Big and Bold on Immigration

Editorial Board, New York Times, November 14, 2014

President Obama is apparently ready to go big, as he promised, to fix immigration on his own–to use his law-enforcement discretion to spare perhaps five million unauthorized immigrants from deportation. Aides speaking anonymously have told The Times that Mr. Obama is considering some options for executive action that would give parents of children who are citizens or legal residents, as well as people who were brought here illegally as children, temporary legal status and permission to work.

Details are lacking, and praise for presidential action will have to wait until it becomes clear whether the often-too-cautious Mr. Obama goes through with it, and how comprehensive his order is–whether it includes those who have been living here five years, for example, or 10 years and what other hurdles applicants may have to meet to qualify.

Our view on executive action is: the sooner the better, and the bigger the better, because so many have been waiting so long for the unjust immigration system to be repaired, while vast resources have been wasted on deporting needed workers and breaking up families instead of pursuing violent criminals and other security threats.

{snip}

{snip} His [Obama’s] adversaries won’t admit it, but they could have–and still could–banish talk of executive action by dusting off a bill, S.744, that has passed the Senate and contains all they have been demanding, starting with a surge of border enforcement.

The president cannot rewrite immigration law. But he does control the enforcement apparatus; no Republicans have complained about his using executive authority to deport more people more quickly than all his predecessors. Using his discretion to focus on deporting violent criminals, terrorists and other threats is not lawlessness. It is his job.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Reverend Bacon

    “no Republicans have complained about his using executive authority to deport more people more quickly than all his predecessors” He’s admitted that is a lie, and that they just changed the way deportations are counted. Anyone turned away at the border is now (but not previously) considered a deportee. And the Republicans, for all their numerous and annoying faults, have complained. Just not loud enough.

    • LindaWilliams

      Reverend Bacon til I looked at the draft four $8048, I did not believe that…my… father in law actualey bringing home money part time at there computar.. there dads buddy has been doing this for only 14 months and just now cleard the morgage on their villa and purchased themselves a Saab 99 Turbo. this is where I went,…C&#97&#x73&#104&#83t&#111&#x72&#101d&#46&#x43&#111&#77

  • What, no admission of the NYT’s own conflict of interest here? More crickets? Will someone ever say the naked emperor name of Carlos Slim?

    S.744, that has passed the Senate and contains all they have been demanding, starting with a surge of border enforcement.

    What that means is they would have hired more border patrol agents and given raises to the existing ones. Never mind the fact that the USBP has just been mostly disarmed (literally) in the last week or so. And never mind the fact that a big border patrol is redundant when the same legislation also guts what little is left of immigration law; it was, however, a political ploy to buy off the USBP Agents’ Union and to scam conservatives, thankfully it didn’t work at least in that context.

    But he does control the enforcement apparatus; no Republicans have complained about his using executive authority to deport more people more quickly than all his predecessors.

    That lie has been so thoroughly debunked that not even John Engelman believes it anymore.

  • JackKrak

    Why does no one ever point out that simply legalizing millions of people – and let’s forget for the moment who these people are – is not “fixing” a “broken” system.

    No one suggests we can lower murder rates by redefining murder – ok, maybe in Baltimore and Detroit they do – but that’s essentially what’s going on here.

    Normal person – “There are millions of people in the country illegally”
    Liberal – “It’s because the immigration system is broken”
    Normal person – “Uh, actually, no – it’s just that they simply entered the country without -”
    Liberal – “Let’s ‘fix’ it by making them legal”

    • Good point and, unfortunately, so very true.

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      True, illegals never engaged our immigration system to begin with, so whether its broken don’t enter into it.

  • And we all knew this was coming. The same sort of “we’zz takin’ over crackah” mentality starting on November 4, 2008 from one problematic minority lumpenproletariat has now become “we’rr taking over gringo” from another.

    • When will the Revolution take place to oppose this? . . . *crickets*

      • But it won’t be televised.

        • KevinPhillipsBong

          Or outsourced.

