The NYT offers the editorial "Immigration Vacuum":

Immigration is a national problem that too many local governments have mistakenly tried to fix.

The problem is mostly concerns illegal immigration. Obviously, there are federal, state, and local laws, and localities are not able to, for instance, suspend federal laws relating to political corruption. See also, for just one example, "'Sanctuary' practice in Houston draws fire". Cities and states can't just pass the buck.

Take Manassas, Va., where the City Council has finally suspended what was clearly an unconstitutional housing ordinance aimed at immigrants, mainly Hispanics. The Council wanted to make it illegal to have too many extra aunts, uncles and cousins in a single residence, although the word was out that Anglo cousins did not have to worry.

Just because it would have affected illegal aliens doesn't mean it was "aimed" at them. If it wasn't being enforced against white people, then there are certainly remedies. Did anyone try to seek remedy? Therefore, can't we assume that the NYT is simply lying? And, many people understand the word "Anglo" as a slur. And, it's certainly something I didn't expect to see coming from the editorial board of the New York Times.

The NYT continue with misrepresentations of two more, using the word "anti-immigrant" along the way. Then, they make the misleading statement that the "immigration system in this country is broken".

Then, the compare HR4437 to "the Know-Nothing anti-Irish movement", and:

But the worst part of the bill makes it a felony to shield or offer support to undocumented immigrants, even unknowingly. So what about the church group that provides shelter, no questions asked, or the woman who drives a neighbor to the store?

For the answer, see "Will HR 4437 cause humanitarian groups to be prosecuted for giving emergency aid to illegal aliens?"

There is simply nothing in the language of this section (one strongly advocated by border-state U.S. attorneys and which actually deals with alien smuggling and related offenses) that says anything that could be reasonably interpreted as an attempt to prosecute someone who gives a meal to an illegal alien or provides emergency health care.

The editorial is, for the most part, just more pro-illegal immigration propaganda from our out-of-touch elites. However, with the "Anglo" crack I think we can definitively say that the New York Times is just on the other side.