On Jose Antonio Vargas arrest, the left supports liberal privilege

posted at 12:41 pm on July 15, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and activist who favors immigration reform, is also a proud undocumented immigrant. Born in the Philippines but raised in the United States from the age of 12, Vargas worked and lived in America for years where he advocated through his reporting the reformation of American immigration laws.

Last week, Vargas penned a report from Texas for Politico Magazine chronicling the plight of a person in his position – a man without documentation on the frontlines of an immigration crisis. He recently produced a pro-reform documentary entitled Documented, which is set to air on CNN. It is not unfair to say that Vargas may be the most successful and well-known illegal immigrant in the United States. Indeed, that is a status and a reputation that Vargas has cultivated through his prolific and exemplary work after he revealed his illegal status in 2011.

On Monday, armed with only his Filipino passport and a copy of the United States Constitution, he was detained by immigration authorities in a Texas airport and taken to a border patrol station for processing.

The enforcement of American immigration law immediately sent the left into fits of rage. Many were incensed over the fact that a man who flagrantly broke the law, an act many on the left consider in this case to be a feat of civil disobedience, was subject to the same manner of enforcement to which thousands of more obscure illegal immigrants are subject.

It is fair to say, in fact, that the left is arguing that Vargas should enjoy a measure of privilege. Because of his status and visibility as an activist with a message they like, some on the left have demanded that Vargas should be exempt from American immigration laws. The left insists they are opposed to “privilege” based on race, or income, or accident of birth, but their actions suggest they are very much in favor of special treatment for those who hold what they define to be the right opinion.

This exchange I had with a self-described liberal supporter of Vargas and an opponent of American immigration laws helps illustrate this conflict on the left:

While contentious, it was a civil exchange. It was also informative. The individual who goes by the handle @LatinoVoter was not especially consistent, but his inconsistency served to illustrate a point: the objections to the current immigration system expressed by some on the left are not based in support for the just and uniform application of the law. It’s about a preferred outcome. And that preferred outcome for many is amnesty (a word I rarely use because it is so often misapplied) for illegal immigrants and the non-enforcement of American immigration law.

The person with whom I was arguing essentially admitted as much, although he was talking specifically about Vargas. “I think his positive contribution to society should afford him an expedition [sic] to an unjust law,” he said. Vargas is not eligible for deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) because he is now too old to take advantage of that exemption. If even this law is “unjust,” how is this anything but an argument in favor of a general amnesty?

In the end, Vargas’ status as a protected and privileged voice on the left may well afford him special treatment. It is true that Vargas is far more American than he is Filipino, and his work has earned him high praise and recognition which should be taken into account. No one, however, should pretend that this would resemble blind justice. Such an outcome would be representative of the same selective enforcement of the law that the left rails against when they believe wealthy or well-connected American citizens successfully evade consequences for their actions.

The press loves to pillory the right, often unfairly, for being incoherent and uncompromising on the issue immigration reform. Will the media craft an equally unflattering assessment of the left’s incomprehensible double standard on the enforcement of existing immigration law? Of course not.

The right is ceaselessly mocked and derided as paranoid cranks when they question whether Democrats and their party chair in the White House would truly enforce border security and immigration law in the wake of comprehensive reform. Based on the left’s reaction to today’s events, it would appear that conservative opponents of comprehensive reform aren’t so paranoid after all.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

that’s just my guess. I still think he is an amnesty shill and don’t believe he is conservative, but don’t think this was the great lie some others seem to.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:09 PM

Then at the least, Rothman is not a very good “reporter” if he can’t be more precise than this in his statements.

I wouldn’t want him covering any issue for me or the newspaper I work for.

Walter L. Newton on July 15, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Obama served up the Heritage health care reform plan on a silver platter for you guys…
 
Tlaloc on July 15, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Only someone totally ignorant would imply that Obamacare is even close to the premise that was presented by Heritage back in the 1990s.
 
