Democrisy: The Hypocrisy of The New York Times

From William Teach of The Pirate’s Cove:

NY Times Tells Cities To Violate Federal Law And Be Sanctuaries For Illegal Aliens

March 3, 2017 – 6:58 am

Lawrence Downes is a long time member of the NY Times Editorial Board, whose focus is on immigration. One would think that he is aware of federal statues against sheltering people who are unlawfully present in the United States, and that federal immigration law takes precedence over state and local law. Yet, we get this bit of insanity, which tells other cities and states to follow the example of Santa Clara, Ca., and be sanctuary cities.

A ‘Sanctuary City’ Seizes the Moment, and the Name

Cities of immigrants, it’s time. Time to declare yourselves sanctuaries. To wear the label proudly, defiantly, even if the White House and its allies threaten you and utter all kinds of falsehoods against you.

President Trump is in power; his nativist ideology is now fully armed and operational. He laid it out with alarming clarity in his “America first” address to Congress this week, painting unauthorized immigrants as vicious criminals, and refugees as dangerous undesirables, using both groups as scapegoats and targets. The homeland security secretary, John Kelly, has given his boss a battle plan. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol are carrying it out, combing the country, seizing and terrifying the innocent.

If they’re “unauthorized”, that means they’re in the country illegally. Which means they shouldn’t be here. Which means they should be fearful, because they aren’t innocent. And a high ranking member of the NYTEB just proclaimed, in print, that cities should violate federal immigration law.

Now comes the typical lies and distortions:

The sweeps, arrests and intimidation share a brutal randomness. A young “Dreamer” gives a news conference after her father and brother are detained — and is arrested herself. ICE stakes out a courthouse to grab a survivor of domestic violence. Border agents ask a planeload of passengers — on a domestic flight — to show their papers.

We still aren’t 100% sure why the first, Daniela Vargas, was detained, other than she allowed her DACA to lapse back in November, and, after a raid which saw her brother and father detained, an illegal handgun was found in the house.

The survivor of domestic violence? Ervin Gonzalez is a criminal absconder, having been deported six times and coming back illegally. Those deportations were for crimes including possession of stolen mail, false imprisonment and assault.

There’s more at Mr Teach’s original. As for me, I remember when the Editors had a very different opinion of states and localities trying to set immigration policy on their own. From the editors of The New York Times, July 28, 2007:

Humanity v. Hazleton

A federal judge has dealt what we can only hope is a decisive blow against a dangerous trend of freelance immigration policies by local governments. Judge James M. Munley of the central Pennsylvania district, struck down ordinances in the town of Hazleton that sought to harshly punish undocumented immigrants for trying to live and work there, and employers and landlords for providing them with homes and jobs.

The ruling was a well-earned embarrassment for Mayor Louis J. Barletta and his proclaimed goal of making Hazleton “one of the toughest places in the United States” for illegal immigrants. In doing so, Judge Munley laid down basic truths that every American should remember.

First, immigration is a federal responsibility. State and local governments have no right to usurp or upend a vast, “carefully drawn federal statutory scheme” that governs who enters the country and the conditions under which immigrants stay, study, work and naturalize. Congress may be botching the job, but it has not delegated it.

And there you have it, from the Editors of the Times: “(I)mmigration is a federal responsibility. State and local governments have no right to usurp or upend” it. The immigration laws currently on the books are the will of the Congress, as signed by the President, and if those were different Congresses and different Presidents, they are still the laws, still on the books, and will be the laws until Congress and the President change them.

The Editors concluded:

Mayor Barletta says he is angry at the federal failure to control immigration. Good for him; he should join the club. But he should realize that it was his side — his restrictionist soul mates in the United States Senate — that last month took the most ambitious attempt in a generation to restore lawfulness and order to immigration, loaded it with unworkable cruelties, then pushed it into a ditch. They celebrated their victory, but their shortsighted insistence on border enforcement above all else will leave places like Hazleton to grapple with a failed immigration policy for years to come.

In 2007, both Houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats; the Editors declined to mention that.

As we have previously noted, illegal immigrants commit more crimes than just being in the country in violation of the law. To live in the United States requires doing certain things which an “undocumented person” cannot do.¹

The Editors were perfectly fine with federal supremacy . . . as long as the result of federal supremacy happened to be the courses of action they favored. Today? Not so much.

Really, it’s pretty simple: if it weren’t for double standards, the left would have no standards at all. The left simply cannot help being hypocrites.
Cross-posted on The First Street Journal.
¹ – The First Street Journal does not use the mealy-mouthed term “undocumented,” other than for prosaic concerns, because “undocumented” has been meant, by those who use the term, to obscure the fact that illegal immigrants are here illegally, are in violation of the laws. The First Street Journal does not go along with obscuring the fact that “undocumented” immigrants are here illegally. This was one of those prosaic reasons.