A thoughtful editorial on the Senate's recent immigration deal. It presents reasonable arguments based on factual information, fairly represents different points of view, and makes insightful recommendations for improving a seriously flawed compromise. Its closing comment is particularly helpful: "It is the nation’s duty to welcome immigrants, to treat them decently and give them the opportunity to assimilate. But if it does so according to the outlines of the deal being debated this week, the change will come at too high a price: The radical repudiation of generations of immigration policy, the weakening of families and the creation of a system of modern peonage within our borders."

The biggest problem is that, typically our Congress, forgets the past. This is amnisty, no question, just a longer "journey." We then slip in the "guest workers" who, after their two years will stay. So what is so good about all that. The most devious Senator on the hill, Schumer, supports this version. Congress rating is now lower than Bush's at 27%. Rightly so - no courage and little common sense. Control the border FIRST, then take on the balance of this huge problem. Just wait - this bill is over 1000 pages long and all we are hearing are the titles. Anyone ever heard "the devil is in the details?" Better read the entire tome before writing an opinion on it, and noone has done that yet - including Congress!

Well-balanced opinion piece about the "Hobson's choice" to our policymakers regarding the immigration dilemma; I particulularly the very Dickensian statement about "a good plan wedded to a repugnant one".

Overall, the article provides a balanced view of why many on both the left and the right hate the new bill. Although discreet, the author likely has liberal sentiments, but by liberal I mean concerned about the welfare of the immigrant population, as well as the repudiation of long-standing American values. Obviously, one reviewer, likely conservative, believes he knows what Americans want, strong border control, but obviously the issue is much less one-sided. Another reviewer commented on the use of the phrase "Know Nothings," deeming it an insult, although it refers to a particular political group from the 19th century: The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1850s. It grew up as a ... More »

This is even more slanted than the usual editorial in this newspaper. Right at the start the extreme prejudice of the paper shows when in “bridge the chasm between brittle hard-liners...and those who want to give immigrants” the opponents of the paper's views are ‘brittle hard-liners’ while those on the extreme side that it favors are not labeled at all. Alas, this type of bias permeates the news articles of the paper, too, making it of less and less interest to those seeking information on an issue.

This is awful commentary. It glosses over the biggest problem most Americans have with this "amnesty deal" -- a problem thart is the reason that Bush's approval rating actually went *down* after the announcement of the deal. The problem is that, contrary to this editorial's claim, this deal does *not* fix the broken borders problem. Americans want to see the border secured first. Then we can consider the fate of those who willfully entered this country illegally. This compromise bill represents the exact opposite of the American people's will.

Let's see, people who want a secure border and a clamp down on illegal immigration are -- as seen through the Times lenses -- "brittle hard-liners" and braying "Know-Nothings." This is most of us, folks, if you believe the polls. Now we must ask ourselves what this editorial says about the Times, described by its recent ombudsman as "a liberal newspaper." It's odd to see this organization working hand-in-glove with the Corporate America masters who want cheap labor to keep wages depressed for working class America.

reporting seems to be a dead art...even biased reporting. all we have now is commentary, whether located on news pages or op-ed pages.

The editorial fails to deal with the fundamental issue: immigration as such. Instead it looks narrowly at this legislation, utters a few glittering generalizations about the welfare of pathetic immigrants, and ignores many of the bill's inevitable implications. -- The basics of immigration begin with this apolitical video, which everyone, hard-line conservative or raging liberal, should see: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5871651411393887069 Once this information is grasped, the NYT editorial looks puny indeed. -- "Know-nothing" IS an insult; those people were bigots and conspiracist lunatics. The editorial writer intended to insult his despised targets. -- Trouble ahead: note that recent polls tell us that Congress, ... More »