A right-wing, xenophobic publication yesterday

A right-wing, xenophobic publication yesterday published a feature story on Mexican immigrants, insinuating that our immigration policies (or lack thereof) are exploiting the poor and vulnerable:

…But for Juan Manuel Peralta, a 34-year-old illegal immigrant who worked [at a diner] for five years until he was fired last May, and for many of the other illegal Mexican immigrants in the back, restaurant work today is more like a dead end. They are finding the American dream of moving up far more elusive than it was for [diner owner] Mr. Zannikos. Despite his efforts to help them, they risk becoming stuck in a permanent underclass of the poor, the unskilled and the uneducated.
That is not to suggest that the nearly five million Mexicans who, like Mr. Peralta, are living in the United States illegally will never emerge from the shadows. Many have, and undoubtedly many more will. But the sheer size of the influx – over 400,000 a year, with no end in sight – creates a problem all its own. It means there is an ever-growing pool of interchangeable workers, many of them shunting from one low-paying job to another. If one moves on, another one – or maybe two or three – is there to take his place.

They even found a Hispanic-hating immigration “reformer” who thinks Mexicans don’t have what it takes to make it in the U.S.:

…Of all immigrants in New York City, officials say, Mexicans are the poorest, least educated and least likely to speak English.
The failure or success of this generation of Mexicans in the United States will determine the place that Mexicans will hold here in years to come, Mr. Sarukhan said, and the outlook is not encouraging.
“They will be better off than they could ever have been in Mexico,” he said, “but I don’t think that’s going to be enough to prevent them from becoming an underclass in New York.”

Can you believe those people for writing and saying such things?
Okay, joke’s over. Both passages appeared in a front-page story in the New York Times called “15 Years on the Bottom Rung.” Mr. Sarukhan is Arturo Sarukhan, the Mexican consul general in New York, and thus probably not a “Hispanic-hater.”
Overlooking the manic obsessions of the Times’ worldview (class, race, etc.), you can see the writer is uncomfortable with the illegal immigrants’ plight. It is clearly exploitative to take advantage of poor people’s poverty and allow them to take low-wage, often dangerous jobs, and the article conveys their precarious position vividly.
Catholic Light readers may recall this critique of the USCCB’s less-than-satisfactory position on immigration, which said in part that

High immigration levels hurt the poor and the vulnerable, and are thus immoral. How do they do that? Through supply and demand: immigrants, legal or illegal, flood certain parts of the labor market, driving down the price of labor. Businesses love that, but it ends up screwing over the people who were already in the U.S., including less recent immigrants. If these labor market segments were more static, businesses would be forced to train these workers, give them better equipment, and pay them more.

Looks likt the NYT is catching up with CL!

Eric at “The Edge of Reason”

The following is a chronology of me watching Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. All times are approximate.
Movie Start minus 3 minutes, 23 seconds — Why is there a commercial for “Joey” before the movie? Is that show still on? If so, why?
MS-2:09 — Another television ad, this time for a DVD set of “Will and Grace.” I like movie previews, but what’s with the TV ads? Man, that Jack guy is annoying. He’s kind of a Stepin Fetchit for the gays.
MS+1:04 — Finally, the movie is starting. I forget, what was the original Bridget Jones about? All I remember is her kicking drug dealers’ butts and wearing a big afro. Oh, wait…that was “Cleopatra Jones.”
MS+10:58 — Already bored. Not a good sign.
MS+18:34 — Renée Zellweger looks completely dreadful. Horrible hair and bloated, unhealthy-looking body; ill-fitting and unflattering clothes. I used to think people were being superficial when they commented on actors’ looks, but I’ve changed my mind. They’re supposed to look good, or at least not bad. That’s their job. God made the human form beautiful, and there’s nothing wrong with appreciating it.
MS+22:27 — Not only is she bad looking, she makes it worse with her personality. She keeps talking about sex — not romance, but the act itself, and how wonderful it is that she’s found someone to copulate with her. Needy, neurotic, paranoid and charmless…what man wouldn’t want that?
Her boyfriend, Colin Firth, would be screaming and running away from her if he were a real person.
MS+24:20 — Hugh Grant! Finally! I want to dislike you because you are far more suave and handsome than I am, but you are hilarious and charming. Surely you will make this movie more bearable for me.
MS+49:31 — Tomorrow I should clean the garage…I wonder if there will be time to weed the front garden, because it sure needs it…does Chris need his air compressor back?…I think it’s time for a glass of port….
MS+1:00:09 — I have now spent an entire hour watching this vulgar slattern. Where are you, Hugh? Come back and do something amusing!
MS+1:17:02 — She is not leading those Thai girls in a song-and-dance number to Madonna’s “Like a Virgin.” I’m going to the bathroom.
MS+1:31:51 — Why are Hugh and Colin fighting over that woman? Now Paige is telling me that this is like the fight from the first movie, of which I have almost no recollection.
MS+1:43: — At last, the end credits. I have no problem with “date movies” per se, nor do I hate the “chick flick” proper, but this movie was truly a pandering piece of tripe. I wish we had watched “The Incredibles” again, and I bet Paige does, too.

