NYT: mainstream immigration positions are "fringe"

Posted Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 11:13 am

The New York Times offers the editorial "The Amnesty Sideshow", which, as you might guess from the source, is wrong.

...on the volatile topic of immigration, Republicans are lurching, falling over themselves to convince voters that where they stand is not where they stood... While [the "fate" of a "bipartisan immigration bill"] is being decided in difficult closed-door negotiations in the Capitol, they and other G.O.P. hopefuls are on the stump, tying themselves in knots over "amnesty" and dancing farther out to the fringes of public opinion... Mr. McCain and his adversaries may believe that primary politics demands such behavior, but surveys of the larger populace tell a different story. Americans want the immigration issue solved, and they strongly favor "amnesty," whether you call it that or not. An array of recent polls show powerful support for an earned path to citizenship...

Obviously, the NYT thinks biased polls are more accurate than the realization being forced on McCain, Brownback, Giuliani, Romney, and the rest that "amnesty" - whether called a "banana" or not - is fundamentally unpopular out on the stump.

Comments

Fred Dawes (not verified)

Tue, 05/01/2007 - 05:23

its not really a sideshow its part of the plan to remove us from the face of the earth and the rats who are running thing may just do that without anyone doing a thing, most Americans will just stand around and watch.

amanda (not verified)

Wed, 05/02/2007 - 00:00

'Once you hear him talking about helping immigrants who pay fines and back taxes, stay out of trouble, learn English and wait in the back of the visa line...' This NYT piece talks about fakery--how about the fakery of earned citizenship/green card/visa (it's hard to tell which most of the time)? When they talk about hurdles, I'm guessing most of the poll participants who supposedly favor this concept assume there must be some penalty if a hurdle is missed. It's just logical--why bother with creating a hoop to jump through if it doesn't make any difference if you make it through the hoop or not? Somehow the consequence part always seems to be left out of the poll question. Why should we be suspicous? Oh, just the little matter of these supporters of earned 'non-amnesty' all being against deportation or any form of enforcement. They need to answer, specifically, what happens to illegal aliens who DON'T clear the hurdles. If they can't reconcile missed hurdles with a real consequence, their plans will be exposed to all as a sham. If they talk tough, the question asker needs to follow up with examples of their open border rhetoric and ask, in light of your prior statements, why we should take you at your word on this incompatible position?