Duplicitous NY Times Suddenly Enthused By States Rights On Illegal Aliens

Duplicitous NY Times Suddenly Enthused By States Rights On Illegal Aliens


The Editorial Board of the NY Times really, really likes the notion of States and cities leading the resistance to something that hasn’t even happened in attempting to protect people who are….unlawfully present in the United States, people who decrease wages, take jobs from Americans, gum up the works at hospitals and cause emergency rooms to close, choke up the criminal justice system and prisons, commit identity fraud, kill and rape citizens, and so much more

California Looks To Lead The Trump Resistance

Nobody knows yet what Donald Trump is going to do to immigration enforcement. Only a month has passed since the election, and the president-elect is no different from the candidate: erratic, self-contradictory, hazy on principles and policies.

But states and cities that value immigrants, including the undocumented, do not have the luxury of waiting and hoping for the best. They are girding for a confrontation, building defenses to protect families and workers from the next administration.

That’s a nice bit of mental jujitsu, equating legal immigrants with illegals, proposing that Trump will go after the legals, which he has never discussed. Here’s where it gets cute, because they probably read their own previous work

Nothing in the [bills protecting illegals offered in California] would obstruct the federal government. This is not a nullification of federal laws or a rebellion against the Constitution. It’s upholding the Fourth Amendment, preventing unreasonable search and seizure, so mothers and fathers can go to work and children go to school without fear of losing one another. It’s upholding the First Amendment, so day laborers can solicit work on a sidewalk. It’s allowing the local police to keep the trust and cooperation of crime victims and witnesses, who will not fear every encounter as a prelude to deportation. (snip)

But the opposite is true: By drawing a bright line between federal immigration enforcement and local policing, the California Values Act would promote smarter, more effective law enforcement. Local officers would continue to keep the peace, and in the face of criminal threats — as validated by a warrant from a judge — would cooperate with federal agents. But if the Trump administration begins roundups of those who pose no danger, of minor offenders and noncriminals, staking out schools, churches, businesses and homes — they will not do its job for it.

Let’s jump back in time to 2010, to another NY Times editorial board piece

The Constitution Trumps Arizona

The Obama administration has not always been completely clear about its immigration agenda, but it was forthright Tuesday when it challenged the pernicious Arizona law that allows the police to question the immigration status of people they detain for local violations. Only the federal government can set or enforce immigration policy, the government said in its lawsuit against the state, and “Arizona has crossed this constitutional line.”

There is nothing terribly complicated about this principle, which is based on several aspects of the Constitution, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions over the years. A patchwork of state and local immigration policies would cause havoc.

Well, the NYTEB seemed pretty clear in their notion about immigration policy, did it not? But, now that the law might actually be enforced by the Trump administration, the same NYTEB is enthused by this State’s Rights thing. They’ve done a bit of parsing in order to find a way for states and cities to blow off federal law, citing the 4th, forgetting that the law allows people to be arrested for being an illegal alien, and the 1st applies if the person is lawfully present in the U.S. or a citizen.

There’s always an excuse of duplicitous actions and thought in Liberal World.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

Share this!

Enjoy reading? Share it with your friends!