The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Better Lives for Mexicans Cut Allure of Going North,” provides a penetrating analysis of a prominent issue in a way only The Times can do. Its three-page coverage observes the changes in dynamics between legal and illegal immigrants traveling to the United States.

Apparently, the flow of illegal immigration to the U.S. has slowed to a trickle. Surprisingly, the reason is not increased enforcement by border police or more stringent hiring practices by employers, but more opportunities in Mexico itself. The salary differential between the two countries, once as high as 10 to 1, is now a more manageable 3 to 1. Plus educational opportunities in Mexico have increased significantly with more than half of the students graduating from high school now going on to college, in Mexico. Delivery of basic services such as water, electricity and trash collection has also become more widespread.

And the United States has adopted more humane policies. In tandem with increased border enforcement, the U.S. has also made temporary worker visas (H-2A) more readily available, and it has opened the door to people who once immigrated illegally. That, combined with demographic factors, such as much smaller Mexican families, has changed the balance between illegal and legal immigration, to the benefit of both countries.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Political Battle on Immigration Shifts to States,” shows how Arizona’s tough new law has infected other regions and needs to be invalidated as soon as possible. The Arizona law, that allows police officers to ask about the immigrant status of subjects detained for other reasons, has now spawned an attempt to do away with the 14th Amendment, a guarantee of citizenship for anyone born within the United States, even if their parents were illegal immigrants.

The fight over illegal immigration is opening up a fissure within the Republican Party, between the pro-business groups that rely on cheap immigrant labor, and the more populist elements of the Party. In addition, those with an eye to the future of the Republican Party recognize the Hispanic block as one of the fastest growing elements of the electorate and are reluctant to alienate them over this issue (too late).

And after the recent rejection of the so-called “Dream Act,” many immigrants have a right to be anti-Republican. That legislation set a very high bar, requiring young illegals to serve one year in the military or college before obtaining citizenship. And despite this, it was blocked in the Senate by Republicans.

The resolution of the illegal immigrant problem remains unclear, but, as they say in Afghanistan, the facts on the ground can not be refuted, and the millions of illegal immigrants must be incorporated into our country in some manner, whether for good or ill.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Administration Spares Students in Deportations,” describes an Obama administration policy bringing sanity back to the debate about illegal immigration. The government, specifically ICE, the immigration enforcement agency, is focusing its efforts on illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. It is indefinitely deferring deportations of students, especially those who have come to the United States as small children.

The Republican reaction? A seeming lack of compassion for the plight of others, and a demand to enforce the law without any mercy.

I should, however, give credit to the Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, who with Democrat Richard Durbin has co-sponsored the Dream Act, student legislation to give a path to citizenship for those who came to the country under 16 and who have graduated from high school with a clean criminal record.

In terms of enforcement procedures, the Obama administration denies it is legislating from the executive branch and frames the issue as one of limited resources. While the number of deportations has increased since the Bush administration, it has declined 24 percent for those with civil violations but no crime.

Republicans continue to insist this involves selective enforcement of the law and, while they are technically correct, selective enforcement happens all the time. The police always make value judgments in whom they arrest as does the bench in terms of sentencing. The Obama policy regarding immigration makes sense for our nation and those who are within our shores, both legally and illegally.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, titled “National Guard will be Deployed to Aid at Border,” describes President Obama’s decision to send 1,200 troops to the border to combat illegal drug trafficking and immigration. The moved was not announced with great fanfare but leaked through a Democratic candidate for the House in Arizona.

Predictably, Senator McCain said the deployment was inadequate, but several Democrats and Republicans rushed to take credit for the moving including the Republican Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, and her Democratic opponent, Teddy Goddard.

The article notes that President Bush had as many as 6,000 troops at the border who arrested 162,000 illegal immigrants and confiscated $69,000 and 305,000 pounds of illicit drugs.

Meanwhile, the furor over illegal immigration continues as well as the boycotts of Arizona due to their draconian law allowing police to demand the production of papers proving residency by anyone they stop for other reasons and deem suspicious.

President Obama’s action comes on the heels of a major debate in Congress over immigration reform and, in my opinion, is designed to head off demands to secure the border first. This decision may reflect political realities of the upcoming debate as well as a reaction to genuine need.

We’ll see how the situation develops. The article noted that the troops are not specifically trained to arrest people and would not do so.

The lead article in today’s New York Times, “Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration,” describes a new law signed by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, yesterday requiring all non-citizens to carry their immigration papers with them and empowering the police to stop anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant to demand production of those papers.

The law created an immediate furor among Hispanic activist groups and even drew a negative comment from President Obama, unusual since the President does not normally take a stand on state laws. Reading between the lines, the Governor may have felt forced to sign the legislation because she is up for reelection this year. As an indication of her sentiments, she refused to take a stand on the law until she actually signed it.

Republicans, as a Party, seem very short-sighted about this issue. Their attempt to court the growing Hispanic vote is bound to fail if they continue to cater to the nativistic elements of their base. And the refusal to compromise regarding the illegal immigrant situation is unrealistic given the number of them present in our society. Even John McCain, who previously supported immigration reform, has been forced to renounce that effort and support the Arizona law due to a primary challenge from the right.

Where are the Republican leaders who are supposed to show responsibility and leadership based on both compassion and justice? Does compassionate conservatism even exist anymore?

The lead article in today’s New York Times is titled, “Obama to Push Immigration Bill as One Priority.” It describes the current administration’s plans for “policy reform” on illegal immigration.

The article shows President Obama’s faithfullness to his campaign commitments. He made promises to many Hispanic groups about tackling the controversial issue of illegal administration and make it a priority. As a result, he received substantial support, not surprising considering the Republican Party’s nativistic viewpoint in this regard.

When are people going to learn that this President means what he says? He has proceeded to address many other issues promised during the campaign as well, despite pressure from both critics and friends to go slow, to raise one issue at a time, or other tactics designed to make him back away from his word.

The issue of illegal immigration, as described in the article, carries particular poignancy because many families are being destroyed as a result of our current short-sighted system. Husbands with American wives and American children, and a steady job, are facing deportation.

And the argument about foreign workers taking jobs that could otherwise go to citizens during the current recession just shows the lack of compassion by the people who raise it. First of all, illegal immigrants generally take jobs Americans refuse such as backbreaking farm work or other “sweatshop” or demeaning labor. Secondly, we are all human beings, and we need a certain amount of empathy for the less fortunate among us.

Kudos to President Obama for refusing to be limited to one issue at a time, as his true enemies would prefer!