The New York Times has hit a new low today in its lead editorial, entitled “Stopping Arizona.” The Times maliciously misrepresented Arizona’s new law , intended to combat the ravages within its borders caused by illegal immigration. The Times‘ lies are typical of the race-baiting tactics employed by the progressive left.
For example, the Times falsely claimed:
The statute requires police officers to stop and question anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant.
The truth is precisely the opposite. The new law does not empower local law enforcement officers to pick up anyone they wish who looks like he or she doesn’t belong in this country. It requires first that the officer have a separate legal basis for coming into “lawful contact” with the individual, such as a speeding violation. Then – and only if the officer has “reasonable suspicion” that this individual may be in the country illegally – can the officer ask to see the individual’s documents which federal law requires aliens residing in this country to carry with them at all times.
“Reasonable suspicion” is a court-defined standard, not a broad mandate for police harassment based on a person’s appearance. The Arizona statute provides specific guidelines to govern law enforcement officers, including a list of documents such as an Arizona driver’s license which an officer must presume is sufficient proof that someone producing such a document is legally in the country.
Maybe the Times and other critics of the “reasonable suspicion” standard – including President Obama for that matter – should read the federal law stating that if an alien is encountered and they are not carrying ID they are in fact in violation of the law (8 USC 1304 (e)) and subject to fine or imprisonment. The Arizona law is designed to aid in enforcement of this federal requirement, including requiring police officers to contact the federal government as soon as practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal alien.
To make sure that the new law will not be used as a justification for racial profiling, it provides that a law enforcement official, in making any stops and subsequent inquiries into immigration status:
may not solely consider race, color or national origin
The Arizona law also requires that it
be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.
The New York Times shares an underlying progressive agenda of open borders with a coalition of radical groups spearheaded by such entities as the National Lawyers Guild, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the American Civil Liberties Union.
For example, the Times goes so far as to criticize another Arizona law, now before the Supreme Court, that revokes the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The Times evidently does not care about the near slave labor conditions that some illegal aliens are trapped in by exploitative employers. Anything that might get in the way of the open borders philosophy is a no-no to the progressive crowd.
At the end of its editorial, the Times asks rhetorically:
Is our core belief still the welcome and assimimilation of newcomers?
The answer can still be yes while maintaining the rule of law. It has never been the core belief of this country that anyone from anywhere in the world is entitled as a matter of right to enter this country whenever and however they want without following the rules for lawful entry and residence.