Illegal immigration features strongly on the BBC this morning. If you listen to this item you will hear the BBC bemoan Obama’s failure to deal “radically” with the millions of illegal immigrants i.e handing them an amnesty for their law-breaking. This is an entirely one-sided issue as presented by Kevin Connolly and another example of how the BBC consistently favours illegal immigration.
OBAMA’S "RADICAL ACTION" DEFERRED…
Bookmark the permalink.
The only time the BBC attacks left wing politicians is when the attack comes from even further left.
CS
Quite right. This is what I call the ratchet effect. It means they can keep the agenda moving leftwards, part of their aim.
On the U.S.’s massive problem with illegal immigration, the BBC ignores this:
“Certain destruction ahead for United States as tsunami of illegal aliens continues – Amnesty is next”
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/01/15/certain-destruction-ahead-for-united-states-as-tsunami-of-illegal-aliens-continues-amnesty-is-next/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+newsrealblogfb+%28NewsReal+Blog%29
This is one area with which I am very, personally knowledgable. I grew up in Arizona, where illegal Mexicans were a long-entrenched issue 40 years ago. In fact, I’m going back there on Friday for a few days, and can get more first-hand info on this issue.
Quite simply, the BBC is presenting this issue from the perspective that the solution, the correct answer, is amnesty for all illegals. Kevin Connolly can’t think any other way but from the Left, and so he approaches the story from this angle.
Just as in the UK, illegal immigration is encouraged and supported by the Left, and the further Left they are, the more they favor amnesty for illegals. On one level, the reason for it is the same as well: it’s always assumed that the immigrant will vote for the party on the Left.
However, whereas in the UK the main group at the top of the immigration debate is the Muslims, in the US it’s the Hispanics, mostly Mexican. Having lived in an Hispanic neighborhood of NYC for many years, I can say that there are plenty of illegals from various Central American countries as well.
In any case, the busker Connolly found revealed the racist angle here. He said that the Latino vote got the President over the hump in the election, a claim which has some merit. However, what is left unspoken is the fact that this guy was campaigning not for an abstract human right, but was advocating it only because it involved someone who spoke Spanish. His little quip about crossing borders showed where he comes from on this.
Even more silly was his false premise about a supposed contradiction between the free movement of money and goods across borders and the movement of people. It’s idiotic because there are laws regarding the movement of both, but this buy wants to break the law because of his ethnocentricity. I bet Beeboid Kevin doesn’t get that.
The rest of Connolly’s piece is just hot air about how the only inevitable solution is amnesty for all, one way or another, but too bad the President hasn’t done it yet. I give credit to him, though, for at least mentioning that some Obamessiah worshipers are starting to have doubts. But there’s the BBC bias again: when they give credence to criticism of The Obamessiah, it’s from the Left.
When people from the Right criticize Him, the BBC plays them as wrong-headed and with occasional hints at latent racism.
PS: I think Arpaio is wrong on this issue, but for a different reason. He acts way outside his remit here, when resources are best used elsewhere.