You really need to get a clue on that one, Tlaloc, because you’re way off in nowhere’s man if you think otherwise.
 
lineholder on July 15, 2014 at 2:53 PM

 
That’s their way of admitting they know the legislation is a failure that, even including the Medicaid expansion, only covered 5.6 million previously uninsured people.
 
They’re looking for someone to blame other than the majority (D) Congress and constitutional scholar president who exlusively wrote and passed it with no (R) votes. Nothing more.

rogerb on July 15, 2014 at 3:11 PM

Am I confused (I just got into this thread). This dust up about Rothman using the term “illegal alien.” I can’t find where he used that term, yet unless I’m missing something, he claims he did.

Is he lying to us?

Walter L. Newton on July 15, 2014 at 3:09 PM

I don’t know why, but this just brought to mind Admiral Stockdale in the 1992 VP debate saying “who am I? Why am I here?”

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:12 PM

Ha! Hi-larious.

“I dare you to arrest me!”
“Hokay.”
“Hey wait, you’re arresting me?”
“Yup.”

mojo on July 15, 2014 at 3:12 PM

I wouldn’t want him covering any issue for me or the newspaper I work for.

Walter L. Newton on July 15, 2014 at 3:11 PM

I don’t necessarily disagree. but let’s distinguish between a blog post and a hastily written blog comment. He probably saw the criticism, scanned his original post and said “hey, I used ‘illegal immigrant’ a bunch of times” (again focusing on the “illegal” and conflating “alien” with “immigrant”) and wrote a quick comment defending himself.

So, I don’t think it is the great “gotcha” others are making it out to be.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Anyone using the deceitful term of “undocumented immigrant” is a liar….and they do it intentionally!!!!

Realdemocrat1 on July 15, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Am I confused (I just got into this thread). This dust up about Rothman using the term “illegal alien.” I can’t find where he used that term, yet unless I’m missing something, he claims he did.
Is he lying to us?
Walter L. Newton on July 15, 2014 at 3:09 PM

What it shows is not Noah’s dishonesty but how far reaching euphemistic language manipulation really is. Far too many people think the two terms are interchangeable as clearly seems to be the case with Noah’s response.

anuts on July 15, 2014 at 3:16 PM

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:14 PM

Monkeytoe says it better here.

anuts on July 15, 2014 at 3:18 PM

So a person who risks life an limb to come to the country and becomes a productive member of society is trash while a bunch of racist mouth breathers who continue to celebrate the confederacy, an act of treason against the country, are of course good patriots.

Got it.

Tlaloc on July 15, 2014 at 2:20 PM

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

/s

Naturalised American, who came to this country LEGALLY and never expected any sort of indulgence or remuneration

Resist We Much on July 15, 2014 at 3:20 PM

“And that preferred outcome for many is amnesty (a word I rarely use because it is so often misapplied) for illegal immigrants and the non-enforcement of American immigration law.”
-pro-illegal alien amnesty Noah Rothman

Yep, we know all about the liberal language games and the strategy to avoid using the correct word “amnesty.” People like NM’s pro-amnesty Gov Martinez give away part of the game that pro-amnesty Republicans are playing. They are avoiding the word “amnesty” (in favor of vague, positive sounding terms like “reform”) and are even denying that they are for amnesty.
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/11/16/susana-martinez-mitt-romney-comments/

The governor [Martinez] also said she hopes the party can change their tone, eliminating words like “amnesty” from the debate.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83960_Page2.html

After chatting with Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer a few minutes before, she [Martinez] said that Arizona’s restrictive immigration law is not the type she would implement in her state.
“And it can be tackled without using the word amnesty,” she said. “People can be in this country legally and contributing, and they can come here to do all kinds of jobs, not just jobs Americans don’t want, all kinds of jobs, get educated, the whole nine yards, but be here legally. And there’s a variety of ways of receiving that kind of status.”

bluegill on July 15, 2014 at 3:22 PM

This is a setup…this is a setup…this is a setup. They are mobilizing their Phony-American, leftist base because they know they will march and terrorize while Conservatives sit on their asses and gripe.

