoughtful and sophisticated advice, an effective platform and innovative solutions.”
More than ever before, Politics in the 21st century is all about wealth and power, and no issue demonstrates that dynamic better than immigration.
Low Wages are Like Narcotics
Highly addictive.
Most of these reporters are journalism majors and they come with the liberal biases of their colleges. It’s like the M. Brown case, which led to the Black Lives Matter movement. Never mind that the so called “witnesses” they emphasized turn out to be wrong. The forensic evidence supported the cop, as both the local grand jury and federal Justice Dept. concluded. You constantly hear Brown was “unarmed” but not that he was on video 15 minutes before stealing from a store and roughing up the clerk. The media would have you think he was on the way to church.
This is what makes the BLM cult look so ridiculous. If this group doesn’t evaporate soon it surely will after the executive office at the WH has a changing of the guard,
Speaking of the White House, they sent representatives to Brown’s funeral, even after knowing that Brown was on video robbing that store. Meanwhile the cop got slammed and is unemployed to this day. We glorify criminals.
Or perhaps, it is the decency and sympathy of a World Class White House to show compassion and understanding to the parents that lost a child.
How about some understanding for a good cop that lost his job and can’t work. How about sending representatives for a child that dies in a crossfire in Chicago. If they “lost a child”, it’s likely because they were not role models to begin with. Brown’s mother lived with a repeat felon. Sorry, you go ahead and cry your eyes out for some thug who robbed a store and then tried to take a cop’s gun away. You and Al Sharpton can share a hanky.
Or perhaps that kid is not lucky enough to live in a good neighborhood and bad influences (friends ) Leland that still does take the fact away from those parents….so I am sticking to the parents if you don’t see that then your rear is taking the place of your heart and your mind.