Leftist Media against Amnesty?

... at least to an extent, anyway.  The leftist media does seem to be coming out against executive amnesty.  As AT publisher Thomas Lifson notes, this occurred in the New York Times, which pointed to Obama’s own prior disavowal of executive amnesty, in which he claimed it would be unconstitutional.  Add to that that the Washington Post has also thrown cold water on the idea, referring to such an action as “unilateral,” an adjective previously reserved for the Bush administration.  

Lest their readers be concerned, the Washington Post makes clear: “We favor immigration reform, including a path to legal status for the 11 million foreigners in the country without valid papers.”  Note that they do not even pay lip service to border security, or deporting illegal immigrant criminals.  Some of us doubt that even such minimal concessions would be made by the president in a potential immigration “reform” bill.

Then there is The Week’s Damon Linker, who would be “deeply troubled about how the president went about achieving this goal [amnesty] – by violating the letter and the spirit of federal law.”  And he offers practically the exact same caveat as WaPo, explaining: “Now let me be perfectly clear: I’m all in favor of immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants already living in the United States.”

So should we take these mainstream media opinion-makers at face value and believe they have a sincere interest in the separation of powers?  I’m willing to venture a maybe.  But the other prism from which to view this is that the media are asking themselves: is this good for Democrats?  Or, is this good for Hillary?  If the answer is no, that would explain their uncharacteristic call of restraint for Obama.  They sense his weakness in the public’s mind and fear he could be damaging their brand even further.  The public would revolt; blue-collar Democrats would flee the party.

Regardless of their motivations, I’m willing to accept these unlikely allies in the fight against amnesty.  It’s a “the enemy of my enemy” kind of thing.  As soon as circumstances change, the leftist media will continue to cheerlead for demographic replacement, and the permanent Democrat majority that that implies.  At that time I will henceforth regard them as the adversary once again.  For now, let’s hope Obama allows himself to be persuaded – as he so rarely does – by reason, principle, or peer pressure.    

Contact Malcolm Unwell.

... at least to an extent, anyway.  The leftist media does seem to be coming out against executive amnesty.  As AT publisher Thomas Lifson notes, this occurred in the New York Times, which pointed to Obama’s own prior disavowal of executive amnesty, in which he claimed it would be unconstitutional.  Add to that that the Washington Post has also thrown cold water on the idea, referring to such an action as “unilateral,” an adjective previously reserved for the Bush administration.  

Lest their readers be concerned, the Washington Post makes clear: “We favor immigration reform, including a path to legal status for the 11 million foreigners in the country without valid papers.”  Note that they do not even pay lip service to border security, or deporting illegal immigrant criminals.  Some of us doubt that even such minimal concessions would be made by the president in a potential immigration “reform” bill.

Then there is The Week’s Damon Linker, who would be “deeply troubled about how the president went about achieving this goal [amnesty] – by violating the letter and the spirit of federal law.”  And he offers practically the exact same caveat as WaPo, explaining: “Now let me be perfectly clear: I’m all in favor of immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for immigrants already living in the United States.”

So should we take these mainstream media opinion-makers at face value and believe they have a sincere interest in the separation of powers?  I’m willing to venture a maybe.  But the other prism from which to view this is that the media are asking themselves: is this good for Democrats?  Or, is this good for Hillary?  If the answer is no, that would explain their uncharacteristic call of restraint for Obama.  They sense his weakness in the public’s mind and fear he could be damaging their brand even further.  The public would revolt; blue-collar Democrats would flee the party.

Regardless of their motivations, I’m willing to accept these unlikely allies in the fight against amnesty.  It’s a “the enemy of my enemy” kind of thing.  As soon as circumstances change, the leftist media will continue to cheerlead for demographic replacement, and the permanent Democrat majority that that implies.  At that time I will henceforth regard them as the adversary once again.  For now, let’s hope Obama allows himself to be persuaded – as he so rarely does – by reason, principle, or peer pressure.    

Contact Malcolm Unwell.