A Wall Street Journal endorsement of “worthy immigration bill”

The Wall Street Journal is owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Fox. While both news organs propagate Murdoch’s conservative politics, they do so very differently. The WSJ is the news outlet for respectable conservatives, those who are still tethered, if precariously, to the reality-based universe of data, research and facts.

That’s not to say the WSJ’s editorial page is above intellectual dishonesty. It is not. It has strained mightily to prove something which is false: that tax cuts alone can create enough jobs to spur federal revenues and tame the deficit. And its opinionators plays all sorts of other intellectually shady games in order to support establishment Republican views.
Nevertheless, it was surprising that the WSJ came out last week in favor of the Dream Act, which would put young adults here illegally on a path to citizenship if they serve in the military or complete two years of college. The writer’s preamble included the requisite Democrat-bashing before getting to the main point:

Restrictionists dismiss the Dream Act as an amnesty that rewards people who entered the country illegally. But the bill targets individuals brought here by their parents as children. What is to be gained by holding otherwise law-abiding young people, who had no say in coming to this country, responsible for the illegal actions of others? The Dream Act also makes legal status contingent on school achievement and military service, the type of behavior that ought to be encouraged and rewarded.

We’d prefer that border reform start by expanding legal channels of entry for people who come here to work. There would be little need for a Dream Act if more U.S. work visas had been available for the parents of these children. The U.S. focus on border security has, along with the economic downturn, had some effect on reducing illegal entries. But walls, fences and employer crackdowns mainly produce thriving markets in human smuggling and document fraud and make a mockery of the rule of law, especially in some border areas.

Of course, the WSJ is well aware of the growing power of the Latino vote:

Supporting the Dream Act also makes political sense for Republicans, who will have a tough time winning national elections without more Hispanic support. Polls show that Hispanic-American priorities tend to match those of other voters—the economy, jobs, education and so forth. Nevertheless, immigration has symbolic importance among Hispanics as a sign of political recognition and respect.

If Republicans hope to limit President Obama to one term, they’ll need to win in Mountain West states—Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico—with fast-growing Hispanic populations. The Dream Act is an opportunity for the GOP to send a welcoming signal to these voters. More important, it would do right by undocumented youths who did nothing to deserve their current vulnerability to deportation.

It will be interesting to see whether the WSJ’s endorsement carries any weight with Republicans next year, when they take over leadership of the House and gain power in the Senate. Of course, tea partiers might well argue that the newspaper represents the same old tired GOP establishment they’ve been fighting. We’ll see.

87 comments Add your comment

Tim

November 29th, 2010
2:21 pm

Why didn’t the Atlanta Journal-Constitution mention the lawsuit against Dekalb Superior Court candidate Michael Rothenberg in the Sunday AJC?

Whenever there was an article about Atlanta superintendent Beverly Hall during the week, the AJC always made sure they mentioned it in the Sunday paper. Because they know people miss stories during the middle of the week, and tend to catch up on the news on Sundays. But there was no mention of the allegations against Michael Rothenberg, two days before the run-off election. Hmmm……

It seems that whenever a white/Jewish official or candidate is accused of something, the AJC simply reports it and leaves the story alone. But when a black official/candidate is accused, the AJC reports the story, and then CONTINUES TO COVER IT EVERY DAY. If Michael Rothenberg’s opponent Courtney Johnson (black woman) faced the same allegations, the AJC would have written a second or third article about it, and put it on the front page of the Sunday paper. (See: Beverly Hall).

This is a blatant bias. Two days before the election, the AJC would have tried to DESTROY a black candidate in its Sunday edition. They would have reminded everyone about the allegation, so it would be fresh on their mind before they went to vote.

The AJC has a hands-off policy with any person/thing associated with the city of Dunwoody. Can you imagine if a candidate from Lithonia faced such charges? The AJC would have rehashed the story, and put it on the front page of the Sunday edition, to try and tarnish the candidate. Are you listening Julia Wallace? Who are you fooling with this biased reporting?

DebbieDoRight

November 29th, 2010
2:46 pm

Why can’t, in the south, one get through an entire day without talking about race, bringing up someone’s race, castigating a race, and/or hollering “RACIST!!!” at the top of their lungs? just asking…..

Cynthia’s column: If the WSJ really supported immigration reform, they’d support Employer fines, (heavy, punitive fines), for hireing illegal aliens. If there are no jobs…..etc., etc., etc.

