New York Times supports illegal activity, identity theft

COVID-19 Response

Like everyone else, we urge you to wash your hands and engage in social distancing.

Unlike everyone else, we urge you to also help with this smart plan to get more tests, ventilators, and PPE. Everyone can do that plan right now, at home, in just 15 minutes.

If enough people help with the plan we can save lives. Take time out now and help get more desperately-needed supplies.

The New York Times editorial board continues to hit new lows, this time offering "The Shame of Postville, Iowa" (nytimes . com/2008/07/13/opinion/13sun2.html) about the May immigration raid at Agriprocessors meat packing plant in that town.

Under the old way of doing things, the workers, nearly all Guatemalans, would have been simply and swiftly deported. But in a twist of Dickensian cruelty, more than 260 were charged as serious criminals for using false Social Security numbers or residency papers, and most were sentenced to five months in prison... No one is denying that the workers were on the wrong side of the law. But there is a profound difference between stealing people's identities to rob them of money and property, and using false papers to merely get a job. It is a distinction that the Bush administration, goaded by immigration extremists, has willfully ignored. Deporting unauthorized workers is one thing; sending desperate breadwinners to prison, and their families deeper into poverty, is another.

One wonders exactly what sort of sentence an American citizen would get for the same crime, and the NYT would probably support that citizen being prosecuted instead of making lame excuses. And, one wonders whether the NYT has any sympathy for those U.S. citizens and legal immigrants whose lives were affected by their identities being stolen. While the law occasionally makes distinctions, the New York Times thinks those who engage in identity theft should just be let free, just as long as they're foreign citizens.

The NYT also links to a PDF essay by Erik Camayd-Freixas, a professor of Spanish at Florida International University who's also a federal interpreter and worked in that capacity in Postville. I only scanned the first part, and nothing I saw in that part was anything but an extremely biased screed that, among other things, referred to the ad hoc detention center as a "concentration camp".

And, his and the NYT's prescription is horribly wrong: the U.S. can't serve as a safety valve for every failed country in the world. Those countries' people have to take charge of their own fates. The standard leftwing response is to lay all the blame on the U.S. and justify illegal immigration that way. In other words, the left's policy prescription is to make things worse for all concerned and not really solve the problem.


Is that the same plant where the illegal workers had set up their own meth lab on the premises?

'the left's policy prescription is to make things worse for all concerned and not really solve the problem.' Indeed. The Times bemoans 'Dickensian cruelty' which is ironic considering that looking the other way at illegal employment is what is bringing back depolorable working conditions, child labor, etc. which are reminiscent of what took place in Dickens' time. In other words, the Times' policy position perpetuates what they supposedly are against.

'would have been simply and swiftly deported' Uh, yeah, but you're on record against that too. It's like those people who say 'What about the employers?' who when the employers are gone after will be against that too. People who are against various forms of law enforcement should say what exactly, if anything, they are FOR in terms of enforcement, not just against, and let their readers contemplate how that would play out. Papers like the Times have article after article where it's implied that one form or another of enforcement is unacceptable and they always weasel out of the implications of NOT doing such enforcement. The most obvious, of course, being if everybody in the world who would prefer living in the U.S. were simply allowed to come. That's essentially the policy they promote but never a word about what that might look like in reality. It's dishonest.

'But there is a profound difference between stealing peopleÂ’s identities to rob them of money and property, and using false papers to merely get a job.' Uh, robbing them of money and property are separate and additional crimes. Identity theft, for whatever the purpose, causes the victim an inordinate amount of trouble. Hence the penalty for that act alone is the same regardless of the motivation. Perfectly logical to anyone but the NYT. 'It is a distinction that the Bush administration, goaded by immigration extremists, has willfully ignored.' People who merely want law enforced are 'extremists'. There, they said it. So what exactly are people who want law ignored? They're the extremists. The law calls for limited and controlled immigration. If you're for that, you're an extremist? We have a long tradition of limited immigration. That's the norm. They want a very different policy and are openly disdainful of long established law but they're not radicals, YOU are! Abandoning enforcement taken to its logical end results in UNlimited immigration, by definition, the extreme end of the policy spectrum. Yet they seem oblivious that it's they who are extremist.

An employee roster of the NY/Slimes would appear to be a prime target (no presocution for cimes against) for identy thieves since they wouldn't report the thief, or would they? Come on criminals, start at the top (probably a good credit reference) and work your way down to the janitor.