      • mike j

        Um, when there’s no more cold beer and Monday Night Football?

    • AndrewInterrupted

      And it came with this infamous pic attached.
      .

  • R.G.

    “Our view on executive action is: the sooner the better, and the bigger the better” – thanks for making that abundantly clear. I now know for certain that your editorial board is insane.

  • me

    The New York Slimes is at it again….I’ll bet they’d like to see Obongola voted in emperor for life–that’s how crazy these liberals are.

    • NoMosqueHere

      The NY Times is an enemy of America and humanity. Hopefully, it will go out of business and disappear.

  • MekongDelta69

    The New York Slimes backs executive amnesty.”

    Nooooo – Really?!?!

  • Muh Fugger

    How cluelessly liberal of the NY Times.

    • LexiconD1

      Same idiots must run the Los Angeles Times.

    • JohnEngelman

      Immigration is a major reason for the growing income gap liberals complain about. Liberals do not understand that immigration conflicts with nearly every one of their other goals.

      • Ike Eichenberg

        Without third world peasants the left has little chance of going much further toward socialism anytime soon.
        Democrats have only taken a majority of the white vote one time since 1952 with LBJ. And knowing what I do about LBJ, he might have only won the deceased white vote.

        Besides the goal of those who currently run the democrat party is not liberal socialism you useful types want, but a central planned totalitarian government.

        • JohnEngelman

          Socialist political parties thrive on homogeneous working classes.

          Franklin Roosevelt won four presidential elections, carrying each of the eleven former Confederate states each time. This is because the white population in the United States was 90 percent, and most blacks were denied equal rights by Jim Crow legislation. This meant that white blue collar workers could vote Democratic without voting for social and legal equality with non whites.

          No one in the Democratic Party of any prominence desires “a central planned totalitarian government.” That is a demented delusion born from hatred, anger, and fear.

          • Ike Eichenberg

            Socialist political parties thrive on the ignorance of the voter, as Jonathan Gruber stated “call it the stupidity of the American voter” to achieve their goals.

            “No one in the Democratic Party of any prominence desires ‘a central planned totalitarian government.’ ”

            Just because Obama hasn’t told you he is a Marxist does not mean he is not.

            I rebut with Jonathan Gruber’s comments on the stupidity of the American voter and the lack of transparency (dishonesty) in achieving their goals heading toward government run medicine and rest my case.

            Jonathan wasn’t talking about conservatives when he called the American voter stupid.

          • JohnEngelman

            Social Democracy works well in Scandinavia.

            The Republican Party thrives on the ignorance of white blue collar Republicans who have not been able to figure out yet that they do not benefit from tax cuts for the rich.

          • Ike Eichenberg

            Sure John, socialism is working just fine in Denmark with a debt to GDP ratio at 44.5%
            Sweden is rocking with a 40% debt to GDP ratio and Norway even with their massive oil economy is rocking a 30% debt ratio.

            Just because they haven’t yet run out of other peoples money doesn’t mean socialism works.

            If socialism was a viable economic philosophy, socialist countries would support themselves without huge national debts.
            But they don’t because your idea of socialism is a fantasy not compatible with reality.

            As for blue collar, well all I can say is lower and middle class income went up after Reagan lowered taxes.
            Under Obama the only group to increase their wealth increase you guessed it, the richest.

          • Max

            -and just wait until another generation in these utopias when the open immigration spam REALLY hits the fan. The costs will be exponentially worse.

          • Bossman

            You need to think deeply on what an ideal society should be or could be. Is a slave underclass necessary for it to function well? I don’t believe in diversity unless it consists of a slave underclass. USA democracy should work to create a blended society with not too much inequality.

          • LHathaway

            “I don’t believe in diversity unless it consists of a slave underclass. USA democracy should work to create a blended society with not too much inequality”.

            Don’t those two statements strongly contradict each other?

          • Bossman

            Yes, they do to certain extent. My point is that once slavery had ended, there should’ve been no barriers to the full integration of the different races.