Interesting note

November 29th, 2010
2:49 pm

To enter into the US military requires a HS diploma or a GED.

To attain these an illegal immigrant must have at some point lied (on paper) when filling out school paperwork. Those are additional illegal acts.

I have no problem with legal immigration. There needs to be quotas set up for every country that has citizens that want to come here for various reasons. To make more money is not a valid reason to come to the US. That would require for the person coming here to bump someone from a job and probably take less money for doing it. That does not benefit the US in any way.

ctucker

November 29th, 2010
2:53 pm

interesting note@2:49, I’ve never heard of a high school asking a student whether he’s a citizen. They ask for your home address, not your birth certificate

Keep up the good fight!

November 29th, 2010
2:56 pm

interesting note…… our system of justice does not normally hold those under the age of 18 accountable for many “crimes”, if it is indeed true that every school system in every state asks the question directly about immigration status. You also ignore those who may have come legally with their parents who may have stayed over past their visa date, which means there was not a false representation at the time of application.

Again, try to read the blog….a 1 year old child brought to this county unlawfully is not a wilful participant in any crime.

Keep up the good fight!

November 29th, 2010
2:58 pm

DDR….. it would be interesting to see how many accuse CT or the AJC of being “pro-black” or “anti-black” daily and probably even regarding the same article or blog.

Road Scholar

November 29th, 2010
3:01 pm

The argument that appeasing illegal immigrants will lead to wins in the election is perverse, regardless of party. When will selling one’s soul, or in this case, selling one’s political party’s soul for elction benefits be wrong?

But doing the right thing because it is right is what we should base our decision on. But what happens during the period from immigrating here based on thier parents decisions to when they can join the military or complete 2 years of college?

“Supporting the Dream Act also makes political sense for Republicans…”

Oh yeah, just think who will do their yardwork cheaply and fight their wars so the rich children won’t have to do those things!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

November 29th, 2010
3:07 pm

Cynthia Tucker accusing the WSJ editorial board of being intellectually dishonest. That’s one of the funniest things I’ve ever read.

Thanks for the laugh!

Tim

November 29th, 2010
3:08 pm

Debbie, that’s a predictable cop-out.

Either what I said is true, or it isn’t. ( It is.)

The whole “race-card” phrase is simply used to deter people from speaking about obvious racial disparities. You can keep your head in the sand if you want. Frankly, I could care less if you’re sick of talking about race. It is easy to be tired of a subject, when you aren’t the one being negatively affected.

The AJC does this all the time.

White person gets accused: The AJC reports it and leaves it alone.

Black person gets accused: The AJC reports it and continues to cover it everyday.

Look at the story with Governor Sonny Perdue using the Georgia Ports Authority to promote his private business. The AJC reported the story and left it alone. But with Atlanta superintendent Beverly Hall, they kept coming with new articles every day.

They do this all the time. You want to howl “race-card” so you can shut down a legitimate discussion. It’s not happening here.

ATL Esq.

November 29th, 2010
3:13 pm

Let’s have some political commentary about how CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times and the Washington Post play all sorts of intellectually shady games in order to support establishment Democratic views (or rather, most of the time just blatantly misconstrue or omit facts in their favor — so much so that anyone with a brain and an ounce of curiosity can discredit). Then you, Cynthia, will gain some of the credibility that you claim “conservative” news outlets lack.

Keep up the good fight!

November 29th, 2010
3:17 pm

Atl, Esq. – Nice allegation but if you are an esq. where are the supporting facts for your allegation.

Pablo

November 29th, 2010
3:20 pm

Cynthia:

When you mentioned “intellectual dishonesty” I thought for a moment you were referring to the main stream media, not Fox News or the WSJ. The truth is that in terms of news coverage (and news coverage only, not opinion shows) Fox News is the best out there by far. A lot of so-called news organizations could learn a thing or two from Fox in terms of news coverage. As for the support for the Dream Act, it is the illegalitos’ parents the responsible party for the mess they are in. We should in no way, shape or form reward criminal behavior.

Peadawg

November 29th, 2010
3:22 pm

“on a path to citizenship”

There already is a path. Do it the way millions of immigrants have been doing it for years. We don’t need a short cut. I wonder who immigrants who came here years ago through the current process feel about a short cut….

LydiasDad

November 29th, 2010
3:23 pm

You mean an “illegal immigration” ally right? Because you do realize that we’re all FOR immigration, I hope. You liberals like to pretend there’s no difference.