ClassicCon on July 15, 2014 at 3:23 PM

One can’t trust someone who uses the phrase “immigration reform” without explaining what it meant.

BatGuano on July 15, 2014 at 3:24 PM

I learn something new every day. Apparently all I have to do to annoy a gang of tea-baggers is use the term. “Illegal immigrant” instead of “illegal alien.” Even though someone who was born in another country who moved here with an intent to reside permanently is clearly an immigrant.

As for deporting successful, tax-paying America-liking grown ups brought here as children, seems stupid to me.

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM

I learn something new every day. Apparently all I have to do to annoy a gang of tea-baggers is use the term. “Illegal immigrant” instead of “illegal alien.” Even though someone who was born in another country who moved here with an intent to reside permanently is clearly an immigrant.

As for deporting successful, tax-paying America-liking grown ups brought here as children, seems stupid to me.

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM

Always, you’re an idiot.

The USA statute calls them “illegal aliens”.

Who do you think you are?

Schadenfreude on July 15, 2014 at 3:28 PM

“And that preferred outcome for many is amnesty (a word I rarely use because it is so often misapplied) for illegal immigrants and the non-enforcement of American immigration law.”
-pro-illegal alien amnesty Noah Rothman

Obama, McCain, Graham and Rubio also claim to oppose amnesty.

Most Americans oppose illegal alien amnesty. Don’t let anyone tell you that there is a strong desire out there among voters for amnesty or that immigration law enforcement is merely a concern of the conservative “base.”

That’s why pro-amnesty supporters have to lie to voters, hide their true intentions and pay for ads like this:
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/ecrUDjMlf5s. (Gives impression Graham and Rubio are for getting “tough” on illegal aliens)

And here’s a Mark Zuckerberg-funded, fake “conservative” ad that tries to trick voters into thinking the Republican sellout amnesty proposal was what was needed to “get tough” on illegals:
VIDEO: http://youtu.be/l9XRF_kqIN4
The Chamber of Commerce and others are putting a lot of money towards trying to convince conservatives and others that these amnesty efforts are the opposite of what they really are.

Noah,
You say about the word “Amnesty”

(a word I rarely use because it is so often misapplied)

I’ve seen you make this kind of claim. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how you “correctly” define “amnesty”. That way, you aren’t playing word games – you are honestly coming forth and stating what you believe.
I’ll start off. “Amnesty” means granting illegal aliens currently in the U.S. legal status.
See how easy that is.
My guess is that you have some leftist-like parsing that allows people to be for giving illegals legal status but still claim to be “against amnesty”.
Please, disabuse me of this notion. give me your definition of “amnesty” so we know what, exactly, you claim amnesty is and is not.
If I had to guess, I would guess that your definition of “amnesty” is one of two very narrow things, either
(1) the president actually granting specific people “amnesty” for violating the immigration laws, which would not in fact give them legal status, as only congress can do that; or
(2) giving the illegals citizenship.
Using either of those definitions allows congress to pass a bill tomorrow that grants all illegals immediate legal status without calling it “amnesty”.
Now, the reason those definitions are completely dishonest, is that the term “amnesty” in this context has long been used and long been accepted as meaning giving illegal aliens legal status. Indeed, the 1986 bill signed by Reagan was called an “amnesty” by the left, right and media (or left again).
It is only now that people who want to pass amnesty want to change the terminology in order to avoid people understanding what they are supporting.
it is a dishonest, leftist tact to change well accepted meanings of words to try and obfuscate your position.
If I am wrong, please disabuse me by stating clearly and succinctly what you – Noah Rothman – mean by the term “amnesty” when applied to the immigration debate.
Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 2:22 PM

^excellent comment from MonkeyToe. MonkeyToe ought to be blogging here.

bluegill on July 15, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Vargas is an ILLEGAL ALIEN.

I am an UNDOCUMENTED JOURNALIST (as are most folks on here!!).

Get it??

End of discussion.

fred5678 on July 15, 2014 at 3:32 PM

The USA statute calls them “illegal aliens”.

