California Newspaper Vandalized Over Use Of “Illegal”
Who did it? That’s the question. Was it a typical intolerant Leftist? Or illegal aliens, who we’re told are good people and just want a better life?
(Fox News) A California newspaper will continue to use the term “illegals” to describe people who enter the U.S. without permission, despite an attack on its building by vandals believed to object to the term.
The Santa Barbara News-Press’s front entrance was sprayed with the message “The border is illegal, not the people who cross it” in red paint, sometime either Wednesday night or early Thursday, according to the newspaper’s director of operations, Donald Katich. The attack came amid wider objections to a News-Press headline that used the word “illegals” alongside a story on California granting driver’s licenses to people in the country illegally.
“The vandalism and the damage speak for itself, as well as the motivation behind it,” Santa Barbara Police Officer Mitch Jan said. “At this point in time, I don’t really have any suspect information. Without cameras or an eyewitness, we really don’t know who would be responsible.”
If we had to guess, that would take us down the road towards illegals being the perpetrators, since many of them espouse the same notion of the border being illegal. But, then, many hardcore liberals push the same notion.
“It has been the practice for nearly 10 years at the Santa Barbara News-Press to describe people living in this country illegally as “illegals” regardless of their country of origin,” the statement (from the paper) read. “This practice is under fire by some immigration groups who believe that this term is demeaning and does not accurately reflect the status of “undocumented immigrants,” one of several terms other media use to describe people in the Unites States illegally.
“It is an appropriate term in describing someone as “illegal” if they are in this country illegally,” the statement added.
Good for the paper, standing by their beliefs. For those who are subscribers, you can read their editorial on the practice. Too bad they didn’t make it available to everyone in this case. Anyhow, they’re much better than other papers, such as, say, The NY Times, which refused to publish any Charlie Hebdo cartoons.