We have so far restrained from any comment on the proposal by Governor Spitzer to allow illegal immigrants to obtain drivers licenses. As is often the case, however, it is the NY Times that stimulates our need to speak out. In today's paper the Times editorializes in support of the measure, and the following comment really motivated our need to post: "Republican opposition to Mr. Spitzer’s move has taken a strident anti-immigrant tone that is unwelcome in this discussion."
Excuse me! We have examined the comments of both Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Assembly Minority Leader Tedesco, as well as other remarks from Republican opponents, and we're unable to see anything that remotely resembles an "anti-immigrant" mindset. In the Times editorial, the paper sees Bruno's claim that the use of drivers licenses by illegals would lead to these folks voting illegally as simply false. We're not sure that it is or it isn't; but if it is, than it is a simple policy disagreement and has nothing to do with being anti-immigrant.
In fact, it could equally be claimed that the position of Bruno, et al, is pro-immigrant, since it can just as well be seen as a defense of those immigrant who struggle to comply with our laws through legal immigration pathways. As one Republican law maker told the Times in a separate story: “Handing licenses out like lollipops to illegal immigrants is an affront to those who are in our country legally and puts our communities at risk,” said Assemblyman Pete Lopez of Schoharie."
In examining the Times editorial there is one glaring omission: the absence of any recognition that the illegal immigration problem might pose a national security threat. Instead, and we see this with all of the open borders advocates, we are offended with the invidious comparisons of border security proponents with out right racists.
And we've never seen the Times editorialize when an illegal felon, often someone who is a repeat offender who should have been deported much earlier, murders one of our citizens (can we can say "our citizens" without being accused of xenophobia?). In fact, when Mary Nagle was killed in our old town of New City the only take the Times had on this was this headlined article: "Killing Leaves Suburbanites Wary of Immigrant Workers." The Times' only concern seems to have been that the killing would lead to an "anti-immigrant" backlash.
But don't simply take our word on this. The Times had nothing to say editorially about the disruption of the Minutemen speech at Columbia last year. On the contrary, the paper was forced to issue the following apology for mischaracterizing the group's intentions: "Correction: October 10, 2006, Tuesday An article on Saturday about a protest at Columbia University over a speech by the head of the Minuteman Project, a civilian border patrol group, gave an imprecise description of the group's stand on immigration. While it opposes illegal immigration, the group does support immigration in general."
There, it couldn't be clearer. So immersed in its own ideological miasma, the NY Times can't even report an immigration-related story with any degree of either accuracy or fairness. So let's take its drivers license commentary with an understanding of where the paper's coming from-it simply has no interest in protecting either the country' safety or your own.