I’m sure some people don’t find it as funny, but the ridiculous bias is laughable in this LA Times article, Migrants Find a Gold Rush in New Orleans. It talks about the illegal aliens flooding into New Orleans, and in the process tries to paint a positive light on all of illegal immigration.

First, I just can’t help but feeling them attempting to force the warm fuzzies through me: Oh, these illegal immigrants can’t be that bad; they’re rebuilding the city of New Orleans. You might give the LA Times the benefit of the doubt, but wait until you hit this line: “As the Senate debates new immigration laws and marchers demonstrate across the country, these immigrants offer another reminder of the country’s reliance on undocumented labor from Latin America.” Our country’s reliance? When only 5% of our workforce is foreign, which means a lower percentage is illegal.

Then, the LA Times makes an oddly framed claim: “While the South’s feeble economy, racism and xenophobia kept out new people and influences, New Orleans took in waves of newcomers — Italians, Greeks, Germans and Irish — in the decades before World War I. Later arrivals came from Honduras, Cuba and Vietnam.” First off, they’re implying that racism and xenophobia are the only reasons for limiting immigration; they’re subtlely painting their opponents as racist xenophobes. Second, were these legal or illegal immigrants? If we are really so reliant on undocumented Mexican labor, we must wonder why those previous immigrants probably came in legally. Next, these immigrants were eventually assimilated into American culture. Illegal immigrants demonstrate a disrespect for our laws, and therefore, we have no reason to believe that they will assimilate into our society and protect our Constitution. The situations are completely different, but the LA Times is implying that they’re the same.

At least the LA Times could have a progressive bias instead of an illegal immigration bias. My irony meter went off when I came across this passage: “But beginning in the 1970s, the port downsized, businesses left town, wages fell, welfare rolls and crime rose as the public education system collapsed. A black underclass took low-skilled, low-wage jobs. Fewer immigrants moved to town.” [Emphasis mine.] Don’t you get it? Since all the black people left after their homes were destroyed, now we need Mexicans to do the dirty work. We’re replacing one underclass with another underclass.

If the LA Times was really liberal, they’d care about one underclass being replaced with another underclass. What’s the LA Times real agenda? Why are they trying to defend illegal immigration? Is it because they have illegal immigrants working for them, mowing their lawns and cleaning their houses? Alright, that’s not fair, that’s not fair on my part at all, but I wonder.

Let’s dig deeper. Next, the LA Times says, “The rest of the South, meanwhile, became what New Orleans had been: Atlanta, Memphis, Nashville and Charlotte saw tens of thousands of Mexicans arrive, taking jobs in hotels, restaurants, construction and landscaping. Mexicans slaughtered pigs in Guymon, Okla., and made carpeting in Dalton, Ga. Historians call their arrival the largest influx of foreign workers to the South since the days of slavery.”

When the passages I’ve quoted are looked at together, we see the LA Times’ story is based on a false logic. First, our country’s economy is reliant on undocumented labor, according to them. They imply that the New Orleans economy was bustling because of immigrant labor. They imply the South in general were bustling because of immigrant labor. However, they say the South’s “feeble economy” discouraged immigration. New Orleans’ down-sizing discourages immigration. So, was the economy reliant on immigration? Or was immigration reliant on the economy? Taken in context, how can they make the claim that our country is reliant on illegal aliens?

I’ll stop now. This article is ridiculous. Our country is in no way dependent on undocumented migrant labor. Pure bullshit.