An August 31 Washington Post front page blurb calling attention to an inside story states: “Democratic lawmakers are calling for hearings into the government’s policy of denying U.S. passports to Hispanic Americans.” The inside report is headed: “Democrats in Congress urge hearings on denial of passports to Americans.”
The source of the news report (the second day the story is covered in the Post) is identified as Texas Democrat Reps. Joaquin Castro and Vicente Gonzalez, and it turns out those who are being denied passports are those believed by the U.S. State Department to not be U.S. citizens. Those affected are persons born at home and presenting a birth certificate issued by a midwife practicing along the border with Mexico. The problem with those birth certificates comes from documented cases proving that the at least some of the children were born in Mexico and the mother bribed the midwives to falsely document the children as U.S.-born.
So, the Post’s bias is shown in the inflammatory blurb suggesting that the issue is one of anti-Hispanic bias (implying U.S. citizen Hispanics are the target), and this is magnified by the inside heading that identifies those targeted as “Americans,” which also implies they are U.S. citizens.
Digging deeper into the story reveals that the facts point to the action as one of passport denial based on a proven incidence of false birth certificates issued by midwives in the border region. Additionally, the supposed news is not new at all. The denial of passports to those presenting presumed fraudulent birth certificates from the border region has been ongoing for years. Furthermore, data released by the State Department indicates that the denial of passports to holders of questionable birth certificates has, in fact, declined under the Trump administration compared with the Obama administration. This was reported by Fox News on August 31.
If there is nothing new in the anti-fraud efforts of the Department of State, why is this being treated as news by the Post? It seems reasonable to conclude the reason is that it fits in with a bias against Trump and against his immigration reform policy.