NY Times Wrongly Equates Immigration Enforcement with Unconstitutional Racial Discrimination
Source: Eddie Scarry. "NY Times Says If Affirmative Action Is Illegal, So Is Immigration Law." April 30, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author argues that the New York Times is wrong to compare immigration enforcement with illegal racial discrimination in college admissions. He claims the specific cases the Times cited involved legitimate law enforcement reasons, not racial profiling, and that some inconvenience during immigration enforcement is justified given public safety concerns.
Conclusion
The New York Times' comparison between affirmative action and immigration law enforcement is fundamentally flawed and wrong
Premises
- The two ICE detention cases cited by the Times involved legitimate law enforcement reasons beyond racial profiling
- Juana Avila was detained because she was associated with a suspected alien and attacked an ICE agent, not solely because of her appearance
- Javier Ramirez was detained for obstructing law enforcement operations, which is a federal crime
- Immigration enforcement necessarily relies on indicators like language, accent, and geographic location, which is different from racial discrimination in college admissions
- The current immigration crisis has resulted in Americans being killed, murdered, and raped
- Some inconvenience to Latinos during immigration enforcement is justified given the severity of the immigration problem
Assumptions
- Immigration law enforcement is constitutionally different from college admissions processes
- Using nationality indicators in immigration enforcement is legally and morally justified
- The immigration crisis poses a significant threat to American safety
- The New York Times has an anti-enforcement bias on immigration issues
- Practical immigration enforcement requires consideration of demographic and linguistic factors