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?


listen up guys, that was always the plan, you see the basic plan in front of you to kill this nation once and for all, so start calling it what it is, the former USA, SAD FACT, Watch AZtlan start soon, when hillary is the power in the dead city of washington, you will all become the enemies of the ruling class soon, and we all know what happens to the enemy of evil doers don't we?

"Is George Bush Over?" Illustrated, graphically. (Guidance suggested for minors.)

I grew up in Mexico and many times I felt that hopelessnes and anger in the pit of my stomach: where the few ruled and where exempt from the law, the people were robbed and victimized and the Newspapers supported the corruption, I am starting to feel it again every time Bush, Kennedy, Clinton and Reid (I'm from Nevada) speak their lies. Please American People si se puede, si se puede! send all ILLEGAL immigrants back, I don't want to live in another Mexico.

There was not much said about eliminating the magnets that draw illegal aliens here, such as jobs, Medicaid, welfare, education, blue passports for family of anchor babies, Medicare, Social Security, ability to vote, tax free jobs, immunity to our laws, healthcare, emergency care, etc., etc., etc.

Not much was said about this because politicians want votes and cheap labor. They will never be serious about eliminating the magnets.

The Guest Worker program (a.k.a. Amnesty Program) is a bad idea. That is essentially allowing 12+ million to stay, and they will immediately (as in 1986) invite their 20 closest relatives, and you will see the problem quadruple again.

The U.S. citizens are being sold out.
The net losses of over $70 billion per year is going to grow to $300 billion, and all of the entitlement systems will be so over-burdened, they will essentially become useless. A CIS study predicts the net losses to triple.

84 closed/closing hospitals in California alone is a perfect example of abused systems.

32% (3.8 million) of 12+ million illegal aliens receive welfare.

29% (680,000) of all 2.2 million incarcerated are illegal aliens.

Every year in one city (Laredo, Texas), 2000 illegal aliens run across the border just in time to give birth to anchor babies receiving automatic U.S. citizenship, allowing the parents and family to get blue passports.

Doubled crime rates is also a typical result of massive, uncontrolled, illegal immigration. What is the cost of that?

The fence/road ( is a good idea, but it is only one part of the needed solution.

The U.S. voters are like carpet.
They are getting walked all over by everyone.
But, perhaps that is as it should be, since they allow it, keep re-electing the very same politicians, and don't even have the motivaton to use the one simple, peaceful, responsible thing right there under their very noses to remedy the problem. Most U.S. citizens want borders secured and reject amnesty. But, that won't happen unless voters start voting out all irresponsible incumbents, always, as they were supposed to be doing all along.

It seems pretty much like a classic straw man approach -- objections to Bush's idea of "immigration reform" are oversimplified and then (mis-)characterized as coming from the "fear-stricken fringe".

The good points here about a supposed "hunger to assimilate" should also be noted. The Times seems to want to have its cake and eat it too: on the one hand it pumps diversity and multiculturalism, on the other it says "immigrants" have a "hunger to assimilate".

And what to make of the "deter and deport" rhetoric? Couldn't the existence of immigration laws be said to offer a deterrent? Maybe they've drifted out toward the 'libertarian fringe'.


I'm speechless.

I stopped subscribing to the Old Gray Lady last year.

Evidently, they can now claim to be the Old, Gray, Incredibly Senile, Lady.

Seriously, are you sure you didn't pinch this from Scrappleface or something?


-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)

Since when has the NYT ever made sense even to an idiot. They are losing readers by the millions and they stick up for a bunch of criminals that can't speak english much less read a rag like the times. Does anyone believe anything they read in the NYT? I don't know one single person that will admit to believing anything from the times, the AP of any of the other lying anti-american outlets. I will cheer when they all go bust.