In its lead editorial today, the New York Times says, "President Fox would like to see unfettered labor movement across an open border with the United States. Though that is not realistic anytime soon, given the disparity between the two nations' living standards, a new guest-worker program is being considered that would allow more of the 350,000 Mexicans who cross the border each year to do so legally. The idea has merit, particularly if Mr. Fox agrees to help curtail illegal immigration."
Talk about circular reasoning. The Times opposes the free movement of labor because there is a disparity of living standards between the U.S. and Mexico. Yet one of the main reasons that disparity of living standards exists is that there is no free movement of labor between the two countries.
One could almost suspect the Times is anti-immigrant.
The Bloomberg Subsidy: The New York Times has an editorial today urging Michael Bloomberg, a potential candidate for mayor, to join in the city's voluntary system of limits on campaign expenditures and taxpayer subsidies to the campaigns. The editorial, "Money and the Mayoral Race," notes that Mr. Bloomberg's supporters say "that he has plenty of money and does not want to use funds from taxpayers." The Times dismisses this argument, in keeping with its editorial policy that less political speech is better, more taxpayer expenditures are better, and the non-Sulzberger rich are suspect. If the Times were smart it would let Mr. Bloomberg spend his own money and lose; after all, being rich is no guarantee of electoral victory. Just ask Ronald Lauder, Ross Perot or Steve Forbes. But such an approach by the Times would be inconsistent with those three editorial principles.