The aristocracy of journalism at the New York Times is offering a solution for the nation’s divide over immigration, and it begins by dismissing Americans and ends by celebrating migrants who offer to cook for urban elites.
Americans are just dead weight because “Immigrants are America’s rocket fuel, powering our nation’s unsurpassed economic and cultural achievements,” says the unidentified journalist on the New York Times editorial board.
Americans are impotent, the unnamed journalists say: “Americans no longer make enough babies to maintain the country’s population … Without immigrants, the population would start to decline immediately.”
RELATED: Exclusive — Cuban Migrants Breach New Texas Border Barrier
Americans are replaceable economic cogs, according to the journalists, who note that absent births are “leaving employers short-handed, curtailing the economy’s potential and causing the kinds of strains on public services and society that have plagued Rust Belt cities for decades.”
The article consistently echoes the pro-migration demands from the elite investors who dominate New York City, and it ends with the tasteless use of a submissive plea from an illegal migrant who owns a chain of restaurants: “Give us an opportunity … just give us an opportunity to cook for you.”
Illegal Bad, Legal Good
The loyalty to New York’s investor class is shown throughout the long op-ed, titled “A Big Idea to Solve America’s Immigration Mess.”
The article does not talk about American accomplishments, nor how to raise Americans’ productivity, train Americans for jobs, get sidelined Americans back into the job market, raise American wages, or enlarge Americans’ families.
Instead, at every point, it calls for more migrants, more jobs for migrants, and more companies for migrants — all of which would expand the economy and the pool of profits that feed the nation’s stock markets located in New York City.
“To sustain economic growth, the United States needs an infusion of a few million immigrants every year,” up from the roughly one million set by law, the article claims:
Congress should legislate an orderly expansion of legal immigration, including a role for the federal government in directing people to the places [not communities] that would benefit from population growth and in underwriting the transition costs.
But the legalized inflow must be protected from the rising and rational opposition by blue-collar and white-collar Americans, which helped reelect Donald Trump in 2024. So the New York Times‘ grand fix is more legal immigrants to offset the fewer illegal migrants:
The correctives are straightforward: Limit the classification of workers as independent contractors, so companies are responsible for [exluding illegals from] their work forces; legislate an affirmative obligation for companies to verify the immigration status of those workers; create a robust [identity] verification system.
This fix is merely rhetorical — “illegal bad, legal good” — and is not intended to reduce the multiple migrations and visa frauds that skew that nation’s economy towards Wall Street investors and away from ordinary Americans.
The article does offer a moral case for legalizing millions of migrant workers — but does so only by trashing the civic rights of Americans to control their borders and labor market. It says:
For too long, large parts of the economy have depended on the labor of immigrants neither paid nor treated as the equals of Americans, a system of exploitation that also undermines American workers and law-abiding employers. Most immigrants who have made their lives in this country should be given a path to citizenship.
But that subordinate class of migrant labor has been invited, grown, and protected by the New York Times and like-minded investor class since 1990. Yet the New York Times now expects migration-drained Americans to also compensate the migrants with shares of their citizenship because the elites have already inflated their Wall St. shares via their wealth-shifting Extraction Migration economic policy.
The article also undermines its case by admitting the pocketbook benefits to Americans when migrants are absent:
[Alabama’s] hostility to immigration helps to explain why Birmingham has lost population in every decade since 1960. It is a city of unfilled spaces — vacant lots, parking lots — and of open jobs. Alabama in August had just 55 available workers for every 100 job openings, among the lowest rates in the country, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Ashley McMakin, who has built a popular chain of four Ashley Mac’s restaurants around the Birmingham area, serving home-style lunches and takeaway dinners, said she struggles to find workers. She offers signing bonuses and the kinds of benefits rarely seen in restaurant work, including health insurance and flexible scheduling.
She has partnered with programs that help ex-felons and people recovering from substance abuse return to the labor force.
The article also admits the pocketbook damage to Americans in migrant-dominated Houston:
The [Houston] region’s prosperity stands as a rebuttal to Mr. Trump’s insistence that immigration is bad for American workers. Immigrants without specialized skills have pushed Americans out of some types of low-wage work because they are willing to accept worse conditions and lower pay. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicts the current surge in immigration will slow the pace of wage growth for Americans without college degrees over the next few years.
Twenty-seven percent of people in Houston earn below $45,481 per year, or less than $875 per week in a city where two-bedroom apartments cost $1,200 a month. The CBO report also says migration reduces the productivity that enables broad prosperity in New York City and across the country.
The admissions keep coming.
RELATED: Biden Admin Continues Releasing Migrants in Texas Border Town
The article quoted a Texas construction CEO — Stan Marek — who says he has difficulty recruiting young Americans to work. Buy why should rational Americans invest themselves in a career that has been repeatedly flooded by Marek with lower-status, lower-wage, illegal crews?
The next poster child for immigration is an Indian who graduated in 1997 from a Texas university ranked 315 nationwide. He now runs a company that imports subordinate Indian workers to take white-collar jobs that would otherwise go to underemployed, trustworthy, bypassed American professionals.
Since 2020, the company has sought 173 six-year H-1B visas for foreign workers, plus an unknown number of foreign “Optional Practical Training” graduates or H4EAD work permits for spouses. Nearly all of the company employees below the C-Suite carry Indian names, according to a search on LinkedIn. Since 2020, the company has also paid 19 migrants with the huge deferred bonus of green cards — which is a form of compensation that cannot be paid to Americans.
The company was also part of a lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s anti-fraud measures for the H-1B program.
Nationwide, companies use the H-1B and other visa programs to keep a population of more than 1.5 million foreign graduates in jobs that would otherwise go to young American graduates in a wide variety of careers. The program’s rise coincides with the rising power of investors and C-Suite managers over trained American professionals at Boeing, Intel, Theranos, and many other declining companies.
The New York Times journalists’ fix for migration is just what local elites want. The fix also matches the wishes of their parent company which seeks foreign H-1B workers for jobs that can be accomplished by American graduates from local universities.
Read the full article here