The WSJ has a typical Open Borders editorial on Andrew Puzder’s failure to survive vetting:
Mr. Puzder was also targeted by some on the right because he supported more legal immigration to meet the needs of a growing U.S. economy, which is a mortal sin on the restrictionist right. Mr. Puzder had once employed a housekeeper he didn’t know was undocumented, and though he fired her and paid back taxes, restrictionists wanted to punish him for supporting immigration reform. Heaven forfend he’d help farmers address their severe labor shortage. Did White House aides Stephen Bannon or Stephen Miller give the word to Breitbart and other Trumpian news outlets that they could unload on Mr. Puzder?They didn't "unload" on Puzder. They supported him. However, WSJ subscribers are unloading on the WSJ editorial board:
JOSH MCMINDES 1 hour agoSee previous letters from the same reader.
What a horribly thought out and written article, starting with the sub-headline "Immigration foes and unions take down Labor nominee Andy Puzder".
Immigration foes? Try "illegal immigration foes".
This is just another reason not to trust the WSJ anymore. They seem incapable of telling the truth.
Thornton Sanders 2 hours ago
This editorial is peevish and stupid. Pudzer employed an illegal immigrant and did not withhold taxes or file Form 1099. When these violations of law became known during vetting, he fired the employee (!) and paid the taxes. These are not "false charges." There have been many examples of nominees withdrawing because they violated U.S. labor and tax laws. Pudzer is unique only because he was to become Secretary of Labor. The insinuations about Bannon and Miller, immigration policy, and Trump's alleged unpopularity in Congress are red herrings. Pudzer himself is responsible and has been held accountable.