The part Mexican-owned New York Times offers the editorial "Listening to Ms. Gillibrand" (link). They're wrong as usual, and they're even more unhinged than usual too. Red-faced with anger at country mouse Kirsten Gillibrand's Upstate ways, they lose it right about here:
Ms. Gillibrand's House votes on immigration amounted to a repudiation of New York's special gift to America. She allied herself solidly with expulsionist Republicans, who reject assimilation in favor of locking down the border, deporting 12 million illegal immigrants and enshrining English as America's one true tongue. She has favored enforcement rigidity over common sense; she was one of the first to denounce former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's well-meaning effort to make sure illegal immigrants drive with licenses and insurance.
They probably wouldn't be touting NYC's "special gift" if they were located on the Mexican border. Instead, NYC is a port city which was an entryway for a large number of the legal immigrants who helped build the U.S. The current situation is markedly different from what it was when NYC delivered their "special gift". Any New Yorker should be offended that the NYT would try to pretend that the current situation - massive illegal activity and massive corruption designed to support crooked businesses and governments - is comparable to that "special gift".
Further, whatever Gillibrand's position on deportations, no national GOP leaders support mass deportations as the NYT implies. They support attrition, a plan that the NYT has acknowledged as a possibility, except in cases like this when it suits their strawman argument. They even acknowledge it below, despite implying a much more severe plan above.
Ms. Gillibrand has not shown that she understands the ineffectiveness and moral bankruptcy of enforcement-only schemes. To take one example: The SAVE Act, which she co-sponsored, was all about border fencing and requiring everyone in America to prove legal status before being allowed to work. Nothing in it required or allowed immigrants to come forward and legalize. It was meant to seem tough, but was actually a weak reassertion of the status quo, in which undocumented immigrants are denied hope of legal status while the government tries to make them so miserable that they go home. That is a recipe for creating and exploiting a cheap, docile underclass.
It's the NYT that's promoted that underclass, by constantly supporting illegal activity. Just a month ago, another editorial wanted to underwrite keeping illegal aliens in the U.S. rather than encouraging them to return home.
As for "moral bankruptcy", the NYT is engaging in false compassion. They support propping up the corrupt Mexican government through advocating for remittances; they support allowing that government to send us those people who might otherwise remain in Mexico to push for reforms; they support allowing illegal aliens to take college educations away from U.S. citizens; and, what they support will encourage more people to cross the desert with some dying along the way.
Sat, 01/31/2009 - 15:14 · Importance: 14