Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Megyn Kelly’s Unmistakeable Bias Over Immigration Law

Reported by Ellen - May 25, 2010 -

In case anyone thinks that America Live host Megyn Kelly is the kind of objective host running an objective news show, as Fox News claims, all you’d have to do is watch the following two segments about immigration that Kelly aired yesterday (5/24/10) and compare Kelly’s argumentative stance with liberal Alan Colmes to her agreeable, unchallenging questions for conservative Michelle Malkin. With video.

The premise, alone, was biased. In both segments, Kelly held up examples of dangerous illegal immigrants and suggested that each incident proved we need tighter laws. But the fact that Kelly chose political pundits, as opposed to experts in immigration, crime, national security, etc., indicated right off the bat that she and Fox News were looking to politicize the issue, not inform their viewers.

First up was Colmes. Before he appeared, Kelly held up a mug shot of an illegal accused of rape after being deported nine times. “Nine times!” Kelly shrilled at least two more times during the segment. She rarely let Colmes complete his thought before interrupting him.

Kelly was obviously not merely debating Colmes for the sake of balance but deliberately doing her best to cast doubt on his opinions (whether she accomplished that goal is doubtful in my view). With open sarcasm and contempt, Kelly asked, “What about President Obama, what has HE done to secure the borders? …He promised that he was going to secure the border. Has it been done?” Then, referring to a statement by ICE director John Morton suggesting his agency may not enforce Arizona’s immigration law, she asked, “Who died and made him king?” She asked that question twice.

With Malkin, it was an entirely different story. This time, Kelly's villainous poster child was an illegal immigrant convicted, as the Fox News banner said, “in M-13 gang slayings.”

Gone was Kelly’s need to “balance” Malkin with the same kind of vehemence she had with Colmes. Kelly gave a lackluster reiteration of one of Colmes’ points, that “you could deport every single illegal alien in America right now and you’d still have horrific murders.” I’d call that a skewing of his overall point, which was that one horrific case does not reflect the entire issue and that no matter how tough a law, someone is going to evade it.

Predictably, Malkin’s trademark superciliousness mounted to a crescendo of sneering frenzy, “I heard the same sorts of clueless rationalizations… the critics of lax immigration enforcement are always called ‘racist, xenophobic,’ …I think it’s VERY interesting, Megyn, that you do not hear an uproar from the usual civil rights and grievance mongers in response to this case…”

Kelly respectfully let Malkin finish her argument, a courtesy rarely given to Colmes, even as Malkin argued that Colmes and Al Sharpton “shrug their shoulders at these bloody consequences and these bodies that keep piling up.” Kelly indicated no curiosity at finding out how many bodies keep piling up, what ratio of immigrants actually commit crimes, how many are law abiding citizens. Nor did Kelly object to Malkin's suggestion that those opposed to the Arizona law don't care about people getting murdered.

Kelly also did not mention that the stats don’t comport with Malkin’s stance.

After a few minutes, Kelly let go of even her token balance to Malkin and remained quiet as Malkin let loose a torrent of vitriol at the left. “That kind of demagoguery and infantilization of a serious public policy issue is very telling… They’re accusing each and every one of our immigration and customs enforcement agents… of being prone to violence.” Of course, this accusation was coming from someone who had, basically, just accused "each and every one" of those opposing the Arizona law of being unconcerned about murder crimes. But Kelly didn't seem to notice.

Kelly’s reaction? Adding to the pile on against the left. “If you do criticize illegal immigration and you don’t necessarily favor what’s being called amnesty… you are deemed a racist by some… You in particular, I know, have been subjected to that charge. What of that, Michelle?”

In reality, Kelly did far more than just “criticize illegal immigration;” she went out of her way to demonize it and promote a discrediting of those on the other side. So I’ve got little sympathy for her whining now about being a victim of those same tactics. As for being called a racist? Kelly has a long history of antagonism toward people of color. It’s a record that speaks for itself.

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »