Remember all the hand-wringing and whining from the anti-rule of law crowd that crowned President Obama the "Deporter in Chief" because of what they said were "record" numbers of deportations that were continuing to tear families apart?
Never mind that this claim began raveling back in 2011 when Obama himself called the statistics deceptive because most of those "deported" were in fact stopped at the border and almost immediately removed from the country.
But with the help of a media whose immigration reporters are unable to spell critical thinking yet alone engage in it, the record deportation drumbeat continued to grow louder until recently, when the Los Angeles Times acknowledged what Obama had told us earlier. The Times' story was followed by a similar report by USA Today. Incredibly, even ICE and DHS admitted at about the same time that the federal government was using creative accounting methods to show just how serious we are about enforcing our immigration laws. But now we all know that in fact interior deportations have plunged 40 percent since Obama in 2009 took the helm of the good ship "Change You Can Believe In."
But for some journalists, including syndicated Washington Post columnist Esther J. Cepeda, the facts just don't seem to fit in with the message they want to convey to their readers i.e. if illegal aliens say it's true, then who am I to question it?
In her May 31 column, two months after the Times' story, Ms. Cepeda referred to Obama's "historic rate of deportions."
So I dropped Ms. Cepeda a note pointing out that her use of the word historic had no place in her column in light of recent revelations; I even included the above links just in case she had been cut off from the outside world. Here is how she responded:
I hear you Dave, but until the administration starts calling deportations straight from the border something different from those that occur in the interior of the country -- and then until the activists catch up to use the nomenclature -- I have to stick to the common terms.
I have to stick to the common terms. Is this something that is taught in what can best be called the "This is my story, and I'm sticking to it" School of Journalism?
Aren't journalists, even opinion writers, required to stick to the facts? And who cares what illegal aliens think about our immigration policy or how it is defined? Ms. Cepeda's penchant for carrying water for illegals is nothing new and fits perfectly with her employer's own agenda.
When I asked Cepeda whether she was concerned about how her distortion of the truth might affect her credibility and suggested that she focus on how an amnesty would affect blacks and Hispanic-Americans who have the highest unemployment and poverty rates, she answered:
Thanks for your comments, Dave.
In terms of your immigration coverage, Esther, thanks for nothing.