NYT goes to Idaho, discovers illegal immigration

Monday's New York Times has a front page article about illegal immigration to Idaho and County Commissioner Robert Vasquez's attempts to do something about it: "A Battle Against Illegal Workers, With an Unlikely Driving Force".

In what might be a first for the NYT, it's not a PIIPP, and the bleeding heart "liberalism" of Nina Bernstein is nowhere to be found.

It does, however, approach this issue with the idea that being Hispanic implies that one must also support illegal immigration. If that's true, does that mean that all or most Hispanics don't respect our laws and put their race before their country? Perhaps the NYT should look into that in more depth in a future article.

The article also says, "Mr. Schwarzenegger was criticized by many Latinos after he praised a group of citizens patrolling the border." Do far-left (or worse) racial demagogues (including one with alleged links to the Mexican government) really count though?

The NYT also generally supports the idea that without all those illegal serf laborers Idaho would be forced to declare bankruptcy and be sold to Canada or something. For the answer to that, see "How Much Is that Tomato in the Window?" or "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers":
...California Farmer reported in 1963 that if the flow of braceros stopped, tomato growers and canners "agree the State will never [again be able to plant] the 100,000 to 175,000 acres planted when there was a guaranteed supplemental labor force in the form of the braceros..."

Reality, however, never confirmed these dire predictions. In 1960 some 45,000 farm workers (mostly braceros) had harvested 2.2 million tons of processing tomatoes. By 1999, it took only 5,000 workers to operate machinery that harvested some 12 million tons. Thanks to these efficiency gains from mechanization, the real price of processing tomatoes declined 54 percent while per capita consumption rose 23 percent...
It's a good start, but I hope the next time the NYT will look into this in a bit more depth. And, perhaps they should consider coming to Los Angeles and reporting on our situation here.


Quite so, we are dealing with Orwellian hypocrites. These types want race conflict to go to the limit, otherwise their dream of absolute dystopia will wither in the sunlight.

The illegal alien advocates simply assert that attempting to do anything about the massive invasion of illegal aliens is nothing more than "racism". How can so many people fall for such sophistry? The only answer is that a good part of the population is in the grip of a form of insanity- they can't bring themselves to accept that boundaries exist between human populations. Yet (incredibly) most of these same people travel abroad and do not protest when foreign officials ask them for their passports. So I guess they believe that some countries (like Mexico) have legitimacy and others (like the US) do not. Anyone who has read Orwell (four legs good, two legs bad)understands what is going on here.

The article also mentioned that Idaho employers may start to be prosecuted under the racketeer influenced corrupt organization statute for hiring foreign criminals. The foreign criminals' lobby uses a false dilemma rhetorical approach; they say what do you do with ten million or more illegal aliens? The false dilemma is that bof implying that we have to get rid of millions of them in a short time, or allow millions more to accumulate, and plunder the citizenry at will. That such a false dilemma is so routinely relied upon, is a strong indication that no reasonable agument for bringing in millions of foreign criminals into the cross subsidization system of the redistributional society, can be thought of.