This is commentary posing as news reporting. I am saddened to see that my old newspaper did not properly label this piece as commentary. Had it been properly labeled it would be harder to find journalistic failures. But the fact is that all points of view are not given equal weight in this piece; there is relatively little reporting on the views of the proponents of stricter enforcement. There are serious holes in this piece, which appears to be written from a point of view of one reporter. Moreover, the reporter doesn't even answer questions raised by the reported facts--for instance at one point the reporter points to the drop in murders and violence as evidence that people in the country illegally are not a problem. But elsewhere in the story the reporter also points to a serious reduction in the number of illegals crossing the border. Good journalism requires the reporter to ask--and get answers--to the question of whether there is any correlation between the two facts that the reporter used separately to "prove" that undocumented aliens are not a problem. Did the crime rate go down in tandem with the illegal border crossing? Is there a relationship between the two? Regardless of whether the reader approves or disapproves of the current law and situation, the reader is owed: 1) identification of the fact that this story is commentary and now news and 2) high-quality reporting that covers the facts, leaves none out, and answers obvious questions posed by the reporting itself. This story appears to have failed on both counts, a failure that is as much attributable to editors to reviewed the story for completeness as it is to the obvious injection of personal viewpoints and the failure to balance the article.