There’s no mistaking the fact that the NY Times Editorial board reviles getting tough on illegal immigration. They’ve long supported a veritable and untenable open border position.
Today (3/15/2007), the NY Times may have actually crossed the line and made false charges against the Department of Homeland Security, specifically, its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) division.
Today’s editorial begins, “A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation’s borders will be secure.”
The Times claimed that a 27 day old baby was separated from her mother and weaned from breast milk and taken “dehydrated” to a Boston area hospital, insinuating that the child's condition was related to the raid.
However, when challenged, the NY Times acknowledged that they were unable to verify the existence of that baby. A Massachusetts social services official, while critical that the I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officials didn’t cooperate with local social services agencies, asserted that two infants were taken to area hospitals suffering from pneumonia, completely unrelated to the raid on Michael Bianco inc., a leather goods factory in New Bedford, MA.
Immigration officials claim that at least 327 of Michael Bianco's roughly 500 employees, most of them women, were detained by immigration officials for possible deportation as illegal aliens.
Today (3/15/2007), the NY Times may have actually crossed the line and made false charges against the Department of Homeland Security, specifically, its Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E.) division.
Today’s editorial begins, “A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation’s borders will be secure.”
The Times claimed that a 27 day old baby was separated from her mother and weaned from breast milk and taken “dehydrated” to a Boston area hospital, insinuating that the child's condition was related to the raid.
However, when challenged, the NY Times acknowledged that they were unable to verify the existence of that baby. A Massachusetts social services official, while critical that the I.C.E. (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) officials didn’t cooperate with local social services agencies, asserted that two infants were taken to area hospitals suffering from pneumonia, completely unrelated to the raid on Michael Bianco inc., a leather goods factory in New Bedford, MA.
Immigration officials claim that at least 327 of Michael Bianco's roughly 500 employees, most of them women, were detained by immigration officials for possible deportation as illegal aliens.
I.C.E. officials also said that no children were stranded and that authorities released 45 detainees who were their children's sole caregiver. Spokesman Marc Raimondi said the agency gave early warning to state social service officials of the pending raid.
In the wake of the raid Raimondi has said that people here illegally know there are consequences and that they risk being detained and removed from the United States. "You can't lose sight of the fact these people were here illegally, they violated the law and they're being held accountable," he said.Francesco Insolia, 50, and three top managers were arrested after 300 federal agents raided Michael Bianco Inc.
Authorities allege that Insolia oversaw "sweatshop" conditions so he could meet the demands of $91 million in U.S. military contracts. U.S. Attorney Michael Sullivan has accused Insolia of exploiting the illegals in order to maximize his profits on the military contracts to make backpacks and safety vests for soldiers. The owners face up to $3,000 in fines and up to six months in jail for each illegal immigrant hired.
So, it's looking increasingly like the NY Times has falsified and sensationalized the details of this case to press a decidedly dangerous, reckless and frankly anti-American agenda of open borders in an age of rampant international terrorism.
Perhaps this will be THE lie that derails the NY Times?
I’d certainly be completely in favor of that.
So, it's looking increasingly like the NY Times has falsified and sensationalized the details of this case to press a decidedly dangerous, reckless and frankly anti-American agenda of open borders in an age of rampant international terrorism.
Perhaps this will be THE lie that derails the NY Times?
I’d certainly be completely in favor of that.
Here's the link to the NY Times editorial;
