The dozens of immigration-related articles from the Los Angeles Times covered here over the years have made that clear, but the editorial "Too tough on illegal immigration" makes it explicit (link). After various wrong-headed statements - including comparing an illegal aliens suing over the constitutionality of a state law to Dred Scott - they end with this:
That illegal immigrants living in the United States place an economic burden on schools, hospitals, prisons and other public services is undeniable, but it's also true that they contribute to our economy and our society in myriad ways. Bullying them into leaving is counterproductive and downright mean. It's also shortsighted. Many immigrant families are blended, made up of legal immigrants, illegal ones and U.S.-born citizens. Harsh laws and deportations may satisfy the popular hunger for instantaneous immigration reform, but the result will be a legacy of anguish and resentment among millions of people who aren't going anywhere.
Now, let's imagine that the "reform" they support passes. One of that "reform"'s selling points is that it would include beefed-up enforcement. In fact, it wouldn't be hard to find several LAT articles and editorials mentioning that. And, it should be clear that illegal immigration isn't going to stop after "reform". In fact, that amnesty would send a loud message to millions of prospective illegal aliens, and they'd respond by trying to come here.
Does anyone think the LAT is going to suddenly do a complete 180 and support deportations of new illegal aliens? Aren't they simply going to copy-and-paste a new editorial opposing deportations of new illegal aliens.
Thus, there's a conflict between what they say in this editorial and the "reform" they support. The Los Angeles Times is clearly trying to sell a bill of goods, and has no intention of supporting the enforcement that they "reform" they support mandates.
Immigration2008a · Thu, 02/21/2008 - 12:58 · Importance: 1