          • LHathaway

            Then I think you meant to say, “I don’t believe in diversity IF it consists of a slave underclass”

            and not ‘I don’t believe in diversity unless it consists of a slave underclass’

      • baldridge999

        It doesn’t conflict with their main goal which is white genocide.

        • JohnEngelman

          You are projecting your hostility onto liberals.

          Liberals care about poor people. They do not understand that some of their goals conflict with other goals. In this regard they are similar to conservatives who do not understand that “a strong national defense” conflicts with “lower taxes, less government.”

          • baldridge999

            If carried through, the liberal agenda results in a world without white people. That’s what concerns me. It doesn’t matter what or who they supposedly “care” about. Its only the end result that matters.

            Asia for the Asians. Africa for the Africans. White countries for EVERYBODY!

            Liberals and respectable conservatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

            The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and “assimilating” with them.

            Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate”; that is inter-marry, with all those non-whites.

            What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

            How long would it take anyone to realize I am not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

            And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?

            But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a nazi-who-wants-to-kill-six-million-jews.

            They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

            Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. What anti-whites are calling for is the genocide of white people. “Diversity” is just a code word for white genocide.

          • baldridge999

            The Democrats don’t care about poor people. They care about power. Flooding the country with non-whites accomplishes two things:

            1. Gets votes from the coloreds they import.
            2. Eradicates the white population which they hate.

            Hopefully one day these psychopaths will be dragged before genocide tribunals, convicted and given the appropriate punishments.

            Mass non-white immigration + Forced integration = White genocide.

            Forget using all the other arguments. That’s the only one that matters. Its the only one the anti-whites can’t defend against.

          • JohnEngelman

            Again I say, you are projecting your hostility onto liberals. You, rather than they, indicate psychopathic tendencies.

          • baldridge999

            Total anti-white crap. I’m not trying to genocide anyone. They are.

            Nobody is saying that Africa needs diversity. Nobody is saying that Asia needs diversity. They are already 100% diverse. People are only telling white children in white countries that they need diversity. White Countries will be 100% diverse when there are no white people left.

            Diversity is a code-word for white genocide.
            Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

          • Epiminondas

            That is precisely right. The hard leftist gentile is racially suicidal. He’s being assisted by well meaning, gullible Christian leftists and liberals who believe in a kind of “liberation theology”. It will eventually destroy them.

          • Max

            It is a bizarre fact that these leftist “Christians” “embrace” antithetical philosophies and religions which will not tolerate Chrisianity and indeed, seek to destroy same by propaganda, legislation and in some cases, violence. It is completely irrational.

          • LHathaway

            “Forget using all the other arguments. That’s the only one that matters. Its the only one the anti-whites can’t defend against”.

            What’s the only one that matters? and they can’t defend against? Tribunals for the guilty among us? Sounds good to me.

          • baldridge999

            That the anti-whites support white genocide. They can’t deny that their programs result in a world without white people.

            Ask any anti-white the following question and then watch the response:

            Do you support flooding every white country with non-whites and then force integrating these non-whites?

            They will do everything except answer.

          • Max

            True, there is enough myopia for all.

    • baldridge999

      Not clueless. They know damn well what they’re doing.

      Diversity is just a code word for white genocide.

  • guest

    “New York Times backs executive amnesty.”

    This means that the “journalists” of NYT are more than happy to have these illegal immigrants move into their safe and non-diverse gated communities since they’re such big supporters of amnesty for illegal immigrants, right?

    Oh that’s right. In their minds, it’s “diversity for thee, but not for me”. Diversity isn’t their greatest strength, they just say that it’s ours.

  • SentryattheGate

    There will be a lot of animosity toward Hispanics because we were FORCED to accept them, against our wishes and against the law! And our kids are being forced to learn Spanish at school!

  • Where are all the ‘Mexican-Americans’ standing in opposition to this? After all, aren’t they Americans and don’t they value this country over Mexico?

