Union Got To Be Kidding Me
Take its current editorial, Getting Immigration Right -- please. With jobs at a premium and the collapse of the Big Three automakers attributable in no small part to the role of the unions, the Times naturally comes out in favor of:
- making it easier for illegals to get into the country to compete for what jobs are left, and
- granting the right of illegals once here to . . . unionize.
[H]omeland security secretary Janet Napolitano of Arizona and commerce secretary Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who understand the border region and share a well-informed disdain for foolish, inadequate enforcement schemes like the Bush administration’s border fence.That's funny. I don't seem to remember Pres.-elect Obama praising the pair's disdain for border fences at their announcement ceremonies. Maybe some Republican senators will get into this during their confirmation hearings.
[The Bush administration's] campaign of raids, detentions and border fencing was a moral failure. Among other things, it terrorized and broke apart families and led to some gruesome deaths in shoddy prisons. It mocked the American tradition of welcoming and assimilating immigrant workers.We don't want people to die gruesome deaths in shoddy prisons. But the Times must be joking if it looks at the Bush years as ones of tough immigration enforcement. As for the American tradition of welcoming immigrants, yes, by all means: in respect of legal immigrants. Does the Times editorial board plan to spend spring break on the border, welcoming illegals as they slip into our country?
And finally, as promised in the teaser, the Times bemoans the fact that "illegal immigrant workers are deterred from forming unions. And without a path to legalization and under the threat of a relentless enforcement-only regime, they cannot assert their rights."
Let's review. Under the NYT's immigration plan:
- border fences would be discarded.
- illegals would be welcomed.
- once in, they would be accorded worker rights including that of forming unions.