A week after pro-amnesty Mexican billionaire became its largest investor, the New York Times again showed nothing but contempt for the 25 states challenging President Obama’s executive amnesty in federal court.
The Times’ editorial board, which has been one of Obama’s most ferocious defenders on executive amnesty, dismissed what it referred to as a “nativist” lawsuit as nothing but “a meritless screed wrapped in flimsy legal cloth.” The paper claims the “states’ standing to sue is dubious; their claims of damage are speculative at best.” The Times accuses those opposed to executive amnesty of trying to “block reform… spread chaos, confusion, and anxiety” and Republicans of reverting “back to its original strategy: intimidation, exclusion and fear.”
Even though critics have argued that Obama’s executive amnesty will make it more difficult for Americans to find jobs and force states to spend more of their limited resources on social services, the Times claims that “there is no evidence that executive action will do anything to increase illegal immigration, and there is clear data showing that giving work permits to immigrants who are already here helps, not hurts, state economies.”
The Times‘ editorial board urged illegal immigrants who will qualify for Obama’s executive amnesty to “hold firm” even if things “may get bumpy” and “not let themselves be confused or bullied into not coming forward” because the success of Obama’s executive amnesty, as Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) has emphasized, “will depend on wide participation.”
After hearing the case, a federal judge in Texas said he would not issue a ruling before January 30.