Amnesty benefits from slanted media.

ITEM: CBS News reported on April 10: "According to a new CBS News poll, 74 percent of Americans favor allowing illegal immigrants to stay and work if they have been here at least five years, pay a fine and back taxes, speak English and don't have a criminal record. But even when you wipe away all those conditions, more Americans still favor allowing illegals to apply for work permits than oppose the idea."

ITEM: On April 10, on ABC's World News Tonight, anchorwoman Elizabeth Vargas said, "Hundreds of thousands of people [are] marching in streets across America, trying to convince the country that it needs immigrants." That day, she said, had resulted in "an unprecedented show of support for America's illegal immigrants. Across the country today, hundreds of thousands of people came out in support of millions of undocumented workers. They marched in dozens of cities, with hopes that they could influence the government, which is considering major immigration reform. Protesters are particularly opposed to a bill passed in the house. It would create a 700-mile wall along the Mexican border and make it a felony for anyone to help an illegal alien."

ITEM: The New York Times for April 14 reported: "The public is divided on whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to apply for permits to stay and work."

CORRECTION: The leftist mass media have done their best to frame the debate to minimize or distort the nature of the myriad problems caused by millions of illegal aliens in the United States. When asked honestly, however, the American public wants more stringent enforcement of laws against those who have illegally entered our country.

Try as they might, the apologists for illegals are swimming against the tide on this one. After all, if illegal is good--as many in the press would have us believe--what is bad? A Time poll discovered that 84 percent of Americans are either "very concerned" or "somewhat concerned" about the cost of illegal immigration; a Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll found 87 percent worry that such people "overburden government services and programs." A recent poll by Zogby International, which tells people truthfully that the proposed Senate bill will increase immigration, showed that 69 percent of likely voters oppose the Senate bill and are for a House bill that would enforce U.S. immigration laws. The poll had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. Those polling results garnered much less attention.

To get around this, the left carefully extracts responses that, upon a bit of examination, mean little: 74 percent, we are assured by CBS, would grant legal status to "immigrants" who have lived in the U.S. for five years, if they can speak English, and if they pay a fine and any owed back taxes, and if they have no criminal record. In the first place, the likelihood of finding significant numbers who would actually fit that profile is very low; moreover, since current laws are not enforced, why would illegals jump forward to shell out for a fine when they already enjoy near total impunity? What would make them expect the future to be any different?

Before being pulled back a bit by their public-relations advisers, including congressional collaborators, the hordes of illegals waving Mexican flags and demanding U.S. government favors, and threatening various forms of retaliation, obviously raised the hackles of mainstream America. The mass media, however, did try to put the best face on this by carefully selecting what they showed. As noted by a spokesman for Media Research Center, during the huge rallies: "Not a syllable from any [pro-Hispanic] protest podium was shown by ABC, CBS or NBC--likely because of the radical messages delivered by speakers and organizers."

Euphemisms and False Choices

Network television often takes its cues from the New York Times, which tends to perpetuate its biases. Commentator Don Feder, writing for FrontPageMag.com, deconstructed two such Times stories from April 9 and 10, "Senate's Failure to Agree on Immigrant Plan Angers Workers and Employers Alike" and "Across the U.S., Growing Rallies for Immigration."

Writes Feder: "By 'immigration' the Times means border-jumpers. 'Workers' is Times-speak for infiltrators and trespassers--an army of occupation, a 5th column deployed to facilitate La Reconquista. The robber barons who benefit from illegal labor (shifting part of their costs to the taxpayers) are the aggrieved 'employers.' Amazingly, in several thousand words of coverage, the Times couldn't find one dissenting voice to interview--not one American who is fed up with criminals lecturing us on morality--a horde of arrogant mendicants demanding their rights, if you please. But that's the way the mainstream media skews the debate."

There are so many such illegals in the United States that realistic estimates range from 11 million to 20 million (the most common figure is probably 12 million). The very size of the problem is being used as an excuse for living with it.

