Twenty-four hours after Islamic terrorists killed 12 people in an attack on Charlie Hebdo, a French magazine known for mocking Islam, we saw another example of what can happen to those who still believe that freedom of speech is a civil right respected around the world.
After it published a front-page story with the headline “Illegals Line Up for Driver’s Licenses,” the Santa Barbara News-Press’ building was spray-painted with graffiti that read, “The border is illegal not the people who cross it.”
The glaring hypocrisy here is that this act of vandalism was carried out by those who have for several years been characterizing amnesty for illegal aliens as the “civil rights struggle of the 21st century.”
This argument has taken root primarily because the nation’s jellyfish journalists have allowed themselves to be bullied by those who have disrespected our immigration laws and sovereignty and then arrogantly demanded respect from the American people.
If illegal aliens are unhappy with the media coverage they so aggressively attempt to manipulate, then by all means reporters and their editors should go out of their way to accommodate them. Veteran observers of how the media cover immigration know the timeline well.
It began with portraying illegal aliens as victims of a “broken immigration policy” forced to “live in the shadows” and fearful of having their families “torn apart” while “searching for a better life.” Then came the assault on the descriptor “illegal alien,” the term used by the federal government to identify those who think the rules for entering this country don’t apply to them. This term, incidentally, also is used in all related immigration legislation.
“Undocumented” replaced illegal alien because the latter sounded like “the person was from outer space”; this was followed by the cry, “No human being is illegal.” Surprisingly, this sugar-coating of illegal immigration is questioned even by some on the other side of the debate.
How or when our federally created immigration crisis will be resolved is anybody’s guess, but the more immediate concern is what happened in Santa Barbara.
It can be argued that at least nobody was hurt or killed at the News-Press, and that is important. But the point is that the message sent to that paper’s editorial staff was the same as the one sent to Charlie Hebdo. And where does it say that that message can’t be repeated using stronger forms of communication?