Sure, its revenues might be plunging along with its share price, but the New York Times is still good for something. In these somber days of winter, the Gray Lady, her name notwithstanding, can still inject the sunshine of humor—albeit of the unintentional variety.
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.
The teaser on the Op-ed web page drew me in: "In a time of economic crisis, it is especially vital to uphold workers’ rights, even for those here illegally." The body of the editorial didn't disappoint on the promise of more liberal looniness. Annotated excerpts [emphasis added]:
[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.
Could someone please explain how this is anything but an open-borders policy and an abandonment of national sovereignty? The Times' bleeding-heart liberalism could be cause for some much-needed mirth, but for the fact that the editorial goes out of its way to praise Obama's pick for Labor Secretary, Hilda Solis, as a "staunch defender of [illegal] immigrants" and someone who "promises a clean break" from Bush immigration policies. Cheers!