Billybob

November 29th, 2010
3:28 pm

Tucker,
‘Intellectual dishonesty’…..that’s like the pot calling the kettle black…..thanks for the laugh. Keep talking yo’……

John Boy

November 29th, 2010
3:30 pm

CT is a racist. She has to be to keep her job. Like most liberals she never makes a good arguement only personal attacks. The liberal establishment has made slaves of the blackman. LBJ ruined the family structure of the family and now they want to do the same with the Hispanics.

drinking the koolaid...

November 29th, 2010
3:32 pm

“It has strained mightily to prove something which is false: that tax cuts alone can create enough jobs to spur federal revenues and tame the deficit. And its opinionators plays all sorts of other intellectually shady games in order to support establishment Republican views.”

This is a pretty funny statement…ALL opinion writers, like CT, pick thru data until they get a stat or sound bite that supports what they are writing. The funny part is CT acts as if this is only done by the WSJ or Republicans. Data can be twisted in many ways to suit many purposes…especially on blogs like this one.

But my favorite statement: “The writer’s preamble included the requisite Democrat-bashing before getting to the main point” Isn’t that what you just did as well CT?

Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet pot. You two have more in common than you would admit.

travelingman141

November 29th, 2010
3:34 pm

Who cares Cynthia Tucktard???? This article is a waste of time and space. JUST LIKE CYNTHIA!!! HAHAHA

jconservative

November 29th, 2010
3:36 pm

Interesting position by the WSJ board. And one with which I completely agree.

I would think it is in part going back to the Ronald Reagan legacy and his Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which legalized 2.8 million illegals. That is the last immigration bill we have and we are sorely overdue for another.

And the WSJ is pro business and any immigration reform that puts more workers at the disposal of business, in particular educated workers as the Dream Act would do, is a plus for American businesses.

And you do have the “browning of America” taking place which is reflected in the political calculations of the WSJ board.

interesting note@2:49 – I understand your position but in every state I have been in kids do not sign anything saying they are illegal or legal. The parents do the signing. An illegal alien brought to the US by his parents and who is a graduate of a Georgia High school never broke any law pertaining to school. He/she is squeaky clean.

ken R

November 29th, 2010
3:42 pm

Another fine Objective piece of cut & paste. hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Liberal Chicks are UGLY

November 29th, 2010
3:42 pm

An op-ed piece is not an endorsement anymore that the garbage you right is an AJC endorsement of extreme militant left-wing politics, moron.
I am not surprised you cannot tell the difference.

DebbieDoRight

November 29th, 2010
3:43 pm

Tim: Frankly, I could care less if you’re sick of talking about race. It is easy to be tired of a subject, when you aren’t the one being negatively affected.

Tim, FYI, I’m black. Now sometimes, I say “black” with a small “b” and sometimes with a capital “B”; and then again sometimes I say that i am “Afro-American” and sometimes I don’t say anything. Either way it doesn’t change what I am nor my experiences. However, IMO, I believe when some of the older generation, “dies out” per se; then maybe we “Americans”, hyphenated, small and capital letters, can get down to being AMERICANS. I feel it’s more or less the older generation that wishes to hang on to the hate and intolerance and just doesnt’ want to let it go. IMO.

Liberal Chicks are UGLY

November 29th, 2010
3:43 pm

Correction: write, not right.

DebbieDoRight

November 29th, 2010
3:45 pm

CT is a racist. She has to be to keep her job. Like most liberals she never makes a good arguement only personal attacks. The liberal establishment has made slaves of the blackman. LBJ ruined the family structure of the family and now they want to do the same with the Hispanics

Case in point ^^^^.

AmVet

November 29th, 2010
3:46 pm

“CT is a racist. She has to be to keep her job.”

So far just another opinion with ZERO facts to support it. No big whoop. It is part and parcel of the laughably fact-free neo-con play book as advanced by the semi-literate.

But this is where the laughable turns into the ludicrous:

Like most liberals she never makes a good arguement (sic) only personal attacks.

Patently and pathetically puerile…

DebbieDoRight

November 29th, 2010
3:48 pm

Tim: They do this all the time. You want to howl “race-card” so you can shut down a legitimate discussion. It’s not happening here.

Tim, I didn’t holler “RACE CARD”. You did. I didn’t bring up race. You did.

FYI – The discussion is about immigration reform – I was just trying to stick to it.

