As a commenter suggests, there has been a lot of undocumented reporting on deporting.
The news section of the New York Times admits:
The news section of the New York Times admits:
Court Deportations Drop 43 Percent in Past Five Years
By JULIA PRESTON APRIL 16, 2014
New deportation cases brought by the Obama administration in the nation’s immigration courts have been declining steadily since 2009 and judges have increasingly ruled against deportations, leading to a 43 percent drop in the number of deportations through the courts in the last five years, according to Justice Department statistics released on Wednesday.
The figures show that the administration opened 26 percent fewer deportation cases in the courts last year than in 2009. In 2013, immigration judges ordered deportations in 105,064 cases nationwide.
The statistics present a different picture of President Obama’s enforcement policies than the one painted by many immigrant advocates, who have assailed the president as the “deporter in chief” and accused him of rushing to reach a record of two million deportations.
Isn't it time for an investigative report into the influence of second-largest stockholder and Mexican oligarch Carlos Slim on the NYT's editorial and news coverage of immigration? Slim profits exorbitantly on phone calls between the U.S. and Mexico, so he has a vested interest in having immigration restrictionists in the U.S. demonized and a distorted picture of immigration promulgated in the pages of the newspaper he bailed out in 2008.
Posts
7 comments:
""""The Post Title states: NYT: NYT has been misleading you about deportations"""
You don't say, you don't say! I suppose now that he can't be elected again that its fine and dandy to occasionally (though gingerly and not too strongly mind you) point out that maybe, just maybe, the Administration isn't as perfect as they were assuring us back in '12?
Undocumented reporting.
This is an immigration issue that you don't see covered too often in the press: real estate developments funded by the EB-5 visa program:
http://therealdeal.com/blog/2013/10/26/more-developers-turn-to-in-house-eb-5-centers/
Real estate magnates like NYC's Larry Silverstein get below-market-rate loans from Chinese businessmen who in return are granted a legal foot on the ground in the US.
The massive Hudson Yards development on the West Side of Manhattan is being funded via EB-5.
While one may feel compassion, does this mean that one lacks the capacity to discipline one’s self from being mastered by that impulse. That people are mastered by such impulses is only another confirmation of Darwin’s insight that humans are animals. Most humans are driven overwhelmingly by instinct and emotion. The “secular” belief in emotions is the last degenerate remains of romanticism and religion. - Mitchell Heisman
I agree that the NY Times needs to be called out on their pro-immigration stance because its owner carlos slim has a vested interest in promoting mass immigration.
And likewise, as I have been pointing out for years, ALL mass media outlets have similar vested interests with respect to mass immigration. How so? Well, the mass media makes its money on advertising. Ads are mainly bought by corporations. The more profits made by the corporations, the more ads they buy, and the more money the media make.
Immigration increases corporate profits by 1) depressing wages through flooding the labor supply, and 2) by increasing the number of workers and consumers in general. The more growth of workers and consumers in the USA, the more money the corporations make and thus the more money the media makes.
The media is deeply vested in the idea of mass immigration because its income is tied directly to corporate income. The more immigration, the more worker-consumer human livestock in the USA, the more babies these fertile and prolific immigrants make, the more money is made by the corporate media and the corporations that buy ads in the media.
This pro-immigration bias is deeply embedded in the very fabric of mass media culture. Being pro-immigration is not even a conscious act for reporters. It is an unthinking and automatic process because the professional culture of
journalism has been shaped over decades by the vested interest of the media with respect to growth and immigration.
I have made this same comment on many a pro-immigration article promulgated by the mass media in recent years, but no one seems to understand the gist of my argument.
I have made this same comment on many a pro-immigration article promulgated by the mass media in recent years, but no one seems to understand the gist of my argument.
What would it take for you to accept that everyone understands the gist of your argument, whether or not they agree with it?
I know because of the simplistic and superficial way that these issues are addressed
Post a Comment