This is in response to an article in Metro news which can be found on Pg 4 of the 11/27/07 paper: http://www.readmetro.com/show/en/NewYork/20071127/1/4/
Not that I have taken a stand on this yet but if you are to present statistics to support your position, lets at the very least present both sides. Mr. Miller, who by virtue of the way he has parsed his article, is ostensibly pro-immigration and has presented one-sided statistics to prove his point. Where are the expense factors in this report? He makes it seem that this is a net gain when tax payer supported expenses like indigent healthcare, unpaid income taxes, incarceration/public attorney expenses plus a plethora of other unrealized costs to the economy have not been addressed. OK, so they bring $229 billion in; what is the downside? That is the net gain, if in fact there is a gain. If it turns out after a real study is conducted, then we can say, there is a net upside to immigration and reform should be discussed. It is also possible that a real cost/benefit study has been done but Mr. Miller, like so many who use statistics out of context to support their position/agenda simply did not want to present those numbers. And since the Metro decided to present this clearly one-sided argument, I have little hope for a balanced view from Mr. Miller or this paper.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I was published in the Metro: http://www.readmetro.com/show/en/NewYork/20071205/1/8/
They edited the piece in such a fashion as to obfuscate my views and spirit of the opinion such that I feel I was represented as one who is against immigration.
I write to newspapers all the time and get published frequently within the constraints provided and for the most part, I am published with the full intent of my statement representative of my views despite some editing. But when a papers editorial staff takes it upon themselves to edit in such a way as to distort the intention and spirit of an opinion, I must draw the line. As a result of the manner in which my comments on Mr. Miller’s statistical presentation of the benefits of immigration were taken out of context, making me look as if I do not support immigration-a blatant lie, I will no longer submit anything to this paper and will do my best to encourage people to avoid the sort of agenda driven slanderizing this paper has now for me become famous.
Yea, yea, I allowed you to edit, but there is a responsibility in this power you obviously have abused. To think so highly of yourselves that you can obfuscate someone else’s words and spin the meaning toward your POV is criminal and irresponsible. My name appears on that and you have misrepresented my intent. If you are to receive any comments that offer opinions stating my POV is anti-immigration, I would expect a statement from me to be published to defend what I really said and that you edited it in such a way as to make my original POV obscured. I hope there will be no fall out from this that I must explain myself to correct your mistakes to my family and friends.
Not that I have taken a stand on this yet…
If it turns out after a real study is conducted, then we can say, there is a net upside to immigration and reform should be discussed.
Post a Comment