The New York Times editorial "Mr. Obama's Moment on Immigration," garnered 458 comments, 322 of which made the "Readers' Picks" list. Of those 322, I counted 25 that supported the editorial's pro-executive-action stance. Of the 25 comments in favor of executive action, 21 were recommended ten times or less. None of the 25 received more than 67 recommendations (and that comment stated, in part, that "The message should be clear that US values legal immigration over illegal entry. If we make laws, we should implement them.").
Seventeen comments were recommended more than 100 times. Here they are:
Anna Los Angeles - 276 recommended
The comments on every article on immigration (including in this paper) indicate that the vast majority of Americans do not want an amnesty, and do not want to expand immigration. Why is this brushed aside by the media (including this newspaper)? Why is it the President's duty to do what most Americans don't want him to do?
Legal Immigrant Boston 246 recommended
Again I ask: what about LEGAL immigrants who have followed the law of the land to stay here. Why does the New York Times not run articles on their trials and tribulations? I am already disapointed with the New York Times who seem to be the mouthpiece of illegal immigrants.
By the way, barring some miracle, I will be unable to stay in the US by next Friday. I have been here legally for 18 years and have now hit an impossible wall. I became an adult in the US and my whole life is here.
Judyw cumberland, MD 197 recommended
He is violating the constitution. This is a job for Congress no matter how long it takes. Yes our immigration system is broken but it is broken through enforcement failure.
Since 1986 we were promised enforcement if we passed amnesty. Well Amnesty passed and we are still waiting for the enforcement. This new Obama scheme will be the same thing - amnesty but no enforcement.
In 20 years we will have 20 millions more wanting an amnesty.
What we have to realize is enforcement at the border and in the interior is necessary. Those who employ illegal aliens must be punished so severely that they will never hire another illegal alien.
We must also Chain Migration and limit family reunification to parents and minor siblings. But no Older siblings, no aunts and uncles and cousin and Grandparents.
Also we must end birthright citizenship - many lawyers thing that a law by congress would suffice, since the Wong Kim Ark, did not deal with a child born to illegal aliens. His parents at the time of his birth were legally present in the US.
We must make it a felony to cross the border and we must develop (it has been requested for years) a visa exit tracing system as many illegal aliens are visa overstays.
We must institute a NATIONAL ID card for citizens - we can make it free for the poor and elderly. A national ID card is a must.
The president is perpetrating this illegal move to change America to guarantee a Democratic majority - we must not let him do this.
Cyclist San Jose, Calif. 190 recommended
I'm going to avoid the substance of the debate and focus on the politics of it.
The Times's bloggers tend to be more liberal than The Times itself, which is noteworthy, given that The Times's journalistic and editorial bents are somewhat to the left of mainstream American opinion on many (but far from all) issues.
So when The Times's bloggers tilt to the right in disagreeing with one of the newspaper's emphasized issues, it bears taking notice, because if they're disagreeing with The Times and doing so in a rightward direction, that's a strong indicator the issue will be a political loser among the general public.
Issues on which Times bloggers have done this in recent years include (1) immigration reform, (2) racial preferences, and (3) (on a minor key) the proper response to Ebola.
On unlawful immigration--and I expect the comments here to reflect the pattern--even many liberal Democrats resent undocumented immigration. They think it undermines lower-income Americans, the rule of law, and the cohesiveness of society, no matter that many undocumented immigrants are fine people.
So if President Obama follows The Times's advice, he will be foolish to do so.
DD LA, CA 188 recommended
What strikes me about the attitude displayed in this editorial is twofold. As a liberal Democrat I'm perplexed by the notion that granting amnesty to people who have broken our laws will somehow help maintain the rule of law in our own country. "Undermining the law" comes from those who, because they are willing to work at below an American worker's market rate, feel they have the right to citizenship without obtaining a visa the way countless compatriots of theirs must do at home.
As important is the naivete displayed by the editorial writers. How will granting a fast track to green cards and/or citizenship do anything but encourage millions of others to sneak in and wait for the next general amnesty, just as many of those here have done since our last "reform" in the 1980s?
I despise the Republicans for refusing to jail people who hire illegals, and am mystified by the Democrats who feel honoring immigration laws is some antiquated Anglo-Saxon trait.
Projunior Tulsa 169 recommended
Whenever The Times publishes another of its bleeding-heart puff pieces on the plight of the illegal aliens, the reader comments, left by NYT readers across the political spectrum, are unambiguously against amnesty for these law-breakers. And yet The Times persists in hectoring the President to give his blessing to this criminality. If he does do what you suggest: "Take executive action. Make it big.", and thus not only defies the will of the American people, but turns his back on the struggling working class and middle class citizens of this country, then the Democrats can kiss 2016 goodbye.
American Near You 144 recommended
Bad idea. While I'm among the millions who hate the gridlock in Washington and I'm married to an immigrant, tearing up the Constitution to avoid the hard work of reaching political consensus is not the answer.
