The MSM is apparently beginning to fear that that the GOP Presidential contenders are starting to disobey orders and allow immigration issues to appear in the competition. So, in their capacity as Bouncers for Hitler’s Revenge, they have swung into action. On Friday, the Washington Post pronounced anathema on Michelle Bachman for speaking well of immigration regulation before the nation-breaking 1965 Act. And the New York Times snorted Borderline Ridiculous published September 17, 2011.
Asking what is to be done about the illegal immigrant population (and nowhere mentioning President Obama’s Administrative Amnesty Coup D’état) the NYT complains bitterly of the expressed willingness of Romney and Huntsman to build a Border Fence. Perry’s prevarications are not deemed acceptable.
The NYT’s position seems to be that the border is closed and secure already, and that any further effort is a
"...call for billions in new government spending, which was very strange to hear from politicians also determined to slash even the most basic public services any chance they get."
Why the spending should be troublesome in the light of the NYT’s enthusiasm for President Obama’s latest $447 Billion stimulus plans is not obvious. Five years ago Ed Rubenstein pointed out the full fence would cost less than two weeks of Iraq War. What is ridiculous is to claim that a nation which almost two generations built 44,000 miles of Interstate in a handful years lacks the capacity to construct less than 2,000 miles of fencing quickly.
While the comment thread has plenty of the usual postings attracted by this kind of article – reasoned and factual critiques from the Patriot side, emotional and vicious tirades from the Open Borders types, for instance # 125 Casey:
"The NYT doesn't do anyone any favors by failing to point out that the basis of the Republican stance on immigration — and the appeal the issue has for GOP voters — is pure racist hatred and bigotry. There are no facts, no reasons no rationale whatsoever for their hammering this issue except to arouse the bigotry that animates the base of the Republican Party."
there are a striking number - 11 of 165 by my count as I write - by writers identifying themselves as liberals or Democrats deploring the impact of excessive immigration and supporting strong border enforcement:
"Why is the NY Times so utterly tone-deaf on this issue? Judging by the comments section in every article on illegal immigration, even the Times' largely liberal readership is mostly opposed to illegal immigration. Personally, I am a Democrat who has voted for Democrats in every election since 1992. I am liberal as they come on most issues. However, I simply fail to see why we ought to tolerate and then condone, through amnesties, lawbreaking on a mammoth scale…illegal aliens, through their sheer weight of numbers, should not be making these decisions for us."
"I like how liberal professionals have no problem giving away the jobs of their brothers & sisters in the Democratic party as well as the rest of the nation…
The New York Times has it wrong. And I speak from left of the Times. The main difference is that I did actual work for my paycheck. Skilled labor has been hit really hard in California, & the Southwest for over twenty years now. When I was last in the SF bay area nearly every crew was all latino, & every contractor said the same thing; hey I have to compete. So the race to the bottom continues on all levels…
I have plenty of sympathy for working people from other countries but not when they, employers, & clients drive my families ability to live down, down down, until there is nothing left."
"Illegal immigrants have the most negative impact on working poor americans because those are the ones displaced from their jobs at the highest rate by illegals. If you are claiming that you have compassion for illegals you practice an extremely selective form of compassion.
I'm a life long liberal. Big business loves illegal immigrants. The US Chamber of Commerce which is a right wing organization has always been in favor of amnesty to drive down wages."
With such dissent from apparently sincere liberal readers, it seems the most reliable support group the New York Times has is – the Perry/Slave Power wing of the Republican Party