What is the New York Times' point here?

In an editorial decrying the crackdown on 1,800 undocumented workers, which will lead to their being fired, the NYTimes argues that:

• "one has to ask who benefits from a crackdown like this"
• "The government has not charged [America Apparel] with knowingly hiring or exploiting illegal labor."
• "Unlike companies that routinely seek out illegal immigrants ... American Apparel pays $10 to $12 an hour, well above the minimum wage and industry standards, plus health benefits."
• "A crackdown that forces 1,800 taxpaying would-be Americans into joblessness in a dismal economy is a law-enforcement victory only in the bitterest, narrowest sense."
• "As a solution to the problem of unauthorized workers — 1,800 down, millions to go — it’s ludicrous."

Is it that these "illegal immigrants" are all "taxpaying would-be Americans", and therefore should be exempt?

You've got to admire the "would-be" formulation. They didn't go for the more realistic "would-like-to-be".

Is it that crackdowns should only apply to companies that knowingly hire illegal labor, but not when the laborers themselves knowingly work in violation of the law?

Is it that illegal immigrants, when being paid fairly well, should be allowed to work in tht U.S.?

Is it that it's 'only' 1,800 jobs, and law enforcement shouldn't care about violations when the number is small?

The Times says, "The government has to enforce the law", but it appears in this case that they don't think it should so. The Times thinks that illegals working for a good wage (!) should be allowed to displace legal domestic labor. Taking that view, there might as well not be any laws regulating immigration or their ability to work in this country. Some people agree with that, but that view is very unpopular during a recession.


posted by Quiddity at 10/01/2009 02:28:00 AM