Sharon Blake Marin County, CA 138 recommended
Immigration law must be enforced, not altered to accommodate those who chose to break it. The vast majority of American citizens want the law enforced, and for the good of this country it must be enforced. We won't stand mutely by while our sovereign country is invaded and colonized. Let the deportations begin, even if it the process takes a decade. Enforce the law so the outlaw businesses must hire legally. The honest citizens of the United States have the right to be protected from foreign invasion so we can thrive again.
hd Colorado 136 recommended
I have been a democrat my entire voting life but Obama's stance on immigration will result in my never voting for another democrat. People wait in line for years but it is ok if you jump the line--NO. The numbers and demands for citizenship will only increase if we give amnesty. There are millions of American out of work and immigration will only increase the unemployment of citizens and drive down wages. And to top it all off global warming is on the way and will make it difficult for all current citizens.
Paul Martin Beverly Hills 133 recommended
I am from Wales, lived in the US on and off since the 60's.
I was a British radio dj during the British invasion.
Most Americas were very kind and opened doors for me and my family.
I have lived all over the World and do not know anywhere as lenient towards immigrants like the US.
Other countries will detain illegal immigrants especially Mexico and Canada.
It's NOT how hard immigrants work or if they fill jobs Americans won't do......the issue is RESPECTING America's immigration laws and the RIGHT of the US to control it's borders like ANY other country.
If immigrants enter illegally they have NO right to expect leniency and should be deported...it's that simple !
Everything else is absolute nonesense and indefensible !
La Verdad There 132 recommended
You have it backwards. It is the NYT's blind advocacy of
amnesty for millions of "unauthorized. Immigrants" that is "delusional" and that "undermines the law".
Steve Sailer America 126 recommended
Shouldn't New York Times editorials about immigration come with a statement that the 2nd largest shareholder of the New York Times is Mexican telecom monopolist Carlos Slim who profits inordinately upon phone calls between the two countries? The NYT has a massive financial conflict of interest over immigration policy and it should publicly admit it.
Siobhan is a trusted comm New York 124 recommended
Illegal immigration replaces our national immigration laws and policies with squatters' rights.
Tens of thousands from Central America came here this summer because of rumors that they wouldn't be sent back (and most have not).
If the President announces a plan that, for example, allows people to stay if they have a child who is a US citizen--what do you think is going to happen?
Repeat that, ad infinitum, depending on who is given legal status.
We have people pleading that our laws be enforced. And they are reduced, here anyway to people "shrieking...who are not to be reasoned with."
To many, it appears the NYT editorial board is not to be reasoned with.
Anthony New York 106 recommended
This fall over 3000 children from Central America, newly arrived and illegally resident in the US, were enrolled in New York schools (mostly in Nassau and Suffolk County) at a cost of over 40k/student. The kids all arrive with a witch's brew of special needs and in many cases are not even Spanish speaking, let alone literate in English. Six months ago they were Guatemala's problem, now the cost of their social dysfunction is on New York State's balance sheet to the tune of over 120 million or so just for education alone. But that's A-OK with the NY Times who insists we take any and all comers, regardless of the cost, because . . . Emma Lazarus. To even suggest trimming this insane flood of humanity in any way is what the Times' editors would call hateful nativism, and we can't have that. Just one question, though: There are over 100 million people of all ages in Latin America alone who can be fairly characterized as unskilled, uneducated, desperately poor and desirous of a better life in the US: How many should we take?
teeda british columbia 106 recommended
NYT editors: It seems to me that all of you are smarting from Tuesday's rout. Your arguments in this piece are wobbly and to cite just a few instances: "Having such a large immigrant population living here outside the law also undermines the law." It undermines the law because "the large immigrant population" first broke the law and then the law itself responded inconsistently.
"Ever more stringent crackdowns waste resources by chasing down people who pose no threat." Not posing a threat is not the sole criteria for the ordinary, lawful immigration process I would hope. That would be a low bar and a rather uninspired one at that.
"Allowing unauthorized immigrants to live and work without fear, and keeping families together, will boost the economy, undercut labor exploitation and ease the strain on law enforcement." Citizenship is not something that should be bestowed on compassionate grounds or financial grounds but rather on deliberate, fair, and practical criteria that is consistent across populations. Just because the immigrant population under scrutiny appear to want to be in the USA and are living in the US is not, ipso facto, an argument for their legalization, as you suggest. Are they, effectively to be viewed as refugees? It seems the notion of a hybrid citizenry is being formulated promulgated by your philosophy and "ipso facto" class is being constituted .
DHL Washington DC 103 recommended
This is another example of why the Dems lost so badly. They refuse to believe that the great majority of Americans oppose these insane positions.
Blanket amnesty will just lead to even more illegal immigration and push us further into economic ruin.
But the far left doesn't care, this is about ensuring a Democratic supermajority, regardless of the cost.
I'm shocked! is a trusted commenter America 101 recommended
American's have repeatedly expressed their desire to stop illegal immigration. It's only politicians (and the NYT) who want otherwise. Let's start behaving like a democracy and follow the wishes of the people.
JEREMY BECK is the Director of the Media Standards Project for NumbersUSA
