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?

Related:
NYT hides behind "terrorized" illegal aliens to support massive immigration

Comments

We are under no obligation at all to provide employment or residency to any foreigner. It's only by our good graces that these people would be permitted to stay, but for the Times, nothing short of citizenship is acceptable. Ok, so be it, they'll get nothing at all, nothing but deportation. With friends like the NYT, illegal aliens don't need enemies.

It never ceases to amaze me how often you'll see a statement supporting 'tough enforcement' and then two seconds later decrying 'raids'. What the heck do you think a raid is? That's what's scary about the relentless effort to eliminate raids--when it comes to preventing illegal immigration raids are critical. I think that's where a lot of the bitching about raids comes from--these opponents KNOW they are key. Why do you think the SPLC is out to get Lou Dobbs--they know he is powerful and makes a difference. A combo of Sessions, Robert Rector, and Dobbs derailed last year's Senate bill. Incredibly, nobody was saying a word about cost or the actual numbers of people until Rector's report. But the report wouldn't have had the impact it did without a key guy on the floor (Sessions) and one in the media (Dobbs) to get the word out. My theory is, if you want to know what would positively affect illegal immigration, look at what the government goes out of its way NOT to do! 3 notices to fine in 2004 with no actual fines is a dead giveaway.