admin
The New York Times ran a lengthy profile under the headline “Two Men. One Identity. They Both Paid the Price,” framing an American who had his life upended by identity theft and the illegal immigrant who allegedly stole his identity as two equivalent victims. Conservatives were rightly furious at that moral equivalence, and Vice President JD Vance called the framing “shameful” as others asked why hardworking Americans are being sidelined by elite media narratives.
The real victim in this story is Daniel Kluver, a lifelong Minnesotan who spent years fighting IRS fines, damaged credit, and even garnished wages after someone else lived and worked under his name. Kluver’s ordeal wasn’t an abstract policy debate — it was real damage to a real American’s life, caused by someone using his Social Security number to rack up taxes and legal liabilities.
According to reporting, the man accused of assuming Kluver’s identity, Romeo Pérez-Bravo, is a Guatemalan national who had been deported multiple times and allegedly accumulated DUIs and other legal troubles while living in the U.S. under false identities. He was charged with aggravated identity theft and false representation of a Social Security number, and his alleged actions even tied the real Kluver to a wrongful death lawsuit stemming from a separate crash — facts that make the NYT’s equal-victim framing all the more absurd.
Prominent Republicans slammed the Times for blurring the line between criminality and victimhood; Sen. Mike Lee and others said there is no moral equivalence between a man whose life was stolen and a repeat illegal entrant who allegedly wreaked havoc while in this country unlawfully. This moment exposes what conservatives have long warned: the legacy media is more interested in fitting stories into a liberal framework than in asking who actually suffered and who committed the harm.
When the paper defended the piece as offering a full picture of immigration’s complexity, many Americans smelled the same old excuse — empathy for lawbreaking framed as nuance while the victims get an afterthought. If the Times wants to teach about complexities, fine — but not by soft-pedaling crimes and elevating the perpetrators into co-victims while ignoring the ruined lives of ordinary citizens.
This controversy is more than media malpractice; it’s a call to action. Americans deserve secure borders, strict enforcement, and a justice system that protects victims, not one that excuses criminal behavior under the guise of empathy, and patriotic voters should demand accountability from both institutions and the journalists who enable them.
