Thursday’s New York Times was in panicky mode over President-elect Donald Trump, especially from an immigrant and minority perspective, with the paranoia on fully display in “Trump Win Has Blacks, Hispanics and Muslims Bracing For a Long 4 Years." This purported “news” story even recycled leftist Van Jones cries of “Whitelash” -- as if an African-American president didn’t actually win a second term in office a mere four years ago.



Friday’s New York Times featured wall-to-wall scare-mongering over Donald Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration, and placed the perfectly respectable term “sanctuary cities” in scare quotes, as if was somehow out of bounds. Reporter Julia Preston, perhaps the paper’s worst offender when it comes to producing biased, pro-amnesty stories (and that's some stiff competition), struck twice in Friday’s edition. “In Immigration Enforcement Debate, a Split on the Role of the Police” featured “sanctuary cities” enclosed in unnecessary scare quotes, something the Times does with phrases popular with conservatives, like “death tax.”



Immigration is the issue where the New York Times' liberal slant is most obvious, and Friday's edition did not fail to provide it. The Supreme Court effectively doomed President Obama’s executive actions in 2014 to unilaterally shield some five million illegal immigrants from deportation, and the New York Times' front-page “news analysis," “Lines Drawn for November,” immediately pounced on what it considers a golden political opportunity for Democrats in November.



As the Supreme Court begins to debate whether President Obama's executive actions on immigration exceeded his authority, the New York Times lead National section story Sunday by Julia Preston, one of the paper’s most pro-amnesty reporters documented “A Family Anxiously Awaiting a Supreme Court Outcome – Justices Hold the Key To Immigration Mix.” Again, the Times skipped the clear formulation of “illegal immigrants” in favor of the longer “in the country illegally,” apparently to avoid hateful stigmatizing. The paper’s euphemism of choice was “unauthorized immigrants."



No issue most exposes the liberal bias of the New York Times more than the matter of illegal immigrants (or as the paper prefers to call them, "undocumented immigrants"). The Times favors generous amnesty, and keeps pushing it both on its news pages and in opinion. A Wednesday Page One story by Trip Gabriel and Julia Preston tried to transform Donald Trump's blunt words on illegals into a problem for the entire Republican presidential field.



The New York Times has repeatedly demonstrated that protesters they like are far more newsworthy than protesters they don’t like. The number of protesters doesn’t really matter at all. Five years ago, they reported a whole story on four (count them on one hand) illegal-alien protesters for amnesty. A few months later, they repeated it with a whole story on five protesters. 

But on Wednesday, thousands (as many as 12,000) flooded Times Square a few blocks north of the newspaper’s offices to protest President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, and the Times buried that in one paragraph -- paragraph 15 -- of a Thursday story headlined “Campaign for Congressional Backing of Iran Nuclear Deal Begins.”



Adam Davidson of National Public Radio lumped people who oppose illegal immigration with racists and homophobes (like his grandfather) in the New York Times magazine:

When I was growing up in the 1980s, I watched my grandfather -- my dad’s stepdad -- struggle with his own prejudice. He was a blue-collar World War II veteran who loved his family above all things and was constantly afraid for them. He carried a gun and, like many men of his generation, saw threats in people he didn’t understand: African-Americans, independent women, gays. By the time he died, 10 years ago, he had softened. He stopped using racist and homophobic slurs; he even hugged my gay cousin. But there was one view he wasn’t going to change. He had no time for Hispanics, he told us, and he wasn’t backing down. After all, this wasn’t a matter of bigotry. It was plain economics. These immigrants were stealing jobs from “Americans.”



Immigration is the issue where the New York Times' liberal slant is most obvious, and the paper's heavy coverage Friday and Saturday held true to form, after President Obama's prime-time Thursday announcement that he would bypass Congress and grant amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. Obama even used the same "out of the shadows" phrase liberals -- and the Times -- use so often, while the Times insisted Republican resistance was futile.



The New York Times continued its push for immigration "reform" in Thursday's edition. The front of the National section included a page-width photo of "tens of thousands of immigrants, Latinos, union members, gay rights and other advocates" who rallied at the Capitol Wednesday.

Reporters Julia Preston and Ashley Parker, among the most slanted on the paper's staff, used even higher figures for the march while covering the so-called Group of 8's deal on an immigration amnesty bill, "Bipartisan Senators’ Group Reaches Deal on Immigration Bill." The phrasing was awkward, as vagueness (there are no official crowd estimates) grasped for specificity: "several tens of thousands of immigrants..."



The New York Times' long propaganda campaign supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants continued on the front of Thursday's National section, led by the paper's most slanted immigration reporter, Julia Preston -- "U.S. Citizens Join Illegal Immigrants In Pressing Lawmakers for Change."

Preston can hardly contain her enthusiasm for the movement, especially when she's discussing the "Dreamers" – the young people brought to the country illegally pushing for an accelerated path to citizenship.



The New York Times continued to push its pet cause of immigration "reform," involving mass amnesty for illegals in the United States. In a twist, immigration reporter Julia Preston reported Tuesday on amnesty GOP-style, featuring the views of Fla. Republican Sen. Marco Rubio: "Rubio Pushes His Party On Immigration Changes."

Rubio's favorable coverage (his "star is rising rapidly in his party") certainly marks a change from the paper's usual cool approach to Republican policymakers and policy. Could it be because Rubio stand on immigration hews more closely to the paper's editorial line that most GOP senators?



Sunday's New York Times lead story on immigration by Julia Preston,"Obama Will Seek Citizenship path In One Fast Push," seemed a strange choice -- unless you remembered how the Times has long been pushing for immigration "reform" that would include amnesty for illegal immigrants and a path to citizenship.

Notice this is not breaking news; it's something "senior administration officials and lawmakers said last week." By contrast, the Washington Post hasn't run an immigration story this past week, much less in the lead slot, which suggests the Times is trying to make news instead of breaking it.