Brownsville, Tex. Credit Yvette Vela/The Brownsville Herald, via Associated Press. This photo accompanies the NYT piece. As you can see, it was chosen to assist in pushing the “nativist” line – a photo of a woman who looks very angry and threatening.
Now it is true on this blog we pick photos for the same reason. But we are very far from being the New York Times – the most influential news site in the America. I would expect them to be somewhat more, what is that old-fashioned word, impartial? (Note: it is an editorial, not news, piece.)
NYT is showing its extreme leftist agenda again. So having a defended southern border is now “nativist”?
The first thing to know about the lawsuit brought by two dozen states to block President Obama’s executive actions on immigration is that it is a meritless screed wrapped in flimsy legal cloth and deposited on the doorstep of a federal district judge in Brownsville, Tex.
The second thing to know is that the judge, Andrew Hanen, may well look kindly on the suit. He made news in 2013 with a politically charged ruling accusing the Obama administration of criminally conspiring with Mexican drug cartels to smuggle children over the border (he really said that), which is surely why the plaintiffs like their chances.
The judge held the first hearing in the case on Thursday and could rule as early as next month. If he blocks Mr. Obama’s actions — which seek to protect millions of immigrants from deportation and to grant them permission to work — this would complicate things for the administration, which is planning to start signing people up for the programs in February.
But there is a third thing to know: Sound legal scholars are not too worried that Judge Hanen alone will be able to kill the administration’s programs and force the White House to abandon other reforms of enforcement policies. Even if the judge buys the plaintiffs’ bogus line, the government still seems likely to win on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court. The states’ standing to sue is dubious; their claims of damage are speculative at best.
There is no evidence that executive action will do anything to increase illegal immigration, and there is clear data showing that giving work permits to immigrants who are already here helps, not hurts, state economies.
Here we go again. Immigration helps some companies’ bottom lines. We already know this. But at what at long term cost?
Granted, the (largely) Latinos are not Muslims.
So the damage will not be of the same type as when Europe brought in millions of Muslim “guest workers” after WW II for the reason of guess what? It was said it would help the economy! And no doubt it did help a few owners of dying mills bring in an extra few bucks (the mills closed anyway).
But it now crystal clear that as a long strategy, it was total disaster.
The US has a different problem to worry about: what will the impact of all these new unskilled workers on the American black community? At a time when low-skill jobs are already being replaced by computers and robots, the last thing American blacks needs is even higher unemployment.