On balance, Inquirer misses the mark

This no longer comes under the heading of “news,” but the Inquirer is still serving up self-serving, biased “reporting” that is blindingly unbalanced. 

This time, again, it is connected with what the paper calls “immigration,” but which is actually illegal immigration. The newspaper, along with most of the legacy media, about two decades ago decided to cancel the word “illegal.” They thought the entirely accurate adjective was some kind of pejorative.

Such tender, Woke Lite thinking also led to the banishment of terms such as “homeless,” “hungry,” and “drug addict.” 

Instead of direct, clear, blunt, words, the issues were spun like cotton candy into sugary, tongue-twisters such as  “people experiencing homelessness,” “people who are food insecure,” “those experiencing addiction.”

From censoring the word “illegal,” it was a short hop to denying its criminality. 

Instead of “illegal aliens,” the long-time description in U.S. law, soft-headed journalists turned to phrases such as “undocumented” (which are factually incorrect in the cases of those who had overstayed their visas, or those carrying ID “documents” — called Matrícula Consular — issued by the Mexican government).

Eventually, journos settled on the catchall word “migrant” for both legal and illegal entrants, erasing the line of difference between them. Acting on their own, journalists nullified immigration law.

All of which brings us to a Page One story in Monday’s Inquirer headlined, “More Pennsylvania police agencies are signing up to help ICE.”

[Spoiler Alert: The Inquirer is a Sanctuary newspaper.]

I will grant the Inquirer this: There was a lot of straight reporting around an ICE initiative, which the Inquirer calls controversial, part of a 1996 immigration act known as 287(g) that encourages — does not demand — that local police agencies help ICE in identifying, arresting, and deporting “undocumented migrants,” as the Inquirer puts it.

In other words, local police are encouraged, not forced, to enforce the law.

Asking police to enforce the law doesn’t seem all that controversial.

The Inquirer story ran 44 paragraphs.

After nine paragraphs of describing the increasing cooperation, in red cities and towns, the Inquirer gives the pro cooperation side one sentence and not a quote from anyone in ICE:

“ICE says the program helps protect Americans, adding staff strength to an agency work force that numbers an estimated 21,000 nationwide.”

In a 180-degree turn, the very next sentence says, “Opponents insist that turning local officers into immigration agents breaks community trust and puts municipal taxpayers in risk of paying big legal settlements.” The “risk” claim is never illustrated.

The next four paragraphs are wholly turned over to Miguel Andrade, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Immigrant Coalition, a Philadelphia-based advocacy [Open Borders] group.

Space given to an opposing point of view? None.

The closest the Inquirer gets to balance are general remarks  made by new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin during his confirmation hearing in January. 

Two paragraphs of general comments from Mullin, and then the Inquirer pivots back — to newly-elected Bucks County Sheriff Danny Ceisler, who cancelled an agreement with ICE authorized by his predecessor, a Republican.

(Ceisler still shares information with ICE and gives it access to prisoners, which Philly, as an example, does not.)

“Bucks County is home to over 50,000 migrants,” the Inquirer quoted Ceisler as saying, and “those immigrants are our neighbors. They are our friends. They are taxpayers, and they deserve the protection of law enforcement in this community.”

I covered that story and I asked Ceisler if he knew how many of the 50,000 friends and neighbors were illegal. 

He did not know and he did not want to know, feeling that enforcing federal law is not what he’s paid to do.

The Inquirer story repeats, several times, the notion that if local police cooperate with ICE, local illegals who are victims of crime — usually by other illegals — will fear to come forward.

The Inquirer conveniently forgets that under Mayor Michael Nutter the city had an arrangement with ICE by which it would turn over crime information, but shield the names of victims or witnesses who were illegal.

It was a fair and workable compromise in place until the shrieking of the Open Borders crowd, which is never satisfied, browbeat Nutter into ending all cooperation with ICE.

But that kind of nuance is lost, by accident or by design, because the Inquirer pushes it own narrative when covering certain topics.

So even if its bias is no longer ”news,” I will keep reporting it.