The New York Times managed to get the following ad hominems into yesterday’s immigration editorial: “racialist extremism,” “nativism of fringe right-wingers,” “white-supremacist views” and (that old standby of the anti-sovereignty left) “Know-Nothings.”
The editorial was a hysterical response to last week’s National Press Club event, where a group of immigration-reform advocates observed that if the GOP is ever again to become a majority party, it has to get real about defending our borders.
The Times was duly incensed. “For years Americans have rejected the cruelty of enforcement-only regimes and Latino-bashing,” the editorial screeched.
Not to parrot the Democrats by pushing amnesty and guest-worker programs “is the path to permanent political irrelevance” for the Republican Party, The Times advised.
Wrong. By wide margins, the American people tell pollsters we have an immigration crisis on our hands and demand tough action. This includes a majority of African-Americans and a significant number of Hispanics.
In a May, 2007 New York Times/CBS News poll (which The Times somehow managed to overlook), 82 % said not enough is being done to keep out illegal immigrants.
The 2007 amnesty bill was buried by talk-radio listeners and citizen lobbyists. By flooding the congressional switchboard, immigration-reform forces turned around 13 Senate votes in under 72 hours.
John McCain was Señor Amnesty — the Republican most closely identified with open-borders — making it impossible for him to tap into popular anger here.
Not only did McCain lose the Hispanic vote by the widest margin ever (32% to 67%), he ended up carrying the white male vote by a relatively narrow margin (57%, compared to 62% for Bush in 2004).
The New York Times would love to have two open-borders parties. (That’s its idea of giving voters a choice.) For Republicans to take advice from their dear friends at the Gray Lady would be like Israel looking to Hamas for guidance on security matters.