Times Says No

The New York Times's editorial yesterday against the immigration deal struck me as reasonably convincing, but I'm still not totally sure. It occurs to me that in a situation like this, it would actually be better if the paper didn't maintain a sharp divide between its reporting and editorial staffs.

Lots of liberals who are in complete agreement about the immigration issue still disagree about the immigration bill because a lot of the disagreement is really about legislative tactics and alternatives. As Ed Kilgore says most of the impulse to reject this bill is driven by a sense that a better one could be achieved. But is that really true? It seems to me like it should be true, a priori, but I'd have a lot more confidence in the Times' editorial position if it was being informed by the Times's congressional correspondents who might be able to bring some additional information to bear.

Comments

"it would actually be better if the paper didn't maintain a sharp divide between its reporting and editorial staffs."

Replace "sharp" with "illusory" and we're closer to truth.

Posted by Zagnut | May 21, 2007 2:48 PM

It seems to me that if this bill doesn't go through this summer, there will be a marginal chance next summer and after then chaos; it's really very hard to tell. Therefore, at this point, a mediocre bill is better than no bill.

It also seems to me that the biggest sticking point is the guest-worker program. I doubt that it will work, but if it doesn't, in a few years, it will create an impetus for a new reform guided by experience on its failures by both policy elites and public opinion.

In the meanwhile, the most urgent problem, that of the illegals living here now will have been dealt with.

I think that this is what Kennedy sees in this deal and that's the logic behind the compromise in the Democratic side.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | May 21, 2007 2:58 PM

Hard to comment on a specific editorial but I'd agree that there is definitely very little 'flow' from any theoretically existing objective reporters employed by the Times on what's on the editorial page. Or from any other objective source for that matter. Saying there is no flow from the editorial page to the people whose writing appears on the front page of the Times is giggle inducing though.

Posted by j mct | May 21, 2007 3:19 PM

Perhaps Matt could think this line through until he understands what it really means:

The millions without documents live in constant fear: a campaign of federal raids has spread panic and shattered families.

If he needs a hint, check the link.

Posted by The NYT editorial | May 21, 2007 3:25 PM

I am a liberal, and I oppose any path to citizenship for illegals, and I oppose any increases in legal immigration.

Big business is using both legal and illegal immigration to drive down American wages.

Please watch this video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265

I also support massive decreases in legal immigration. Immigration will destroy our environment, infrastructures, and turn theU.S. into endless suburban development.

The biggest backer of immigration is Wal-Mart, which last year gave more money to La Raza than to any other organization.

Legal and illegal immigration are but tools for big business to drive down American wages.

Posted by Liberal Patriot | May 21, 2007 4:09 PM

If he needs a hint, check the link.

Ooh, yet another sneaky blogwhore from Mr 'The Mexicans Are Coming To Kill Us All'!

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 21, 2007 4:17 PM

No bill will simply be the status quo. If you think Amnesty for illegal immigrants is more important than Workers wages (A trade-off that doesn't have to exist, but under this bill, does exist), or the other way around. People who advocate this bill should be more honest about this choice, and about whether or not they have anything to lose in this debate.

Posted by soullite | May 21, 2007 4:44 PM

People who advocate this bill should be more honest about this choice, and about whether or not they have anything to lose in this debate.

That also involves acknowledging, honestly, the difficulties of legislating immigration reform in a climate of permanent electoral politics. I understand the NYT's position, which is that 'no bill' beats a bad bill. But if we get to Labor Day with no bill, the window closes until spring 2009, and immigration festers as an issue through the 2008 election. The Times acknowledges this -- its scorn for 'braying anchors' and 'homegrown zealots' is refreshing -- but the modern Know-Nothings aren't going away, bill or no bill.

Also, I'd argue that 'no bill' doesn't necessarily equal 'the status quo', particularly given the non-legislative regulations that USCIS is set to impose this year: regulations that don't make the headlines because they don't affect citizens, i.e. voters. At very least, Congress needs to address a policy that makes immigrants bear the cost of propping up a dysfunctional bureaucracy.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 21, 2007 5:38 PM

What's to fester?

