MJS needs a metaphor refresher.

Here's the gist of their editorial today:

The new so-called no-match rule is a path underground. It will require employers to fire employees or verify legal status after about three months if the Social Security Administration informs them that an employee's number doesn't match known records. If the employers don't do this, they could be found to have "constructive knowledge" that the worker was not here legally. And legal residents also are likely to be ensnared in this net.

I'm not familiar with this, so I'm not commenting on the policy. It sounds like the Feds want to start enforcing laws against hiring illegal aliens.

Now, here's the Journal Sentinel's conclusion (emphasis added):

So if they're staying and the economy needs more of them all the time, enforcement only is to this problem what gasoline is to fire. Enforcing respect for the law is fine, but this works best when the law itself isn't so broken.

If it's like "what gasoline is to fire," then this law will cause a huge increase in illegal immigration. A flood of illegals, if I may mix my metaphors in a somewhat more effective way.

But clearly, real enforcement of these laws would not have that effect. It may not stop illegal immigration, or even slow it (again, I'm not familiar with the policy), but will it actually cause a huge increase?

Is this the best writing we can expect from the biggest newspaper in the state?