Washington Examiner’s Joe Concha knocked the New York Times’s coverage of an illegal immigrant committing identity theft on Wednesday, telling the paper to “shut the front door.”
The paper published a piece titled, “Two men. One identity. They both paid the price.” It covers how Romeo Perez-Bravo, an illegal immigrant from Guatemala, illegally purchased the Social Security number of Minnesota resident Daniel Kluver. The paper issued a statement saying it expects its reporters to provide a “full picture” of a story without supporting “any one political agenda,” and the story itself is meant to help readers understand the “complexities” of immigration.
Concha, however, dismissed the paper’s statement, pointing out that while it claims not to take a side, it hasn’t endorsed a Republican candidate for president since then-President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.
“And look, I can’t believe that the framing here is that there are two victims. And remember, a lot of people just read the headlines: they scroll on Twitter or Facebook, they think they get the gist of it, and they don’t even read the article, especially if it’s behind a paywall, which is what happened here,” Concha said on Fox News’s America’s Newsroom.
“And you mentioned this before but I think this bears repeating, Mike: this guy was arrested for multiple DUI’s, he also killed a grandfather and injured a nine-year-old girl when he plowed into them in his car while they’re on his bike, he presents the other driver’s license of a legal resident, the one that you see there on the right, and then that guy was hit with a wrongful death suit. Imagine having your name attached to something like that?” Concha said.
Concha concluded his thoughts by saying the New York Times editors ought to “resign in disgrace,” but said they’ll receive a promotion instead.
HOW MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS GOT JOBS IN THE US
Vice President JD Vance is among those critical of the paper’s coverage of Perez-Bravo, writing on X the paper engaged in “shameful framing.”
Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) shared Vance’s sentiments, saying the two men in the piece aren’t “moral equivalents.” Lee added that while one man is a victim and the other “a predator,” the outlet wrote its piece “as if they were the same.”
