Networks Offer Scant Coverage of Liberal DREAM Act, Frothed Over Arizona Immigration Bill
For
much of the spring and summer, the big broadcast networks threw staff
and airtime at covering Arizona's attempt to control its borders against
rampant illegal immigration. Liberals detested Arizona's "harsh" new
law, so the media elite reflexively treated it as a scandal in their
coverage.
But now, Congress is debating a liberal immigration plan, the so-called
"DREAM Act," that would amount to amnesty for possibly one million
illegal immigrants, and cost taxpayers up to $6 billion in higher
education subsidies. Yet over the last five weeks, the three major
networks have offered almost no coverage of the DREAM Act, which may be
up for a vote as early as today.
In contrast, when Arizona was considering stricter enforcement of
illegal immigration, the networks "aired a whopping 120 stories in a
little over three months, with an almost ten-to-one tilt against the
Arizona law (77 negative, 35 neutral, 8 positive)." For more, see the
MRC's July 28, 2010 Media Reality Check.
The unpopular DREAM Act,
which is being considered in the lame duck session of Congress, has
been referenced a combined total of just four times since the November 2
midterm elections. (This includes the evening newscasts and the morning
shows.)
Jake Tapper accounted for all three of the brief mentions on ABC. On
November 30, he blandly explained on Good Morning America: "And there
are other Democratic items being discussed, including the DREAM Act,
which is for education for the student, for the children of immigrants."
(The other two examples were clips from a White House press briefing.)
National Review contributor Mark Krikorian outlined concerns about the bill on December 1:
And yet what does the DREAM Act say about fraud? As Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) points out in "Ten Things You Need To Know about S-3827, the DREAM Act," the measure "prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc.) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process." This is like playing a slot machine without having to put any money in - any illegal alien can apply, and if he wins, great, but if he loses, he can't be prosecuted even if he lied through his teeth about everything. No amnesty proposal can be taken seriously unless applicants are made to understand, right up front, that any lies, no matter how trivial, will result in arrest and imprisonment.
Another problem with DREAM, which all amnesties share, is that it will attract new illegal immigration. Prospective illegal immigrants, considering their options, are more likely to opt to come if they see that their predecessors eventually hit the jackpot. In 1986, we had an estimated 5 million illegals, 3 million of whom were legalized. We now have more than twice as many as before the last amnesty, and they've been promised repeatedly that if they hold out a little longer they'll be able to stay legally. Any new amnesty, even if only for those brought here as children, will attract further illegal immigration.
