Times Says No

The New York Times's editorial yesterday against the immigration deal struck me as reasonably convincing, but I'm still not totally sure. It occurs to me that in a situation like this, it would actually be better if the paper didn't maintain a sharp divide between its reporting and editorial staffs.

Lots of liberals who are in complete agreement about the immigration issue still disagree about the immigration bill because a lot of the disagreement is really about legislative tactics and alternatives. As Ed Kilgore says most of the impulse to reject this bill is driven by a sense that a better one could be achieved. But is that really true? It seems to me like it should be true, a priori, but I'd have a lot more confidence in the Times' editorial position if it was being informed by the Times's congressional correspondents who might be able to bring some additional information to bear.