The Times evidently believes the Constitution applies to illegal immigrants but not gun-owning, law-abidingcitizens. The paper's editorial board,which is knee-jerk liberal on virtually every subject save free trade, has a special [1]hostility [1]toward gun ownesr and those who oppose illegal immigration, accusing them of "racialist extremism."
On Tuesday, the editorial page vented its strong disappointment in Barack Obama for failing to nominate Thomas Saenz to run the Justice Department's civil rights division. Saenz was opposed by anti-illegal immigration forces for serving as top lawyer for a radical group, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). Tuesday's editorial, "Obama Flinches [2]on Immigration [2]," didn't approve of an editorial from Investor's Business [3]Daily [3]that
....slimed Mr. Saenz by calling him "an open-borders extremist" and said Maldef wanted to give California back to Mexico. None of it was true, but it was apparently too much for the White House.
The same editorial board that can't see the Second Amendment's clear right to bear arms can somehow spotthenon-existent right of illegal immigrants not to be raided or underpaid:
The Constitution's bedrock protections do not apply to just the native-born. The suffering that illegal immigrants endure - from raids to workplace exploitation to mistreatment in detention - is a civil-rights crisis.
This twisted line of thought is not surprising, considering the source. A February 22 [4]editorial [4]made the bizarre claim that illegal entry into the country was not a criminal offense.