    Truth is, the greater portion of ‘Mexican-Americans’ won’t do anything to oppose illegal immigration because the very people who are crossing our borders are their blood relatives. They won’t oppose their own people, especially not for the white man!

    How foolish of any white American to assume that legalized non-whites or ‘Mexican-Americans’ would stand-up for the great principles of this nation.

    • Bossman

      I’m sure they would gladly stand-up for Life, Liberty and pursuit of Happiness.

      • Katherine McChesney

        No they wouldn’t.They’ve lived in a corrupt nation all their lives and have done NOTHING to create a better life in their countries. They’ll turn America into a filthy, disease ridden barrio.

      • Nonsense! They have proven by their silence that this country means relatively little to them. A large percentage of ‘Mexican-Americans’ see this land as stolen from their ancestors, and not as rightfully belonging to the U.S. A good many of them are hostile to the white race and the type of interests and values that made America great.

  • WR_the_realist

    Is this a surprise? If Karl Marx could be resurrected from the dead the New York Times would endorse him for president.

    • Epiminondas

      Actually, they would prefer to dig up and re-vivify Leon Trotsky (born Lev Davidovich Bronshtein). He’s their man.

  • Fed Up

    The NYT is simply another liberal rag. Spouting the usual liberal agenda! The demented liberals will embrace the multi-culti rot right up until those same liberals are overwhelmed and attacked, even killed by members of those alien cultures they claim to welcome.

    • Charles Martel

      The front page story on the right hand side is generally just a recitation of Obama’s latest talking points. I go straight to Sports.

  • KevinPhillipsBong

    “The United States will conquer Mexico,” claimed Ralph Waldo Emerson in 1846, “but it will be as the man swallows the arsenic which brings him down in turn. Mexico will poison us.”

  • dd121

    We’re all truly shock this came from the NY Times. /sarc

  • John

    Why am I not surprised? The paper is owned by the Sulzberger family. Also, relatively new on the amnesty support scene, coreligionist Zuckenberg is a big supporter of this amnesty garbage. The current problems we’re having are mostly being caused by the Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 (and nothing Ted Kennedy ever did legislatively btw). This act replaced the National Origins Formula. That was the American system of immigration quotas, between 1921 and 1965, which restricted immigration on the basis of existing proportions of the population. The goal was to maintain the existing ethnic composition of the United States. Now look up Emmanuel Celler on Wikipedia. Then you’ll understand me when I say I’ve been able to discern a pattern in this amnesty support for quite a while now.

    • archer

      I think then sen. Metzenbaum was involved in legislation dealing with chain migration. Allegedly he said “let the flood gates open”.

      • John

        Glad to see another that’s paying attention. Could have been Metzenbaum- that’s consistant with tribal behavior. I read recently that it was Jacob Javits, however, that is credited with that reaction. Either way, the intent of the legislation was to enable their coreligionists from eastern Europe and to the extent possible, the USSR, to migrate here. Didn’t matter who else came along for the ride by their way of thinking.

    • Ike Eichenberg

      The NY Times has a new investor, Mexican telecom billionaire Carlos Slim.

      More Mexicans in the US means more telecom money for Carlos.

  • Yves Vannes

    It turns out that Ozero may actually turn out to be the great racial unifier afterall. This may be the one issue that both White Americans and Black Americans can actually agree upon.

    I assume that blacks look to their own self interest and that they don’t simply remain loyal to their tribal chief.

  • archer

    “deporting needed workers”, am I missing something, don’t we have close to 90 million people either unemployed or under employed, what are these people talking about? “instead of pursuing violent criminals stop breaking up families”, well maybe by deporting we are pursuing violent criminals since many of them are in fact felons.

    • AndrewInterrupted

      “…deporting needed workers” .

      That’s the Cultural Marxist use of ‘projection’ = Saying something is matter-of-factly-true when it is matter-of-factly-false.

      As with the H-1B visa scam, no such workers are needed–skilled or unskilled. They are only needed for White displacement for the Chicago thugs. “White” voters are now exiting the Democratic Party, as they now see the battle lines drawn: White versus non-White. Obama is the Kenyan warlord representing the non-Whites.

