What is it with progressives? Why must they demonize everyone who doesn’t share their values? Read this. For a while, it looks as though the editorial board of The New York Times is going to stay focused on the arguments for and against enforcing immigration laws. But then, near the end of the opinion, comes the P-word. The mayor of the town in question is said to be “prejudiced” against immigrants. Two things. First, no evidence is supplied that the man is prejudiced. It’s simply assumed that he is. That’s the opposite of charity. It’s indecency. Second, even if he were prejudiced, it would have no bearing on the merits of his argument for enforcing the immigration laws. As a philosopher, this shift from reasons to motives—from the grounds of belief to the causes of action—is dismaying, to say the least. I would like to think that every philosopher, including those of a progressive persuasion, would condemn this fallacious maneuver. That they don’t do so shows that they are progressives first and philosophers second. If you’re a student of philosophy, take note.

Addendum: The opinion as a whole is filled with vicious, manipulative rhetoric. The mayor is said to be a “vigilante” and to be “cruel.” Those who support enforcement of the law are said to be “harsh” and “inhumane”—and to want to “dehumanize” people. You know the Times is losing the argument when it resorts to abuse.