When names are more than names

Suppose someone you know died, and his surviving family didn’t talk about his life. You went to the wake, but the only thing they did was read off a short list of attributes: lived in Topeka, Kansas; worked as an insurance adjuster; was married with three kids; dead at 49.
Nobody prayed for the departed soul, nor did anyone try to publicly comfort the family. No eulogies were delivered; there were no amusing anecdotes about the deceased, or heartfelt recollections. If this is was supposed to honor a man’s life, you would probably think that reducing him to the facts listed on a credit application was inadequate, if not disrespectful.
“Nightline” is pretty much doing the same thing, only they’re just sticking to the names of the dead. Powerline quotes Arthur Chrenkoff:

Ted Koppel will be again reading out the names of American soldiers fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan sice last year. I’ve got a modest proposal to Ted Koppel and “Nightline”: why don’t you read one day the names and show the pictures of the 170,000 or so American servicemen and women stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan who every day are working their hardest to ensure that democracy takes root, terrorists are defeated, and these two countries have a chance to build a better future for their people. That might convince a cynic such as myself that you really care for the troops generally, and not just only when they can be cynically used to embarrass the Bush Administration.

170,000 is more names than they can cover in an hour, so here’s a counter-proposal: why not do an hour on medal winners of Operation Iraqi Freedom?
How about Army Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, who received a Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously for saving 100 of his fellow soldiers, and giving up his life to do it?
Or Marine Sergeant Raphael Peralta, whose last act was to shield his squad from a grenade with his own body?
Or PFC Patrick Miller, who singlehandedly wiped out an Iraqi mortar position to stop them from blowing up a fuel truck and his fellow soldiers?
One would think those stories are eminently more watchable than a laundry list of names. The last time he did this, Koppel insisted he was “honoring the troops” or some platitude. I don’t watch “Nightline,” so maybe they have done a multitude of positive stories about U.S. troops. If so, they have gone unnoticed by the sources I read. (Chime in if you watch the show regularly.)
If not, then reducing human lives to their names and the fact of their demise is disingenuous. When we want to honor the memory of our loved ones, we talk about them, not just their deaths.

Ball for Life in New York City

This notice comes from a reader — we’re not endorsing it, but the event sounds like something we would like to attend:
TWENTIETH ANNUAL BALL FOR LIFE
Benefiting Good Counsel Homes which serves women and their children in crisis pregnancy situations.
HONORING
Peggy Noonan and Ambassador Faith Whittlesey
Honorary Co-chairmen Larry Kudlow & Sean Hannity
Black tie
Friday, June 3, 2005
8:00 pm – 12 midnight
New York Athletic Club
180 Central Park South
New York City
Order tickets here NOW – limited space!
www.ballforlife.org

Published
Categorized as Pro-Life