One of the problems with a media whose members all self-identify with one ideology is that they frequently miss the point of legislation by the opposing party. Case in point:
(Critics raise “doubts” over sanctuary cities bill. Peggy Fikac & Susan Carroll, Chron.com)
Cesar Espinosa, a Houston-based immigrant advocate who led a caravan of protestors to the rally, said the bill already has sparked fear in Houston-area immigrant communities, where one in five residents is foreign-born, according to census data.
“People are just generally afraid,” he said. “And a good amount of people are actually saying they’re considering leaving the state.”
Emphasis mine.
The bolded is framed as a negative, but the sponsor of the bill would certainly classify that as an intended outcome. Also missing from this story (and, let’s be honest, all of Kilday-Hart’s writing this session) is any sense of balance. Say for instance the fact that many officer’s unions (whose members form the front line against these crimes) support the issue.
The bigger question is not one of anti-sanctuary city policy support, but whether they can be up for discussion. In most cases the answer of the state’s political media is, for issues with which they identify, no. This leads to demagogery and dubious arguments more often than not which, to be fair, is often the default behavior of many on both sides of the political aisle. It just finds its way into print more on the port side.
UPDATE: Welcome Fark readers! We aggregate the best links daily in Texas politics (click for today’s links). Check out recent posts on Dan Patrick and the Texas Senate race, Texas’ Higher Ed Reform, or 10 Best/Worst Legislators lists.