This bill in no way halts the flow of undocumented workers. Only a real and significant threat of incarceration for an employer will work. Otherwise the next undocumented in line is the new low cost employee.

And there will never be meaningful legislation on this topic until our national healthcare issues are resolved.

Legislation at a minimum will have to ensure that workers are part of the system. That normal fees of doing business such as FICA/SECA, Workman's comp and income tax withholding are collected. That the healthcare and childcare needs of the immigrant workers are accomodated.

Otherwise, the guest worker program will be viewed as a giveaway to business interests that damages the interests of working class Americans, and the amnesty program (by any other name) will be a reward to those who violate the law.

There is nothing in this bill that is a tangible benefit to a working class American. Throw single payer healthcare and FICA/SECA into the deal and you can then make the case that it improves both the near and long term viability of of our social safety net.

But I am not holding my breath.

Posted by Nat | May 21, 2007 6:14 PM

This bill in no way halts the flow of undocumented workers.

Well, it does provide addtional funds for immigration law enforcement, and I think it also stiffens penalties for employers.

More importantly, though, it provides an alternative to becoming an illegal alien: becoming a legal, temporary worker. Will such a move stop illegal immigration entirely? Obviously not. But it should reduce it.

Under current law Latin American economic migrants without American relatives cannot sell their labor in the United States except via the black market. Under this proposal, nearly half a million a year (which is a number that approximately equals our annual illegal influx) will be able to do so, legally. I don't know about you, but faced with the choice between lving in a country legally -- with the protections of the law and the ability to visit home on a regular basis -- and a life of living in the shadows, I'd choose the former.

Again, the guest worker proposal has lots of flaws, but it's a step in the right direction if one is serious about reducing illegal immigration. If what one really wants to do is limit immigration in general, it's not such a great strategy.

Posted by Jasper | May 21, 2007 6:44 PM

Laws and regulations without enforcement are a joke. We have had laws on the books for years and yet we have over 10 million undocumented workers in this country. Every one entered after SLIAG.

What enforcement there is is at the expense of the undocumented worker. There is little or no enforcement at the employer level. There is no political will to make that happen.

A few scattered raids are not effective enforcement no matter how painful it might be to the individual workers detained.

Undocumented workers are the low cost option to American employers. Typically there is no FICA, no workman's comp, no withholding, no health insurance, no vacation. Workplace violations, who is going to complain?

Any guest worker program will either raise an employer's costs or rightfully be viewed as subsidized erosion of the labor rights of our citizenry.

Without enforcement, and I seriously doubt there will be an ounce more under the new proposal, employers will stick with the best deal, the undocumented worker. And if they want work, the undocumented will keep their undocumented status.

It really isn't the undocumented worker's choice, it is the employer's. I cannot envision any solution to the undocumented issue without serious enforcement of employer violations of the law. Violations must be costly to the employer either economically or personally.

Otherwise, we've accomplished zip.

My suggestion regarding single payer health and Social Security was made for a completely different purpose: redistribute some of the societal gains attributed to this situation to the rest of working class America that will be the #1 opponents to this legislation.

Posted by Nat | May 21, 2007 7:43 PM

The bill makes a distinction between illegals who came here before 1/1/2007 and the rest. Did we date stamp them when they snuck across the border?

This provision alone shows what a sham the whole thing is.

Posted by kafka | May 21, 2007 10:25 PM

Immigration bill as it stands: Bad. Guest-worker program: Bad. It's interesting that when Americans are polled, the majority takes a pretty hard line on illegal immigration, punishing employers, etc. (and no, most of it is not due to racism). Oh, but that's not important; it's just the American people. What do they know.

Posted by Warren | May 22, 2007 1:21 AM

tleagqufp samnb eaxsgi jxlhcqk qegcnzlx mbfrql gsbjznwy

Posted by mvzqls xarsjo | June 11, 2007 8:28 PM

jmiecabg rhqs ngbokaj kyez hjrlfvc hpdmaqzr pgklvi http://www.fdiznjqyh.mxefsr.com

Posted by vhakyegx rhojigzc | June 11, 2007 8:29 PM