Indeed, President Bush has been a major part of the problem by using one of the left's favorite straw-man tactics, saying that, "Massive deportation of the people here is unrealistic." Of course, it is a phony choice to say that we must deport every illegal or approve of a mass amnesty program (though proponents don't even dare use that word). Presenting a false dichotomy is a time-tested ploy used by those without facts on their side.

Neglect the Other Side

Another way to slant the news is to downplay or ignore the opposition's point of view--even snubbing certain words or phrases that might undercut a foregone conclusion. That has frequently been a tactic of, for example, the Washington Post--which has bent over backward to maintain its pro-illegal alien slant.

Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center, took note of the Post's coverage of the major urban demonstrations in early April: "Consider these numbers to show how over the top the Post went to cover this protest: 19 by-lined reporters, and another 20 assigned writers who were credited by name, seven staff photographers, 13 stories, 26 photographs. All in all, about eight full pages of coverage. And yet, in this ocean of newsprint, and these waves of pictures of flag-waving leftists, the Post found some adjectives were completely off limits, scrubbed from the script like there was a Politburo meeting before the paper went out. The word 'liberal' never appeared to describe anyone or anything at the rally: not the protesters, not the organizers, not the speakers, not the posters, nothing.

"Another utterly forbidden word was 'amnesty,' a word that describes pending legislation before Congress to forgive and forget the trespassing of immigrants who broke (and continue to break) our laws. The word simply did not appear anywhere in the 13 stories, despite common black-and-yellow 'Amnistia!' signs at the rallies."

When in Doubt, Exaggerate

No doubt the most vocal opponent of illegal immigration in the Congress, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has explained that massive deportation is not what he backs. However, as he notes, attrition of the number of illegals will take place if it becomes difficult for them to get a job (which is supposedly against the law) or to access government social services.

When it becomes clear that the law will be enforced, foreigners will take notice. They may be law-breakers, but aliens aren't fools. In much the same way that speeding drivers slow down when they see a police car that has pulled over another car, illegals will change their behavior if there is even a reasonable chance of negative consequences.

On the other hand, the liberals are going the other way, seeking to provide more government-backed benefits to those breaking the law. Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, for example, favors making foreigners who are here illegally eligible tot in-state college tuition at state universities. Leahy, who is the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been quoted saying (with a straight face presumably): "It will free eligible students from the constant fear of deportation." Ah, yes: subsidized freedom from fear.

Accordingly, an illegal foreigner living just outside D.C., for example, would be given the much cheaper in-state rate to attend, say, the University of Virginia, while an American citizen in, say, Maryland or West Virginia, would have to pay the steep out-of-state cost.

Approving amnesty arm "guest worker" programs such as those currently being pushed in Congress could drive up the annual cost of illegal immigration (including education, healthcare and incarceration for other crimes) from about $36 billion to more than $60 billion by 2010 at a state and local level, as estimated by the Federation for American Immigration Reform. Yes, some illegals do pay taxes. However, their long-term costs exceed whatever tax benefits accrue.

Moreover, those who are hurt by the (illegal) hiring of border-jumpers are the American citizens who can probably least afford it--including those workers in food processing, construction, and maintenance industries, all of which have high unemployment rates.

Though sending more than 11 million people to another country may not be in the cards, a cynic might note that is what Mexico has done. It has not taken very long. There were fewer than 800,000 Mexicans illegally in the United States in 1970, reports the Center for Immigration Studies. Those numbers grew to 2.2 million by 1980; 4.3 million by 1990; 7.9 million by 2000; and 10.8 million by 2005.

While mass deportations may not be practical, we can at least stop making the situation worse. If the sink is overflowing, you don't use a paper towel to try to absorb around the edges of the flood, or declare that the problem is solved because you have determined that it is now "legal" to have water on the floor: first, you shut off the water.