May 20, 2007

NYT editorial: Senate bill bad; "Know-Nothings" hate illegal aliens

The New York Times offers the editorial "The Immigration Deal". Summary: they're going even further around the bend.

They divide provisions of the bill into "good", "bad", and "awful", with the "guest" worker provisions in the latter camp. If the bad parts aren't removed, they say that no bill is better than the current one.

And:

It is painful, for many reasons, to oppose this immigration deal. It is no comfort to watch as this generation's Know-Nothings bray against "amnesty" from their anchor chairs and campaign lecterns, knowing that it gives hope to the people they hate.

Truly a sleazy paragraph, implying that those "anchors" (presumably Lou Dobbs) and politicians (presumably Tancredo, Hunter, Paul and maybe others) oppose illegal immigration because they're "Know-Nothings" and motivated by hatred.

They also take a swipe at Lou Barletta and others:

Congress's dithering has encouraged the rise of homegrown zealots: mayors, police departments, county executives and legislators who take reform into their own hands, with cruelly punitive measures.

Of course, pulling a business' license when that business fails to follow the laws isn't exactly cruel, and being closer to the people those local officials realize the impact of the policies that the NYT espouses.

And, it's interesting that they'd put amnesty in quotes, since just last month they seemed to acknowledge that "comprehensive immigration reform" is in fact amnesty:

Americans want the immigration issue solved, and they strongly favor "amnesty," whether you call it that or not.

And, of course, their editorial contains the seeds of its own destruction:

The millions without documents live in constant fear: a campaign of federal raids has spread panic and shattered families.

But, isn't tough enforcement a part of the current and past amnesty bills? And, won't that mean raids in order to prevent future illegal immigration? And, won't any amnesty encourage even more illegal immigration, resulting in even more mixed-status families? If an amnesty bill passes, won't the NYT simply use the same line against enforcement mandated by that bill?

Shouldn't the NYT be honest enough to just come right out and admit that what they really want is a loose borders system, where anyone who makes it over the border and can stay here for a while is allowed to become a citizen?

Posted to Immigration2007a at May 20, 2007 02:15 PM