      Rumor has it, Loretta Lynch might be that racist’s sister?
      .

  • fgbrunner3

    I support bankruptcy for the NewYork Times.

    • Max

      They at the Times need to all be replaced by Mexicans (or whatever).

  • JohnEngelman

    vast resources have been wasted on deporting needed workers

    – Editorial Board, New York Times, November 14, 2014

    If workers are needed in the United States, why are middle class wages losing ground to inflation? Why is there so much chronic unemployment and underemployment for American citizens?

    • Ike Eichenberg

      Because leftist economic policies are by nature anti-capitalist, and therefore economically destructive.

      • JohnEngelman

        Capitalists benefit from a fairly high degree of unemployment. The rest of us do not.

        • Ike Eichenberg

          I think you logic is flawed, while there may be a lowering of wages during high unemployment, there are also less consumers with income for capitalists to market their goods and services.

          Would you not agree that capitalism only thrives when consumers have money to spend?
          The more workers employed the better?

          • JohnEngelman

            More jobs are usually created per year under Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.

            That is why the stock market usually performs better under Democratic presidents.

            My source for these assertions is The Wall Street Journal.

          • Ike Eichenberg

            John we’ve been through this before.

            Below is the Civilian labor force participation rate.
            Yeah it went up under Carter til he tanked the economy.
            Reagan passed Carter’s employment rate quickly despite the Carter malaise.

            Clinton had a dot com boom and created the housing boom that later tanked the economy.

            Yeah the economy was good under Clinton, but most of his economic impact came after 94, when if you’ll recall “The era of big government is over” and the republicans took over the power of the purse.
            It wasn’t socialism that did that, well the idiotic lending policies putting negroes in houses they couldn’t afford did help til it crashed anyway.

            I know you want to believe, but you have to twist and cherry pick the data to pretend leftist policies are good for the average American.

            Notice how much worse the employment rate is after we started Obamanomics?

          • JohnEngelman

            When Jimmy Carter was president, an average of 2,600,000 jobs were created per year. Under Ronald Reagan that declined to 2,000,000 jobs. Under Bill Clinton that rose to 2,900,000 jobs.

            The highest unemployment under Jimmy Carter was 7.8 percent. Under Ronald Reagan the highest was 10.8 percent. Under Barack Obama the highest was 10.0 percent.

            Under Jimmy Carter there was a fairly mild recession that lasted for six months. Under Ronald Reagan there was a deep recession that lasted for sixteen months.

            The inflation of 1979 – 1980 that declined after 1982 was caused by fluctuations in the world price of petroleum that neither president had much control over.

            Jimmy Carter paid down the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product. The national debt tripled under Ronald Reagan. Because Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and cut defense sending there was a budget surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.

            The economic recovery that was supposed to have happened during the administration of Ronald Reagan was as shallow and superficial as he was.

          • Ike Eichenberg

            Ok John I’ll we’ve already done this one and you’re free to believe in your contradictions if you want.

            If you want to believe “high unemployment is good for capitalists”
            while the “stock market usually performs better under Democratic presidents” because “More jobs are usually created per year under Democratic presidents” then put on your rose colored glasses and have fun with that contradiction.

            The rest of us in the real world will look at the percentage of people who actually had jobs under each regime and come to a radically different conclusion.

            Oh and reality check here…

            “Bill Clinton raised taxes on the rich and cut defense sending there was a budget surplus in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.”

            BJ Clinton cut the capital gains tax, or what you would call “taxes on the rich” from 28% to 20% in the 1997 budget deal.

            I think we can agree that this is not the best argument to support your cause.

          • JohnEngelman

            Click on the two Wall Street Journal links that follow this comment. They document my assertions. If I make a factual assertion, you can be sure it is true.

    • Max

      Until the native population is at around ZERO unemployment rate we need import a number of persons statistically approaching ZERO.
      NYT apparently thinks that if work is lacking on THAT side of the border, these persons are needed HERE.

