The New York Times is taking a stand on immigration

A few weeks ago, I wrote about how a New York City newspaper, the Times, had made an editorial decision to not only back the idea of building a wall along the Mexican border, but also the idea that it was morally justifiable.

And then, on Thursday, the newspaper published an op-ed in the Times’ print edition, which defended that position.

“Our society needs to understand that we are not the only ones who have the right to be here,” the op-ee wrote.

“There are those who are here illegally, and we need to ensure that they have the support of the law enforcement community.”

In other words, the editorial board, in their opinion, wasn’t trying to make a moral argument.

It was just saying that there was a moral imperative to protect the lives of those in the country illegally, regardless of whether they were in the United States legally.

This was the Times editorial board’s way of saying that if we could all come together to build a wall to keep out all of those criminals, it was okay to be against building a border wall.

But it was also a way of acknowledging that they’re not the majority, and they’re trying to reach out to them.

The editorial board did make an important point, however.

“It is a difficult and complex question to answer, but it is also a question of fairness,” the editorial concluded.

In the wake of the Times op-eise, several other media outlets, including The New Yorker, Vox, and BuzzFeed, have also weighed in, as have Slate, Vox’s website, and NPR.

And that’s a very good thing.

In fact, I think we’re already seeing a shift in tone from the Times.

This past weekend, NPR’s The Fresh Air and The Verge both weighed in on the idea.

In The Fresh Off the Boat, host Pete Santilli made a pointed distinction between the Times and its peers.

“I think the Times is a great story, but the people who write about it, they are mostly writers and editors who want to tell a story, who are doing it on a very tight deadline,” he said.

“The people who have this job, they want to have a sense of what the world looks like.

And if they’re doing it from a position of fear or of fear of the future, then they’re going to have problems.

They’re not going to be able to write about this.”

The Verge also pointed out that the Times was not the first media outlet to make an editorial statement in favor of building the border wall, and that others, including Vox and The New Republic, have made similar arguments.

And yet, in a story published in The Atlantic, a New Yorker editor and writer wrote that they disagreed with the Times’s position, but they were okay with the editorial stance of not trying to build the wall.

“My issue with The New Yorkers position on the border is that it is one that has been echoed by many other major American newspapers, including the ones that have the most reporters and editors,” wrote Jonathan Chait.

“This view that a border fence would be an act of political suicide is an old one, but I don’t think it is universally shared among journalists, and I do think it makes more sense to ask why we have a border than to debate the merits of building one.”

In a tweet this past Sunday, Times columnist Joe Vitale added that he was in favor “of the wall, but so too is the Times,” adding that the paper is “working with our colleagues across the political spectrum to help build a system that can protect both our borders and the American people.”

That sentiment from the editorial page is a positive sign for those of us who believe in immigration reform, and it’s something that the rest of the media should follow suit.

We need to be doing our part to ensure our journalists and editors are not afraid to call out the powerful.

If they’re afraid to do that, then the rest the media isn’t doing their job, and their readers are also less likely to trust their sources.