There is a nurse shortage in the U.S. So hospitals want to import more nurses from abroad. The New York Times is skeptical of this. Which seems bizarre, given that it supports bringing in millions of unskilled immigrants into the U.S. But the root of the Times’ worry is that this nurse importation would be bad for the countries they are leaving in Africa and Asia. The Times, therefore, is only skeptical of immigration into the U.S. when it will burden other countries. This is similar to the liberal position on intervention abroad–in favor of it only when it doesn’t seem to be in our national interest. What the Times recommends to avoid importing too many nurses is better education and higher wages for nurses here at home. Why wouldn’t the Times support the same for low-skilled U.S. workers before jumping to inundate the low-skill job market with unskilled Mexican laborers?