And if this were a legal document, that would be important. Indeed, the phrase “illegal immigrant” implies alien status, doesn’t it? So, why get your knickers in a twist, especially if you’re going to vent on someone who agrees with you.

You tea-baggers certainly are sensitive types.

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM

The governor [Martinez] also said she hopes the party can change their tone, eliminating words like “amnesty” from the debate.

Okay. How about “free pass”? In fact, the word should be more “loaded” with negative connotation. “Amnesty” beneficiaries should have that label slapped on their driver licenses, passports, etc.

freedomfirst on July 15, 2014 at 3:38 PM

You tea-baggers certainly are sensitive types.

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM

I suspect you’re referring to TEA Party-types in a derisive way. If it’s an insult to be called a tea-bagger, then why do you hate homosexuals so much?

freedomfirst on July 15, 2014 at 3:42 PM

As for deporting successful, tax-paying America-liking grown ups brought here as children, seems stupid to me.

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM

The reality is that if we could trust the left/GOP or gov’t bureaucracy, we would probably agree with this sentiment in large part.

the problem is that the following things would be wildly misinterpreted to allow this exception to swallow the rule:

“successful” and
“brought here as children”

We would end up with illegal parents sneaking in with their 17 year, 11 month, 29 day old child and meeting the definition of “brought here as” a child.

And we would have people receiving all kinds of gov’t entitlements meeting the definition of “successful”.

Now, my definition of someone brought here as a child and successful would be something along the lines of a 5 year-old who was brought here 13 years ago, who did well in school, graduated, and has had no trouble with the law, and is now 18.

the argument in favor of giving this kid some form of legal status is that he is not responsible for his parents bringing him here, and he was raised here and is essentially American.

But, we come to the same dead-end we always come to. We don’t trust the left or the GOP. If we agree to an inch, they will take 100 miles. So, we can’t give an inch.

For instance, in the above example, the illegal 18 year old would basically be turning his parents in if he applied for some kind of legal status. So, the left would argue that we have to therefore give the parents and other family members illegally in the country some form of legal status to prevent that problem.

So, it ends up not being just giving this kid a chance because he is not liable for his parents’ actions, it then turns into also amnestying the parents and rewarding them for violating our immigration laws.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:45 PM

You tea-baggers certainly are sensitive types.

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM

I know.

Liberals never get upset when you refer homosexuals as homosexuals and refer to their political party as the Democrat party instead of the Democratic party.

What gives?

sentinelrules on July 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM

You tea-baggers certainly are sensitive types.
urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM

We’re not the ones that refuse to use the actual legal language. You PC propagators are the ones whom are so sensitive that you must manipulate language to confuse people and obfuscate the issue.

“Immigrant” implies process. “Alien” implies status.

Interchanging the latter with the former has not only a sensitive PC feel to it but it masks the illegal status.

anuts on July 15, 2014 at 3:47 PM

because he does use the term “illegal immigrant” several times in the post. I think he simply conflated the terms “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” in his mind when saying the above. And, while there is some distinction, I don’t think the distinction is that great between “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” as to suggest he purposefully meant to lie when saying what he said.

that’s just my guess. I still think he is an amnesty shill and don’t believe he is conservative, but don’t think this was the great lie some others seem to.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:09 PM

he said he used the words, he didn’t.
I call it as I see it, a lie

dmacleo on July 15, 2014 at 3:49 PM

he said he used the words, he didn’t.
I call it as I see it, a lie

dmacleo on July 15, 2014 at 3:49 PM

OK. My interpretation differs.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:54 PM

The proper term is ILLEGAL ALIEN. Has liberal Noah Rothman ever used the correct term “illegal alien” on here?

bluegill on July 15, 2014

Several times in this post. The first, two sentences after the one you quoted.

Noah Rothman on July 15, 2014 at 1:32 PM

I missed this exchange.

Noah, not to lecture, but language and words are important. The Left are masters of manipulating language to manipulate minds. I suspect you know that.

