A story on the front of the metro section in today's New York Times reports on an attack against two Mexican immigrants on Long Island. The two Mexican immigrants were lured by their white assailants with a promise of work, says the Times article, which also says that police are investigating the assault as a bias crime. The article notes that lawmakers in the area where the attack took place have been pressing for a crackdown against illegal immigration.
There's a relevant fact missing from today's Times article: whether the two assault victims are legal or illegal immigrants. It may also be that they were here legally on tourist visas but lacked the permits necessary to work legally in America. The Times suggests the attack was caused in some way by racial tensions inflamed by the crackdown against illegal immigrants. That's the Times's standard analytic framework -- racism causes most social problems. But there are other ways of looking at these sorts of social problems. For instance, a case can be made that what put these workers in a position to be taken advantage of is an excess of government regulation -- in this case, the absurdly low numbers of legal immigrant workers allowed into America from Mexico. Because of these restrictions on the labor market and on the legal movement of persons across borders, immigrants must sneak into America and work on an informal, cash basis. When the immigrant workers arrive, they lack documentation and are afraid of being deported, so they avoid contact with the police and are unlikely to take advantage of the protections that other laborers in America receive under American laws. So rather than interpreting this as a story about racism, as the Times does, it could just as easily be interpreted as a story about the over-regulation of the labor market and about the restrictions on freedom of movement.
About That Office Shortage: Yesterday's lead story in the New York Times about the office space shortage reported that "there is little vacant space available and, despite the demand, little new construction." Today's metro section contains two stories that, unlike yesterday's article, indicate some of the reasons for the lack of new construction. The first reports on a hearing before the city's Landmarks Preservation Commission about a new $55-million front entrance for the Brooklyn Museum of Art. The Times article reports, "The commission took no action yesterday on the proposal. 'We'll need to take some time to absorb it,' said Jennifer L. Raab, the chairwoman. The commission, she said, will hold another hearing on the proposal in October, and she invited all interested parties to weigh in." Another metro section story, about plans for a new home for the Skyscraper Museum, reports that "The reflective theme will be carried over to a 15-foot-long display area on the mezzanine level that will, if the Buildings Department approves, cantilever over the sidewalk." One of the reasons that there is so little new construction is that even projects undertaken by non-profit groups with support from the city must make their way over a series of onerous regulatory hurdles such as the Landmarks Commission and the Buildings Department. Imagine, then, the treatment that could be expected by a for-profit developer without the city behind him. Simplifying and speeding up those approval processes would go a long way toward easing the office space shortage the Times is so concerned about.
Bush-Bashing: In a routine profile on the Times education page of the man who is in charge of school lunches in the New York City public schools, the man is quoted as saying, "It's very easy to take a free kick against school lunch. It's just about the easiest kick you can make. Except George Bush." Mr. Bush has really nothing to do with this story, and some would argue that Al Gore is a pretty easy kick as well. The Times would have done better to truncate this quote rather sharing the easy joke with the school lunch man. Including it without any further explanation seems to suggest that the school lunch man, the Times reporter and all Times readers take as a given the notion that a politician that half of America is about to vote for is some sort of pitiable object on the order of a forlorn school-cafeteria turnip.