On Monday the NYT published a hyperbolic op-ed by Linda Greenhouse attacking Arizona’s new immigration law. The whole piece was based on an error:
And in case the phrase “lawful contact” makes it appear as if the police are authorized to act only if they observe an undocumented-looking person actually committing a crime, another section strips the statute of even that fig leaf of reassurance. “A person is guilty of trespassing,” the law provides, by being “present on any public or private land in this state” while lacking authorization to be in the United States — a new crime of breathing while undocumented.
This is false. The trespassing provision was stripped from the bill before it passed, as the NYT concedes in its correction:
An earlier version of this Op-Ed essay referred incorrectly to the provisions of the new Arizona immigration statute. The version of the bill signed by the governor no longer includes a section under which undocumented immigrants would be guilty of trespassing for being on Arizona soil.
Oops. Is it too much to expect that a “Distinguished Journalist in Residence” at Yale Law School might actually read the bill, or at least determine its provisions, before trashing it? Apparently so.
Anyway, the NYT has corrected the piece by deleting the offending paragraph, but without that paragraph the piece makes no sense. Greenhouse calls Arizona a police state, saying:
Wasn’t the system of internal passports one of the most distasteful features of life in the Soviet Union and apartheid-era South Africa?
Actually “distasteful” is far too mild a word. (But why limit your attention to bygone eras in the Soviet Union and South Africa? How about today’s UK? Oh, but the UK is run by progressives. Hmm.) However, if the law applies only to those who are arrested for a crime — as it does — that description really doesn’t apply. So now the piece is a hyperbolic expression of outrage (yes, it does compare the law to the Holocaust, if obliquely) without any hook to hang that outrage on.
POSTSCRIPT: I feel compelled to remind my readers that I’m a proponent of open borders. I’m not concerned about Latin American immigrants changing the nature of our society or whatever. Unfortunately, open borders are incompatible with the welfare state. If we cannot prevent immigrants from becoming a drain on public finances (as seems to be a political and/or legal impossibility), we have to restrict immigration to those who can earn their keep. Personally I would rather fix the government and open the borders, but it’s not up to me.
In any case, if we have immigration controls, Arizona is within its rights to turn over illegal immigrants that it arrests for other crimes to the federal government for deportation. As I understand it, that’s what the Arizona law does. Not being familiar with the debate, I’m not sure if I would support the bill. It certainly wouldn’t be a priority for me. But I also certainly don’t see it as some sort of Nazi-esque outrage.
UPDATE: This was probably an honest (if stupid) mistake. But Greenhouse’s errors aren’t always innocent.
Internet Scofflaw 