This sentence: “Last week, Vargas penned a report from Texas for Politico Magazine chronicling the plight of a person in his position – a man without documentation on the frontlines of an immigration crisis. … “.

If the legal term “illegal alien” is unacceptable, why not use another term, “unlawfully present” be clear, accurate and honest:

‘Last week, Vargas penned a report from Texas for Politico Magazine chronicling the plight of a person in his position – a man unlawfully present in the US on the frontlines of an immigration crisis.’

The point is that conservatives and rational moderates using the term “undocumented” is an explicit submission to their will.

What is wrong with using the common terms of the American system? Is the law in this case “racist”?

DrDeano on July 15, 2014 at 3:56 PM

OK. My interpretation differs.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:54 PM

and to clarify – I know what he wrote was incorrect. But to be a “lie”, he must have known it was incorrect when he wrote it. There has to be some intent to deceive there.

My interpretation is that is not what happened here. My interpretation is that he saw “illegal immigrant” in the piece he wrote and thought “illegal alien” and saw the two terms as the same thing and responded based on that belief.

Again, I think Rothman is an amnesty shill. I just don’t think this particular thing he wrote is the great lie others do.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:01 PM

OK. My interpretation differs.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:54 PM

I can understand why, you laid out case well. I just disagree also :)
I just think he considers illegal alien a slur and won’t use it.
I have no issues using it :)

dmacleo on July 15, 2014 at 4:02 PM

So a person who risks life an limb to come to the country and becomes a productive member of society is trash while a bunch of racist mouth breathers who continue to celebrate the confederacy, an act of treason against the country, are of course good patriots.

Got it.

Tlaloc on July 15, 2014 at 2:20 PM

The rule of law means nothing to you, obviously. And seeing that you depend on irrational stereotyping, you’re obviously a bigot too.

zoyclem on July 15, 2014 at 4:06 PM

For everyone’s benefit – myself included because I wasn’t entirely clear on the distinctions (and hopefully I have this correct):

An alien is someone in our country who is a citizen of a foreign country.

An immigrant is someone who moves from one country to another with the intention of staying there.

Every immigrant (whether legal or illegal) when they first arrive is also an alien (i.e., a citizen of a foreign country).

However, an immigrant is not always an alien (i.e., if the person comes here legally and becomes naturalized, they remain an immigrant (someone moving from one country to another) but are no longer an alien (a citizen of a foreign country).

And every alien is not an immigrant (i.e., they may not intend to move here permanently). A tourist from Germany is an alien (in more ways than one) because he does not plan to move here.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:12 PM

Maybe we should have an entire post on splitting hairs. Lolz! If Noah were to post it, it’s guaranteed 200 hits. Would probably make it over to RCP as well. We’ll all be famous for hair splitting! ; )

Bmore on July 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:12 PM

So, you can refer to those here illegally as “illegal immigrants” or “illegal aliens” fairly interchangeably.

However, I can see that referring to them as “immigrants” as opposed to “aliens” has the result of softening their status.

Alien is more proper as they are citizens of another country and their status of “moving here” is not condoned by our laws.

Calling them immigrant also tends to denote some form of legal status – even if you preface it with “illegal” – and tends to conjure up images of Ellis Island and the like.

So, the preferred term for the right should be “illegal alien”, as it is clear, succinct and honest.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:17 PM

I know.
Liberals never get upset when you refer homosexuals as homosexuals and refer to their political party as the Democrat party instead of the Democratic party.
What gives?
sentinelrules on July 15, 2014 at 3:46 PM

We are sensitive types, I confess. Not me so much, but some of my fellow travelers. On the other hand “Democrat Party” and “homosexual” in these contexts are meant to be digs, so it’s not a surprise that they annoy people — just like when I use “tea-bagger” instead of “tea-partyer.”

In any context outside of a legal document, however, “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” can be and are used interchangeably, “illegal” being the key word and “alien” being implied by the phrase.

