For the NYT to swallow so many Bush statements uncritically is probably unprecedented. Do we need food stamp family values that don't stop at the Rio grande? Is creating servile orders of society good hearted and compassion-laden, or the essence of what it means to be the blackhearted reaction against centuries of progress? If only appeals to emotion can be used, in the place where a rational argument is to be expected, doesn't this mean that none are available to be used? Doubtless there could be tens of millions of live-in domestic service jobs that 'Americans will not do' at even twice the feasible wage, but that is no excuse for filling such potential positions with hordes of new peones. Foreign criminals being just here to 'put food on the table' wasn't true before 9-11 either. Does the 'food on the table' include food stamps, free medical care, free day care in the public schools and affirmative action positions, to mention just a few of the possible things on the table?