Flying Pink Unicorns

I've been meaning to post this for a while.

In December, the Times editorial board wrote the following ridiculous piece about illegal immigration. Its a month old, but nothing has changed, so this is still perfectly timely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18tue1.html?ref=opinion

Gee, where do I start. In the context of a new employer sanctions law, the NYT states, "We have always said that workplace laws should be enforced vigorously." Well that's a position, and not even an indefensible one. Later and throughout the piece, however, the NYT rightly points out the human and economic toll such a position takes. The REAL harm it does. The NYT sounds a lot like Bob Herbert-- whining about a problem, and balking at its own solution-- just to whine like a college freshman. Not appealing.

Sure sure, they said, "we support employer sanctions in the context of overall reform." Fine. But absent comprehensive reform, which will pass over the GOP's cold dead political corpse, does the NYT support really sanctioning employers that hire illegals or not? Should a contractor who hires undocumented Hector run a small risk of a nuisance fine and hassle, or is that contractor a REAL criminal who should, as the Arizona law referenced in the NYT piece requires, have its license REVOKED for a second offense? Should my bosses at the law firm I'm working with be disbarred for hiring an illegal absent comprehensive reform? Answers please. Well, the NYT won't answer, b/c it does not support sanctions anything like those I mention above, and is afraid to admit it. They only support employer sanctions in the context, I imagine, of a sensibly large # of LEGAL Mexican immigrants, which would make sanctions unnecessary, as there'd be plenty of LEGAL immigrants to do the work. Seems hypocritical.