Read Webzines, Not Mainstream Treezines, For The Truth On Immigration
When readers tell me they enjoy my column, I remind
them to thank the Lodi News-Sentinel (email@example.com)
for publishing it.
The News-Sentinel has the guts, in today`s
politically correct world, to print the column virtually
word for word every week of the year.
If there is another newspaper in California that
regularly runs critical columns about immigration, I`ve
never read it.
Among the major dailies, the Denver Post`s
Al Knight writes truthful and accurate columns
about immigration, as does
Charlie Reese, formerly of the Orlando Sentinel,
James Goldsborough of the San Diego Union Tribune
of the Copley News Service.
late Richard Estrada of the Dallas Morning News,
and the syndicated columnist Sam Francis, now a
syndicated columnist but
formerly with the Washington Times, wrote
insightfully about the
downside of immigration.
Battle-scarred veterans of the immigration debate
Dan Stein, Governor Richard Lamm and Ward Connerley
have their Opinion pieces published occasionally.
But, overwhelmingly, dissent from the “correct”
thinking on immigration isn`t permitted within the
I still have trouble imagining my column as
“incorrect” since it is an open and honest analysis of
immigration—the most compelling and complex federal
program of our era.
I have a unique perspective on immigration. I live in
California`s San Joaquin Valley, an area heavily
populated with immigrants. And from dawn to dusk, I work
with immigrants. No one can blow any smoke past me about
what goes on in the real world.
My immigration philosophy evolved from my
daily experiences over the last 13 years. I am 100%
in favor of dramatically and immediately reducing legal
immigration and ending illegal immigration.
Yet somehow my view, shared by about 65% of
Americans, is not allowed in print journalism. If
newspaper readers didn`t know any differently, they
would think that the entire country supported amnesty,
guest worker programs and ending English as our
Once, my column appeared in
then known as the Stockton Record. For nearly ten
years, I wrote about the two topics that I dealt with in
my classroom: welfare and immigration.
The column was controversial but well read. Those who
agreed lauded me. Those who disagreed read anyway and
In my naiveté, I thought that was the idea—write a
column that people read.
One day, my long time editor and supporter, Dick
Marsh, announced his early retirement. I knew that when
Marsh`s time was up, so was mine.
And I was right. No sooner had Marsh retired than, on
the instructions of the Executive Editor, James Gold
him], without warning and without a farewell
column, I was gone. Roberto Radrigan, a Hispanic
libertarian whose views were akin to the new
editor`s, replaced me.
Such is the atmosphere in journalism today.
Newspaper readers looking for fair and balanced
coverage of immigration are flat out of luck.
If you are in favor of mass immigration though,
you`re in Fat City.
USA Today, with a circulation of 2.3 million
daily, consistently cranks out the
most biased, pro-immigration stories in print. Like
the other 95 Gannett papers (aggregate circulation 7.7
USA Today has never written a harsh word about
the impact of immigration.
Paul Gigot of the
Wall Street Journal
(circulation 1.8 million) regularly preaches the virtues
of open borders in his column. Then Gigot hammers his
point home with his frequent television appearances.
The world`s most influential paper, the
New York Times (circulation 1.1 million), will
never write a professional story about immigration.
Times front-page stories often have as many as six
pro-immigration sources and without any opposing views
The New York Daily News has a particularly
interesting feature. It not only bludgeons its readers
with its take on immigration`s merits, the paper runs a
weekly column written by immigration lawyer
Illegal aliens are invited to drop Wernick a line c/o
the Daily News (you can
drop him a line at
Cheng, who is not a lawyer, regurgitates whatever her
American Immigration Lawyer`s Association source
Sam Francis wrote
earlier in this space about the Reader`s Digest
(circulation: 12.2 million) and its article by Tamar
“Don`t Slam the Door.” The article was
intellectually barren and an insult to anyone with more
than a 4th grade education.
Recently, Rolling Stone (circulation 1.2), published
Part III of its series "Coming to America" titled "The
Women They Leave Behind." [Click
here for my critiques of Part I and II.] Author Dan
Baum traveled to Mexico to hang out at beer halls with
the wives of the aliens working in the U.S. The men call
home constantly to keep close tabs on what their women
are up to. The women all agree with Cuca, wife of
Hectorin. Cuca confided in Baum that she misses Hectorin
"but when he`s gone, it is like a vacation."
Vacation or not, Cuca and her friends Argelia and
Andrea are lining up to cross illegally so they can join
their macho mates. This is, of course, fine with Baum
who not only admires the willingness of the Mexicans to
work in America for chump change but the spunk of their
My list is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg.
Wherever you`re reading this, I`m sure your local rag
has published dozens of stories about immigration
hardships and injustices without so much as a passing
reference to the downside effects.
Note, too, how thoroughly the rabidly pro-immigration
journalists have covered all of the demographic bases:
the rich and the powerful; the young and the old; the
elite and the working classes.
On our side, we have the internet and a small but dedicated core of
wonderful, courageous writers.
And we have the Lodi News-Sentinel,
Joe Guzzardi [email
him], an instructor in English at the Lodi
Adult School, has been writing a weekly newspaper column
since 1988. This column is exclusive to VDARE.COM.