Say What?

I don't think I've ever read a more poorly written, incomprehensible mish-mash than one of the editorials in today's NY Times. The general topic is that of immigration reform and the current Congress's inability to get it done. Just what exactly the editorialist was trying to say is difficult to discern in this murky piece. Here's a sample from the opening paragraphs:

The supporters of comprehensive reform did not have the votes for their exotic blend of tough compassion, of punishing then rewarding illegal immigrants with a nonamnesty that everybody called amnesty. The Republicans’ bill-killing argument was: punish all the lawbreakers and seal the border, just seal it already.

Soon enough President Bush disowned his commitment to comprehensive reform and offered an executive-branch crackdown. States and local governments began whip-cracking. The country has made its bed and will have to sleep in it awhile, but a few developments suggest getting tough may not be as simple as advertised.

The editorialist then proceeds to list some of those developments: "The courts are objecting" by suggesting Constitutional protections apply even to illegal immigrants. "The nonnatives are restless" and are protesting in increasing numbers (although the use of this cutesy phrase seems more than a little racist, given its original context). "The debate is rotted. Republican presidential candidates are still playing ¿Quien es mas macho? Mitt Romney and Rudolph Giuliani are in their cardboard tough-guy armor, bickering about “sanctuary cities” and who used to treat his immigrant constituents more harshly."

Although the description of the last "development" is at least decipherable, it still doesn't seem to add much to the ostensible point of the editorial (which I am inferring from the continued use of the words immigration, immigrant, and reform) which is that Republicans are determined to defeat any kind of meaningful solution to the problem short of completely sealing the country off from the rest of the world.

My inference seems to hold up in the first part of the following paragraph, but falls completely apart as it proceeds:

With the Republican minority tacking xenophobic amendments onto every bill in sight, the chances of real, broad immigration reform seem as bleak as ever. Some say it is time to consider throwing out the old arguments. Bruce Morrison, a former Connecticut congressman with an extensive immigration portfolio, makes an interesting pro-immigrant case for ditching comprehensive reform. Fix legal immigration first, he says — get those backlogs down, get a steady supply of nurses, engineers and M.B.A.’s flowing, and impose strict biometric workplace IDs so that all future hiring is legitimate.

Huh?

This is the New York Times, for heaven's sake, the "Newspaper of Record"! You'd think it would be able to put forth a reasoned, coherent position on even this most complicated issue. You'd be wrong, if this editorial is any evidence. "Some say" indeed.

Aren't there any real editors left at that paper?