New York Times goes nuts over immigration
That rag provides "Border Illusions":
President Bush's speech from the Oval Office last night was not a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform. It was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate.
Because, we know that anyone who supports the sovereignty of this nation is simply driven by fear.
Rather than standing up for truth, Mr. Bush swiveled last night in the direction of those who see immigration, with delusional clarity, as entirely a problem of barricades and bad guys.
Obviously, they're trying to confuse their readers about legal immigration vs the illegal variety.
His plan to deploy "up to 6,000" National Guard troops to free the Border Patrol to hunt illegal immigrants is a model of stark simplicity, one sure to hearten the Minuteman vigilantes, frightened conspiracy theorists, English-only Latinophobes, right-wing radio and TV personalities, and members of Congress who have no patience for sorting out the various and mixed blessings that surging immigration has given this country...
Thankfully, there are papers like the NYT that can see clearly about this issue, unlike those scared, fear-stricken people who want to enforce our laws. Note also the use the loaded term "hunt" to describe the lawful actions of the Border Patrol. The Mexican government uses similar terms to the ones used by the NYT.
And, while "surging immigration" has certainly given many people benefits, it's largely accrued to those who employ them. For instance, as greenskeepers.
He denounced "amnesty" again, but did not speak up forcefully enough for a citizenship path for the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants who, in huge national marches in recent weeks, have made their hunger to assimilate powerfully clear.
Bush supports amnesty. The NYT is apparently unwilling to admit that Bush is on their side. And, of course, waving the flag of Mexico, shouting racial slogans, and proclaiming this as your "homeland" is a great way to show that you have a deep hunger to assimilate.
It does not ennoble our democratic experiment by importing a second-class society of worker bees who are vulnerable to exploitation and have little incentive to adopt our values.
In article after article and editorial after editorial the New York Times has supported illegal immigration. And, the bill they support would encourage millions more illegal aliens to come here. Either they can't think things through, or they fully support a "second-class society of worker bees".
If there must be guest workers, there must also be a path so they, too, can seek citizenship if they choose.
Lewis Carroll would be proud of that sentence. If they can stay here, then they aren't "guests", right?
It is still possible that a good bill will emerge this year, but only if Democrats and moderate Republicans hold firm to protect the fragile flame of good sense against the deter-and-deport crowd.
What exactly is the NYT's issue with "deter-and-deport"? Aren't those necessary functions of a sovereign nation? And, won't those be required even if the NYT's dream legislation passes?
In fact, earlier in the piece they claim that Kennedy-McCain would "tighten the enforcement of immigration laws in the workplace". Isn't that used as a form of deterrence? And, what happens to those illegal aliens who are detained in workplace sweeps?
Exactly how serious is the NYT about the "reform" it supports? If they mock the enforcement of our current laws, what makes anyone think they won't do the same thing about those who want to enforce their dream laws?