Let ‘Puter start with his conclusion. Either the New York Times has no editors, or the editorial board has smoked so much dope that its collective short term memory is entirely shot.
In today’s editorial, the New York Times comes out four-square in favor of states’ rights. So long as we’re talking about using states’ rights as an excuse not to enforce federal immigration law.
We’ll see about that. The idea that the federal government can commandeer states’ resources for its enforcement schemes seems ripe for legal challenge. And it’s wrong to make state and local police departments the gatekeepers of immigration enforcement. It should not be up to local cops to drive federal policy by deciding which neighborhoods and people are the focus of their crackdowns.
‘Puter’s so glad the NYT has finally come around to his way of thinking. The federal government should leave most matters to state discretion. ‘Puter awaits the NYT’s forthcoming editorials advocating: state abortion restrictions; states selected drinking ages; state education policy; states health care policy, etc. Usually, the left thinks advocating states’ rights in any circumstances is akin to announcing one’s Klan membership.
‘Puter’s wise-assed commentary aside, we all know what the New York Times really means. States have rights when having them results in a policy outcome the New York Times favors. Otherwise, when the federal policy is more in keeping with the NYT’s mores, federal policy trumps.
But maybe we should see if there is a respectable source out there advocating the other side of the argument, that states should cede sovereignty to the federal government where doing so would advance a national immigration policy. We need look no further than the very same NYT editorial board arguing the other side, not less than a month ago:
States’ rights has been a politically charged concept for even longer. It was a basis for secession and then for years of Southern defiance on segregation. Now it is used as an excuse for rejecting national immigration policy.
Oh. So conservatives are racist when they advocate states’ rights (curiously, something actually mentioned in the Constitution), but liberals are champions of the downtrodden in using states’ rights to advocate for the NYT’s preferred policy outcome. Now ‘Puter sees.
It’s always refreshing to have the NYT show itself for what it is: a hypocritical house organ for liberal elites. Rarely does it do so as transparently as today.