George W

November 29th, 2010
3:52 pm

Cynthia, this will not fly with the Repubs at all. The idea of serving in the military is a great idea but it should be for 4 years not 2.

Good Grief

November 29th, 2010
3:53 pm

Keep Up – I have a question for you. If you were driving down a road with a speed limit of 60 mph, but in a certain section the speed limit changed to 45 mph. In this hypothetical situation, let’s say the speed limit sign had been knocked down and you were unaware of the change. If you maintain your speed, are you guilty of speeding?

According to your earlier argument, you are not, because at the time of the infraction you were unaware that what you were doing was against the law. I’m sorry for the child of the illegal immigrant, but they are still illegal. Last time I checked, if something is illegal, that means it is against the law, ergo it is criminal in some form or fashion.

dmcsga

November 29th, 2010
3:53 pm

Did you guys hear that the Koreas maybe going to War??? How come nobody worries about this as much as illegal immigration. What do you think will happen if the 2 Koreas engage in an all out war? Most likely the U.S. will be deploying troops which means we will have to spend on another war and can we fight 2 wars at the same time?? Plus N. Korea is not the Taliban, they have an all out army not just some guys that fight in sandals and T Shirts.

The military is ALWAYS hiring, so nobody is taking jobs

Call it like it is

November 29th, 2010
3:53 pm

Tucker you throw the Latino vote around like its some kind of magic wand. I wonder what the generations of Latinos who have been here from day one think about opening the door to those who did not follow the rules to become an American citizen. Its not that the Right is worried about the Latino vote, the left is the one that should be worried about it. True American Latino’s are hard workers and want no gifts and for the most part are of a conservative nature. *See Marco Rubio Cynthia and see what the future holds for you and your ilk.

jconservative

November 29th, 2010
3:54 pm

” LBJ ruined the family structure of the (black)family…” at 3:30pm

This is factually incorrect. See the Daniel Patrick Moynihan study done while he was an Undersecretary Labor Dept under Kennedy. His study – “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action” (1965) was researched well before Johnson was sworn in as President. And the report traces part of the problem back to slavery and the increasing urbanization of the western world. Moynihan then applied his study to the western world (this is not well known) and came up with the same results. Todays society of the single parent family was predicted by Moynihan 45 years ago.

mmm, mmm, mmm, Barack the LIAR Obama - BEND OVER, Here comes the CHANGE!

November 29th, 2010
3:55 pm

You KNOW that Rupert Murdock may own Fox but he is a LIBERAL, so consider the source before you make it out like a conservative supports this.

ctucker

November 29th, 2010
3:55 pm

Call it like it is@3:53, I’m going to have to give you a “D” on reading comprehension. It was not I who raised the issue of the Latino vote. ‘Twas the WSJ

George W

November 29th, 2010
3:57 pm

Then if they are arrested for any reason whatsoever they are deported immediately.

ctucker

November 29th, 2010
3:58 pm

Liberal Chicks@3:42, Ah, but it’s you who doesn’t know the difference. It was an institutional editorial of the sort that gives the newspaper’s opinion on a subject. and, please, look in the mirror before you call someone else a “moron.”

dmcsga

November 29th, 2010
3:59 pm

Good Grief, how many law abiding citizens drive 70 or 80 on 85 or 285, every single day, or go 70 on GA 400 when they enter the toll area where the speed limit is 45mph and signs are posted everywhere. I think it is at leat 70%. So that makes everybody a criminal, even you because I put money on it that you have sped, texted while driving, illegally changed lanes, ran a red light, didn’t give a pedestrian the right of way, etc.

So it totally blows me when people all of a sudden have a sense for ethics and morals only when it doesn’t apply to them! But the difference is that we justify our behavior by either being late for work or are in a hurry at some point. People are complaining about ParkAtlanta even though it is clearly marked that parking is illegal, but yet they complain and whine about the tickets and boots they receive because they don’t think its fair.

ctucker

November 29th, 2010
3:59 pm

jconservative@3;6, Yes, you’re right: The WSJ is pro-business, and this is a Chamber of Commerce position (although they usually don’t come right out and say so.)

Good Grief

November 29th, 2010
4:01 pm

dmcsga – I was making the point that ignorance of the law does not absolve one from breaking the law.

George W

November 29th, 2010
4:02 pm

Until the borders are protected FULLY. There can be no immigration reform.

