Eagle Forum Legislative Alerts

Monday, May 13, 2013

NY Times favors increased immigration, at any cost

The New York Times former executive editor Bill Keller writes:
Last week the Heritage Foundation delivered a report claiming that legalizing undocumented immigrants will create a more-or-less permanent underclass of benefit-sucking, wage-lowering, economy-crippling parasites, with a cost to American taxpayers of — megaphone, please — SIX POINT THREE TRILLION DOLLARS!
He goes on to list these reasons for disagreeing with the report:
Heritage was not anti-amnesty until the amnesty was proposed.

The report acknowledges that policy changes could increase or decrease the cost.

"It plays down the reality that these immigrants already cost taxpayers many millions."

"The fundamental flaw is framing the immigration debate as essentially about the federal deficit. In fact, the case for immigration reform — and in particular the case for amnesty — is about rationalizing an inhumane and counterproductive system"

"Senator Jim DeMint, a Tea Party darling, would become Heritage’s new president", and agrees with the report.

Heritage is disagreeing with Marco Rubio.

A co-author of the report wrote a Harvard PhD dissertation on immigration policy. Some of his Harvard professors say that his analysis was correct, but they have political disagreements with his conclusions.

Keller agrees with that co-author that skill tests should be a part of immigration reform, and that IQ tests are too politically controversial to use, but is offended by his dissertation's suggestion that such tests are correlated with IQ.
This attack is notable for what it does not say. It does not dispute the facts of the Heritage report, or even of the Harvard dissertation. It seems to favor immigration amnesty and increased Third World immigration regardless of the negative consequences.

Update: The Keller editorial became the most emailed NY Times article this week.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep comments short. Long comments will be deleted.