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Maybe we should have an entire post on splitting hairs. Lolz! If Noah were to post it, it’s guaranteed 200 hits. Would probably make it over to RCP as well. We’ll all be famous for hair splitting! ; )

Bmore on July 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Well, initially I was – to some degree – defending Noah on this issue. But, because people were adamant on “alien” versus “immigrant” I decided to figure out the difference.

I do note that Rothman does get the comment traffic. Not sure if it is really him so much as that he covers amnesty, which many are passionate about.

His being pro-amnesty on a conservative site probably doesn’t hurt comment traffic though.

Finally, I’m always willing to split hairs or heirs, or even beers. But never bears.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:20 PM

I think he simply conflated the terms “illegal immigrant” and “illegal alien” in his mind when saying the above.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 3:09 PM

It’s why I use “illegal border-crosser”. It doesn’t apply to all of the illegal aliens in our midst, but it applies to almost all who have come from south of our border.

GWB on July 15, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:20 PM

My take is simple. When I see anyone using the word illegal ahead of what ever the following word they choose is when describing the invaders. I am relatively mild in my actions towards them. ; )

Bmore on July 15, 2014 at 4:24 PM

It’s why I use “illegal border-crosser”. It doesn’t apply to all of the illegal aliens in our midst, but it applies to almost all who have come from south of our border.

GWB on July 15, 2014 at 4:20 PM

The worst is when you run into an illegal border-crosser cross-dresser. That’s when trouble really starts.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:25 PM

You tea-baggers certainly are sensitive types.

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM

You’re being sarcastic right?

It damn well wasn’t conservatives who created and saved the PC-speak orthodoxy and use it as political weapon to manipulate public and private discourse and even the thinking of some weaker minds.

DrDeano on July 15, 2014 at 4:31 PM

The worst is when you run into an illegal border-crosser cross-dresser. That’s when trouble really starts.

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:25 PM

“I didn’t cross the dress, the dress crossed me!”

GWB on July 15, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Monkeytoe on July 15, 2014 at 4:20 PM

Have to get back to work. Before I go allow me to say this. I don’t think Noah needs defending. That said when I am in agreement with him I will defend my position if necessary. For the record thus far I have enjoyed his posts here. No they have not been perfect. I will spot him some space on that as he is new here and came from a very different environment. I do not agree with him lock step on anything. Nor do I with Ed or Allah. That said I am hopeful he will find his footing here in time. I do believe he has something to offer. ; )

Bmore on July 15, 2014 at 4:35 PM

The trolls make it clear with every post. The democrats are the party of the lawless.

CurtZHP on July 15, 2014 at 4:38 PM

You tea-baggers certainly are sensitive types.
urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 3:34 PM

You’re being sarcastic right?
It damn well wasn’t conservatives who created and saved the PC-speak orthodoxy and use it as political weapon to manipulate public and private discourse and even the thinking of some weaker minds.
DrDeano on July 15, 2014 at 4:31 PM

Of course, Republicans never hire a pollster to conduct a focus group and figure out how to try to influence a serious debate by testing buzzwords to deploy to sway “weaker minds.”

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Of course, Republicans never hire a pollster to conduct a focus group and figure out how to try to influence a serious debate by testing buzzwords to deploy to sway “weaker minds.”
urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 4:43 PM

And the retort would obviously be:

All republicans are not the tea party. All of the tea party are not republicans.

anuts on July 15, 2014 at 5:37 PM

Hell, why not. Obama’s illegal Aunt Zetuni got special treatment. Why not this guy?

cptacek on July 15, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and activist…

I am so tired of seeing Jose Antonio Vargas lauded as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist!

Technically, yes, Vargas was part of the Washington Post Staff that won a Pulitzer Prize for Breaking News in 2008 for its coverage of the Virginia Tech shooting.

But a quick Google search shows that the Prize was awarded to the “Washington Post Staff” as a Team, not Jose Antonio Vargas personally.

Of the 10 works submitted for the Prize, Vargas wrote 1 article and co-authored 1 other article.

Currently 33 years old, Jose Antonio Vargas would have been 26 years old in 2007 when the articles were written.

