'Laws must be enforced, but doing it this way...' If you make a statement like that, you have to offer 'your way' or you are a complete joke. They never offer 'their way' because their is none when it comes to effective immigration law enforcement.

'While it acknowledges that illegal immigrants need to get right with the law, it treats illegal status as a civil matter to be resolved by the machinery of naturalization...' What machinery? Unless you are an asylum applicant, if you are illegally present, there is no way to 'get right with the law' other than if an amnesty is passed. To the Times, all the run of the mill, subject to deportation illegal aliens are really 'Americans in waiting'. And it IS a crime to enter the U.S. without authorization so their distinction between civil and criminal is false.

'President Obama has repeatedly assured 12 million illegal immigrants that he will fight to give them the chance to earn the right to stay.' So he answers to non-citizens. Shouldn't he be concerned solely with how an amnesty affects Americans?

"So he answers to non-citizens. Shouldn't he be concerned solely with how an amnesty affects Americans?" exactly! The most important unasked question! The statement above also goes for all senators; house reps; governors and mayors. anything less is treason pure and simple

'the sharp distinction it draws between criminal aliens and Americans-in-waiting' = the law makes no such distinction which means we support a corrupt ignoring of not just any law, but that which limits and controls the population in the form of a state. If everyone in the world who can get their person here and refuses to leave is an 'American-in-waiting' deserving of all the rights of citizens and we need to amnesty them ASAP, what is citizenship worth? Is everyone who wants to come to the U.S. but not managed to get here an 'American-in-waiting' too? If so, should we go pick them all up by the millions and bring them here? 'Laws must be enforced' Which is it? That doesn't jibe with your explicit condoning of illegal presence. Also, does the NYT support the deportation of those who do not comply witht the terms of 'earned legalization'? I doubt it. One day after the cut-off for amnesty, there will be new illegal aliens. Will the NYT support deportation of them? Doubt it. Thus, if it is just an endless cycle of condoning illegal presence, how can they say '[immigration] laws must be enforced'? 1986 was supposed to be a one time event. Being for rolling, perma-amnesty is essentially total condonation of illegal presence and complete opposition to limited immigration law. Of course, they'll never admit the implications of their position: we believe the U.S. has no right to determine who resides within its borders and thus we deny its right to basically be a country which decides who are its citizens. National citizenship is irrelevant if you make no real distinctions between them and non-citizens and we have to take as citizens anyone who shows up and demands it. That's obviously radical but those who believe in it like to label as extremists those who favor the inherently conservative concept of rule of law.

all for the show.

"Shouldn't he be concerned solely with how an amnesty affects Americans?" Well, yes, but you have to understand that Obama is used to having things handed to him on a silver platter. He isn't used to opposition. Just wait until he floats his amnesty and get hit with a backlash to end all backlashes. Remember, GWB proposed his amnesties when unemplyment was about 5%. U-6 unemployment, which measures under employment as well, is near 20%.

WheretheresSmoke that is why obama will do all he can to get 100 million here we may have 30 million third world people now inside the USA but after a deal being made right now obama can get what he wants. Want obama wants 80 percent poor and a hispanic and black yellow political race parties with whites inside camps and prisons or in mass graves.