The New York Times has yet another editorial calling for "immigration reform" entitled "Immigration Misery". It's thankfully shorter than the last such screed ("They Are America"), but just as wrong. This time, they're in their "sleazy/maudlin" mode:
A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation's borders will be secure. Her mother and more than 300 other workers in a leather-goods factory in New Bedford, Mass., have been terrorized - subdued by guns and dogs, their children stranded at school - so that the country will notice that the Bush administration is serious about enforcing immigration laws. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of poor Americans, lacking the right citizenship papers, have been denied a doctor's care so that not a penny of Medicaid will go to a sick illegal immigrant.
[See the updates below]
Anyone who thinks about this in more depth than the NYT would like them to realizes the errors in what the NYT is promoting: none of this will change after "reform". If the "reform" they support passes, we aren't going to be transformed into a magical land with only citizens and legal workers. Rather, we're still going to have a large number of pre-"reform" illegal aliens around (those who aren't eligible for "reform" for one reason or other ), and we're going to have plenty of new illegal aliens coming here because they'll see "reform" for what it is: amnesty.
In other words, what the NYT opposes now will become even more necessary after "reform". We'll still have to do border enforcement and we'll still have to conduct new workplace raids to prevent a spike of illegal immigration.
Or, at least that's what the supporters of "reform" say. Suddenly, after reform, those who've made a career out of avoiding enforcement of our laws, and those who've supported illegal immigration in every way possible, will be magically transformed into opponents of illegal immigration who'll abide by the "reform" they now promote.
Obviously, it's not going to work that way: the NYT (and Nancy Pelosi) will still promote illegal immigration by accusing the Feds of "terrorizing" people, those who refuse to enforce our laws now will simply continue to do so, and those who support illegal immigration now will continue that practice.
The space for their editorial would have been better served with a classified ad offering the Brooklyn Bridge for sale.
 One other selling point of "reform" is that those who'd be eligible for "reform" would be subjected to "tough background checks". Obviously many illegal aliens aren't going to want to go through that "hassle", and many that do will be rejected. And, the Hagel-Martinez "compromise" (S. 2611) didn't include those who've been here for two years or less. No matter which final bill they come up with, there will be hundreds of thousands or even millions of illegal aliens not covered.
UPDATE: Bill O'Reilly says he tried all day to get the NYT to give him the details on the baby, and they were unable to do so. He had the head of the state DPSS on who told him that one baby he knew of was already in the hospital when the raid occured. It was dehydrated because it was ill; they requested the mother (who was detained in the raid) and got her there in two days.
Unless the NYT can come up with *another* baby, they're liars.
UPDATE 2: Here's a quote from O'Reilly's show:
"America must not harm children and the feds have to make exceptions on humanitarian grounds when kids are involved. The kids are not responsible for the immigration mess. But Talking Points is fed up with misleading and dishonest tactics in this debate. "The truth is that we cannot find a baby in Massachusetts that was forcibly weaned from her mother's breast. The truth is that the two babies we did find had developed pneumonia on their mother's watch before the raid... Unless the New York Times has other verifiable information, honesty dictates it correct its editorial."
Immigration2007a · Thu, 03/15/2007 - 09:10 · Importance: 1