Congratulations to the whole team for winning the Pulitzer, including Vargas. But I’ve gotta suspect that the team won the award based more on the Washington Post’s reputation and resources, rather than 26 year old Vargas’ writing skills.

For a distinguished example of local reporting of breaking news, presented in print or online or both, Ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Awarded to The Washington Post Staff for its exceptional, multi-faceted coverage of the deadly shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, telling the developing story in print and online.

http://www.pulitzer.org/citation/2008-Breaking-News-Reporting

The U.S.A. has plenty of team members with Pulitzers. We can afford to send Jose Antonio Vargas back to the Philippines where he can continue to write as a legal citizen of the Philippines.

wren on July 15, 2014 at 6:10 PM

Here is a little tidbit of info from the Vargas story that highlights a TSA Policy that needs to be changed ASAP.

“Since outing myself three years ago, I’ve been traveling around the country for Define American and visiting 43 states. And I’ve been flying by using my Philippine passport – no visa in the passport, just for ID purposes. And it’s been fine. TSA accepts it,” he told the newspaper.

“But though I’ve spent time in the California border, and I’ve flown out of the San Diego airport many times, I’ve been never to the Texas border,” he said. “I’d heard about checkpoints and border patrol agents, but I didn’t realize just how much a militarized zone the Texas border is.”

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Pulitzer-winning-reporter-detained-at-border-5622963.php

If the TSA is allowing ILLEGAL aliens to fly based on a foreign passport without a U.S. VISA, then they are putting all American flyers at risk.

The Media should be covering this angle of the story, starting with an on-camera interview with a TSA Spokesperson at the San Diego Airport.

If we are ever going to stop ILLEGAL immigration, we need to close all of these vulnerabilities as they are discovered.

TSA clearly still has some lessons to learn from 9/11!

wren on July 15, 2014 at 6:24 PM

In any context outside of a legal document, however, “illegal alien” and “illegal immigrant” can be and are used interchangeably, “illegal” being the key word and “alien” being implied by the phrase.

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 4:19 PM

Then why does your side freak out when these words are used? Why does your side forbid their universities, agencies, newspapers, etc. from using some of these words?

Republicans never hire a pollster to conduct a focus group and figure out how to try to influence a serious debate by testing buzzwords to deploy to sway “weaker minds.”

urban elitist on July 15, 2014 at 4:43 PM

Is that why your weaker mind has never been swayed?

corkie on July 15, 2014 at 7:47 PM

I don’t know what anyone is surprised about.

Rothman came from Mediaite, and Mediaite doesn’t hire conservatives.

He was the “Moderate RINO” type there, and because everyone else there is full Cloward-Piven, Saul Alinsky Marxist, he looked “conservative: in comparison.

But again, he came from Mediaite.

HikaruKitsune on July 15, 2014 at 9:12 PM

Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and activist who favors immigration reform, is also a proud undocumented immigrant illegal alien.

There you go; I fixed it for you.

Theophile on July 16, 2014 at 1:10 AM

He’s like their illegal alien version of Mumia Abu Jamal.

bluegill on July 16, 2014 at 3:12 AM

bluegill on July 16, 2014 at 3:12 AM

Goodness gracious you are the most obsessed nom of HA. Pathetic.

Bmore on July 16, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Goodness gracious you are the most obsessed nom of HA. Pathetic.
Bmore on July 16, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Sorry you’re mad that I pointed out how you like to kiss up to and make excuses for pro-amnesty Noah Rothman.

One can’t trust someone who uses the phrase “immigration reform” without explaining what it meant.
BatGuano on July 15, 2014 at 3:24 PM

Yep.

bluegill on July 16, 2014 at 6:08 PM

bluegill on July 16, 2014 at 6:08 PM

Yes dear. You are completely obsessed. So much so you have once again taken to lying to make a point. So, how is your youtube account coming? Must link to it gilled one. Good news for your blog. A lot of hits. Everyone is getting to know you. Some of the things folks say. Funny!

Bmore on July 17, 2014 at 12:57 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3