BCT Editorial – 8/8/10

“Nothing new” also applies to the editorial’s content.  Let’s look at the editorial’s own hysteria.

“Calls to repeal the 14th Amendment?”  The only mention I’ve heard about this refers to Section 1.  Though not its original intent, Section 1 is currently interpreted to mean anyone born in the U.S. is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.  This interpretation allows illegal aliens to establish “anchor babies.”  Even so, this would not be an issue if we secured our borders and enforced our immigration laws.  As a reminder, Section 1’s purpose was to address the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott (1857) decision.  Dred Scott ruled neither slaves imported into the U.S. nor their descendants could be U.S. citizens.  Though the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted citizenship to former slaves and their descendants, supporters of the 14th Amendment (1868) felt Section 1 was necessary to keep the Supreme Court from overturning the CRA and to make sure it could not be overruled by a simple majority in a future Congress.

“An Arizona sheriff being heroized [sic] for openly defying the federal government?”  Since the editorial provided no details, I’ll assume it’s complaining about Arizona enforcing existing immigration laws.  What is wrong with “openly defying the federal government” when the government is wrong?  Would the Times have opposed state laws making “separate but equal” illegal even though the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional until 1954?  Heck, in the Arizona case the state isn’t even contradicting federal law.  All Arizona did was pass a law enabling local and state law enforcement to inquire about a person’s immigration status if stopped for some other offense and then notify the feds if the person were here illegally.  It takes a creative reading of the Constitution - or a personal policy preference - to find that unconstitutional, or even wrong.  Finally, consider something else the Times would prefer we not know.  In 2002 the Bush administration (fairly soft on illegal immigration and supported amnesty) issued a legal opinion on this subject.  According to the Washington Post, “the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have ‘inherent power’ to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law.”

“Opposition to building a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center?”  I covered this topic in my critique of “No reason to stop mosque construction.”

“The U.S. House of Representatives voting against providing medical coverage to emergency workers who responded to the attacks on that awful September day?”  Surprise, the editorial omitted some things!  First, Democrat leadership chose a procedure that required a two-thirds vote for passage instead of the usual majority.  Why?  Doing so meant potential Republican amendments didn’t have to be addressed.  Second, the bill included tax increases on foreign companies operating in the U.S., and increased taxes hurt job generation, especially during a down economy.  Third, the bill would have provided compensation to those who had already been compensated via lawsuits.  Fourth, 9/11 responders not yet compensated can still take part in a $713 million court-supervised settlement.

Finally, the editorial spoke of “the mountain-out-of-molehill obsessions of the so-called 24/7 cable news channels and talk radio to the Internet as fertile breeding ground for lies, rumors and hatred.”  Publishers of “so-called” newspapers are in no position to throw rocks.  Then again, perhaps the editorial authors don’t read their own “so-called” newspaper and don’t realize they are throwing rocks from a glass house.

Yep, the editorial literally is “Nothing new.”  Even under a new publisher and executive editor, the Times still feels a need to avoid telling the whole story.