Andrew Rosenthal - editorial page editor of the New York Times - continues his slow-motion melt-down in "Obama Flinches on Immigration" (link). He keys off the selection of Thomas Perez rather than Thomas Saenz in an attempt to get Barack Obama to support comprehensive immigration reform. Here's the background on the Perez/Saenz issue.

Rosenthal first highlights some of Saenz' accomplishments - such as helping fight Proposition 187 and fighting to help day laborers. What he doesn't reveal about Prop 187 is that it was declared unconstitutional, appealed, and then sent to mediation. Through the connivance of corrupt politicians - with the input of the Mexican government - the will of the voters was ignored as the mediation was dropped. Then:

An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily slimed Mr. Saenz by calling him "an open-borders extremist" and said Maldef wanted to give California back to Mexico... None of it was true, but it was apparently too much for the White House.

Whether Saenz supports actual open borders or not, his actions and similar actions from others have enabled massive illegal immigration. And, MALDEF isn't as extreme as other groups and they aren't full-on reconquistas. But, that isn't saying much. For instance, here's a quote from their co-founder Mario Obledo:

"California is going to be a Hispanic state and anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Note also that Rosenthal is probably wrong about the reason Saenz was de-selected; apparently it was an inside the Beltway issue as described at the Perez/Saenz link above.

Then, Rosenthal lies about his opponents and (of course) supports massive illegal activity:

But if [Obama] is ever going to win the battle to put 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship, he will to have to confront and dismantle the core restrictionist argument: that being an illegal immigrant is an unpardonable crime, one that strips away fundamental protections and forgives all manner of indecent treatment... The Constitution's bedrock protections do not apply to just the native-born. The suffering that illegal immigrants endure - from raids to workplace exploitation to mistreatment in detention - is a civil-rights crisis.

No national leader wants to subject illegal aliens to "indecent treatment". Sentiments like that can certainly be found, but not coming from anyone in a position of power. Lawful actions aren't "indecent treatment" simply because they go against the NYT's agenda. The "core restrictionist argument" is that illegal aliens should return home, mostly through attrition. The NYT certainly can't be suggesting that Obama would continue to lie about his opponents' positions, right?

As for the "suffering" illegal aliens "endure" from immigration raids, it's the same suffering that others who break out laws endure. If someone were printing knock-off copies of the New York Times, I don't think Rosenthal would be too concerned about their "suffering" if their printing plant were raid. The way for illegal aliens to avoid that "suffering" is to simply return home. No one except corrupt employers wants "workplace exploitation", and the solution is the same. It's those like the NYT who constantly seek to disincentivize raids that allow that exploitation to continue. The "mistreatment in detention" may be a legitimate issue in some isolated cases; perhaps the NYT should simply concentrate on that instead of using it as a smokescreen for their constant support for illegal activity.