Ragnar Danneskjöld

November 29th, 2010
4:04 pm

I think the DREAM act gets it half right. Certainly those who wear the uniform of the United States honorably have proven themselves to be great Americans, whatever their origin, and they should go to the front of the line for citizenship.

As to those who suck off the taxpayer subsidized benefit of four years of job preparation laying around a frat house, I cannot imagine any reason such deserve a reward of citizenship – unless, of course, they thereafter join the military.

Liberal Chicks are UGLY

November 29th, 2010
4:04 pm

Now is there a link to this supposed op-ed that speaks for the entirty of the WSJ?

Carlosgvv

November 29th, 2010
4:11 pm

The real question is how did this country reach a point where over 12 million people are here illegally? Sending illegals and their children back will not work since the horses have already left the barn. Determining exactly how this situation came to be and taking strong steps to stop it NOW is the first and most ovbious step. Somehow, I doubt this will ever happen. So, get used to all these illegals and prepare for millions more.

Logical Dude

November 29th, 2010
4:12 pm

“Supporting the Dream Act also makes political sense for Republicans, who will have a tough time winning national elections without more Hispanic support.”
As true as this statement is, Republicans SHOULD NOT be doing this to curry favor from the Hispanics. They should be doing this because IT’S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. It has been way too easy for Republicans to play to their white convervative Christian base population and ignore all others. This reality has hurt them in some areas, helped them in others. But as the country becomes more diverse, the talking points need to address ALL AMERICANS. Not just a very few selective people who would swear on their Bibles that they are convervatives and nobody else belongs.

Call it like it is

November 29th, 2010
4:17 pm

Call it like it is@3:53, I’m going to have to give you a “D” on reading comprehension. It was not I who raised the issue of the Latino vote. ‘Twas the WSJ

Well I stand corrected Cindy, With all of the copy and paste in your articles it can become convoluted as to what your “opinion might be.”

But hey since you open the box, who should be more concerned over the Latino vote?

*One more thing the whole grading thing, its had its 15 mintues, let it go.

nofreecheese

November 29th, 2010
4:23 pm

Cynthia, your editorials aren’t even worthy enough for the writers and editorial staff of the WSJ to wipe their a$$3$ with. Why is it they are one of only a very small handful of newspapers that actually make money? The one you used to be the editor of and now write for after your demotion hemorrhages money. Despite your inability to run a profit-making enterprise, you proffer your expert opinion of tax rates and revenue? You and your paper rely on a deep-pocketed benefactor to stay afloat (Cox’s), rather than your economic/marketplace merit and competiveness. Sounds much like how Democratic voters rely on the government for their sustenance rather than their ability to produce something the marketplace is willing to pay them for. For those writers of the AJC that expose local government corruption and marketplace fraud, you deserve a better employer.

BlahBlahBlah

November 29th, 2010
4:25 pm

“The writer’s preamble included the requisite Democrat-bashing before getting to the main point”

So they stole one of your favorite tactics, Ms. Tucker! Heck, you even did it in this article.

StJ

November 29th, 2010
4:27 pm

It’s a “worthy” bill if you’re an illegal immigrant…

Ragnar Danneskjöld

November 29th, 2010
4:30 pm

Dear LibChick @ 4:04

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572404575635202343271966.html?mod=ITP_opinion_2

While I routinely dispute the arguments of our hostess, and magnify the judgment of the editors of the WSJ, I disagree with both this time, for the reasons I state at 4:04. But CT fairly represented the sentiments of the WSj editorial.

Logical Dude

November 29th, 2010
4:32 pm

Ragnar says “As to those who suck off the taxpayer subsidized benefit of four years of job preparation laying around a frat house,”
Wow, your lumping every college student into lazy bum status really tells me that you are completely ignorant of the struggle it takes to get a degree.
If military service was the only path to citizenship, welcome to Starship Troopers!

Keep up the good fight!

November 29th, 2010
4:41 pm

Grief…as to your speeding example, you may be technically guilty of speeding in some circumstances if you are not aware of the speed change because a sign was missing (but with a viable legal defense that would mean no conviction) but in other cases, you may not be guilty at all because the lack of posting would mean that there was effectively no change in the legal speed limit for that stretch of road.

Let’s be clear that there are legal differences for children. A child under 18 cannot enter into a legal contract, unless there are special circumstances, that an adult would be held liable for. A 6 yr child taking someone else’s property may be technically committing a crime if it were committed by an adult but because it is a child we do not hold them liable for a crime or we treat them differently than we do an adult.