  • mobilebay

    The term “illegal” has lost all meaning. Government, business and anti-American organizations such as La Raza approve, encourage, aid and abet those who break into our country. Americans are the big losers.

  • Alpin Thueson

    Hoping the NYT owners and editorial staff are hauled off and charged with Conspiracy.

    • Epiminondas

      Nah. Just hold a quick kangaroo court and hang ’em.

  • A Freespeechzone

    Obama has consistently ruled against the will of the majority and those in Congress who are supposed to protect OUR interests have refused to promote them.

    We have a president, legislative and judicial bodies who defy the will and logic of the majority to side with filthy, diseased, uneducated, socialist lawbreakers who know nothing of our culture.

    The illegals are being rewarded and will no doubt ‘go to the front’ when it comes to education, jobs, healthcare and social services over Veterans and Citizens.

    Meanwhile, most will stand by and allow this to happen–Obama knows this.

    • Max

      Being a generally peaceable and tolerant people works well when the group is homogenous, of like mind and character sharing in the labor and rewards but when social outgroups grow in numbers and power the peaceable will be at a disadvantage to the assertive and violent. Being a peacemaker is then detrimental to the founding group.

      Here we are.

  • M&S

    Chief executive, executive branch, cops are executive branch, not judicial branch, servants unto the law as Consitution.
    Got it.
    If Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov The Second issues an unlawful order (something about defending the nation from threats within and without) his underlings need to commit mass civil disobedience and walk off the job.
    No Law Enforcement. Similar to the ATC controllers only with more crashes.
    It’s to the point now, where we cannot control the leadership and make anit-immigration moratoriums permanent without the R-word being used as an epithet rather than a protective description for saving the whites in their own homeland.
    If we don’t put a cap on Mr. O’s limitless personal hubris, America will look like an open air gulag in 10 years.
    Elysium Earth on steroids.

  • Whitesneedtobebrave

    We need to deport Odumba first. He is the biggest illegal and so he wants amnesty to legalize his status.

  • Dave West

    I’m still skeptical that Obummer will actually go through with it. A lot of what the Kenyan says is just talk.

  • Ringo Lennon

    New York Times backs executive amnesty.

    It would be interesting to see where these Timesmen (Tribesmen) live. Should send some illegals to the upper east side of New York. Then they would be against illegals alien amnesty.

  • Ringo Lennon

    I know where liberals live . Upper East and Upper West side of New York City. If there ever is second Revolution, ( I hope it don’t come to that) this will be ground zero

  • Whitesneedtobebrave

    This is not news. The NYT will back anything that is anti American or anti white.

  • MathMan

    Immigrants come because they can’t build a functioning society of their own. So how can they be of any benefit to the USA?

    • Ringo Lennon

      They come to sponge off the white man’s hard work and ingenuity.

    • Max

      Diversity is its OWN benefit.
      At least, that is the orthodoxy and assertions and platitudes need not be proven by the left.

  • Ron8200

    Boycott the NYT, readership is down, revenue is down, people working their are fewer. How many illegal immigrants are they willing to hire? They don’t acknowledge Mr. Gruber even when they supported his plan. If they went out of business it would be good for America.

  • Max

    “…no Republicans have complained about his using executive authority to deport more people more quickly than all his predecessors.”
    Wha!!?

  • Max

    KC Star? That’s really a surprise considering the HUGE Sudanese, Somali, and the neighboring ghetto of Kansas City KS.
    Next we’ll be shocked to hear about Detroit, Minneapolis and Chicago newspapers approving of the plan.

  • Max

    The difference in your example is that the serial-killer intends to do harm and continue doing so according to a plan. The drunk driver is a random, occasional killer. The former is the greater threat and THAT is what we face from our own collectivist billionaire rulers who have the power, money and legislative means to literally decimate the white race by to a long-term, premeditated pogrom. Do-gooders are just a side-bar. Without the blessing of the real rulers legitimizing overflowing immigration, the do-gooders would be powerless to import anyone.