• Originally published July 14, 2008 at 7:03 p.m., updated July 14, 2008 at 7:03 p.m.

Editor, the Advocate:

Another example of biased reporting: The Advocate presents a page-one piece, “Fencing the Border,” with contributing “pros” and “cons.” Yet buried on the back page of section B is a related article, “Border traffic down at El Paso sector,” stating that illegal apprehensions are down 58 percent from the same time last year, and the reporter states, “The drop in apprehensions is due in part to more barriers....”

The argument against the barrier from a member of LULAC calls it an embarrassment. He doesn’t mention that immigrant remittances, which an earlier Advocate article mentioned, are also down due in part to the fence, and are Mexico’s second largest source of income behind oil revenues. Mexico and Central America rid themselves of their poor and reap their remittances. Why wasn’t that mentioned? It’s the real reason we receive little or no help from Mexico in stopping illegal immigration. Compare the amount of Mexican remittances to our recent economic stimulus package. Would we not be better off if that money remained in the United States to generate further growth?

John Lenihan

Victoria

• Print
• •
• Share
  • Share this item

    Send this to a friend

    Share on FaceBook

  • Grab the link

    Copy and paste the link:

  • Blog about it

    Blog about this page.

  • Close
• •
• 1 Comment
• •
• Favorite
• •
• Report error
  • Thank you for your submission.
    Error report or correction

    Contact name (optional) Contact phone/e-mail (optional)  

    
  • Close
• •