On Feb. 05, 2014, Charles Hurt, an editor of the Drudge Report, promoted his most recent article on Twitter: "Immigration currently polls 2 or 3%. Why is GOP making it top priority?" Hurt added a second tweet: "Repubs for amnesty 'Global Warmists' of GOP..." A link was provided to his article.
Writing as a Washington Times' columnist, Hurt appeared to provocatively stress the term "illegal" in context to a Republican push for comprehensive immigration reform. Hurt asked, "Why have these Republican leaders suddenly become seized with the illegal desire to make an illegal grand bargain with Democrats in Congress to grant illegal amnesty to some 12 million illegal aliens residing illegally in our country right now?" Hurt parenthesized, "(Notice a theme here?)"
Within the question, Hurt had used the term "illegal" five times, labeling even the desire for bargaining with Democrats on comprehensive reform as an "illegal desire." Hurt's article was published in the shadow of a Drudge Report headline which may have touched a nerve, "JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Labeling illegals as 'Criminals' is insulting,"
At a talk at Yale Law School Sotomayor explained her preference for the term “undocumented immigrants” rather than the traditional illegal alien. Characterizing the issue as a regulatory problem, she claimed labeling immigrants criminals was insulting. “I think people then paint those individuals as something less than worthy human beings and it changes the conversation,” Sotomayor said.
Finding a substitute for the term, "illegal," is a debate which emerges each time any discussion of comprehensive immigration resurfaces, generally around any election cycle. Currently, the most favored politically correct terms are "unauthorized" or "undocumented."
The labeling argument often focuses on the use of a term most accurately descriptive, the term which offers the most clarity. Some believe it is more accurate to call "Dreamers," those who were brought here at an early age by relatives, "undocumented." Others believe there are no exceptions to those in the country without legal authorization because all are breaking American law. Therefore, clearly, they are illegal aliens.
If Hurt has wrestled with this issue of clarity and accuracy in the language of immigration, his article would suggest that he is no longer wrestling with it. He used the term "illegal" eight times.
Hurt was particularly acerbic describing the fears of many who feel it's economically unsound to expand immigration when so many Americans are out of work. He wrote: "The only suckers who don’t have a seat at the table are the American people, the taxpayers and workers."
He explained, "Workers are doubly cheated because their union leaders long ago abandoned them to get into bed with the Democratic Party and now Republican leaders want to get into bed with the Democrats to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal competitors."
Currently the links on the Drudge Report are providing mixed messages. One link, "DHS already preparing to implement immigration reform," leads to an article in which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Jeh Johnson is so confident that something big in immigration reform is soon to occur that he has jump started the process. Johnson is quoted saying, "I directed the deputy director of homeland security to coordinate the process to ensure we are ready to implement the law."
However, another Drudge Report link indicates that any chance for a major reform depends entirely upon whether President Obama proves his willingness to abide by immigration laws and enforce them. House Speaker John A. Boehner's most recent statement to that effect has dashed hopes of Republican momentum to work with Democrats to pass an immigration reform legislation any time soon.
What to many seems an abrupt change of heart on Boehner's position may be the result of 4,500 comments, following the standards of the GOP's new principles of immigration online. The comments were so overwhelmingly opposed to amnesty, that one commenter was quoted by the Washington Times, asking, “Does anyone on this blog support Amnesty? Count the votes for and against Amnesty. What do you think Mr. Speaker? Or do you care?”
This response seems to support Hurt's conclusion, "If Republican leaders go along with Democrats" to grant an "illegal amnesty," conservative voters would reject the GOP at the voter booth. The end result: The Republican part would become an "extinct old party." The Drudge editor's entire article is available to read over on the Washington Times.
- Drudge Report: Gore's 'Truth' sells for a penny as Matt snow-trolls global warming theorists
- Drudge Report goes after both Obama and Clinton with the 'I' word,'Impeachment'
- Drudge Report: 'Holder unleashing the dogs' D'Zouza tweet spurs liberal backlash
- Drudge Report: 'Obama doesn't dare limit the NSA. They know all of his secrets!'
- Drudge Report editor on Benghazi: 'Democrats will continue grasping at straws'