The New York Times has officially gone off the deep end. And these days, that’s saying something.

On Sunday, the 167-year-old organization announced through its editorial board that it supports the federal government sacrificing the value of millions of suburban houses by injecting poor immigrants into middle-class neighborhoods.

Instead of wanting the government to find an immigration solution that doesn’t put the property of American citizens in jeopardy, The Times said that everyone should stoop to the lowest common denominator.

“The federal government is an irresistible force when it chooses to prioritize an issue. It is past time to prioritize the availability of affordable housing” for immigrants, the editorial, titled “A New Approach on Housing Affordability,” read.

Right, and because the federal government is large and intimidating, they should totally be allowed to bully Americans and infringe on the say-so of local governments. Give me a break.

TRENDING: Jill Biden's First Husband: I Was Betrayed by the Bidens and I'm Backing Trump

American citizens shouldn’t have to sacrifice their freedoms because the government can’t control an influx of immigrants.

The piece discussed a few major topics which all share a simple solution.

The authors first mentioned the growing cost of housing, citing that a “growing number of Americans are struggling to cope with the high and rising cost of rental housing in the United States.”

The editorial board proposed that the federal government work to push local governments into “allowing small-scale apartment buildings in single-family neighborhoods.”

Do you think The New York Times editorial board is wrong? Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use You're logged in to Facebook. Click here to log out. 98% (1445 Votes) 2% (34 Votes)

The second issue brought up was the idea that suburban homes increase “the cost of housing by limiting the supply of available units.”

“It contributes to climate change, by necessitating sprawl and long commutes. It constrains the economic potential of cities by limiting growth,” the editorial board added.

That brings up real estate investors, who happen to make their living off influxes of outsiders and newcomers. According to Breitbart’s Neil Munro, a lobbying group for investors recently admitted that “mass migration helps investors in major coastal cities.”

A lobbying group for investors admits mass migration helps investors in major coastal cities but ‘fails’ Americans in heartland & rural towns. So it urges less immigration? No – it urges more migration to spike family housing prices outside major cities! https://t.co/1ROcCgspcq — Neil Munro (@NeilMunroDC) May 16, 2019

RELATED: Disney Indoctrination: Children's Show Introduces First Bisexual Lead Character

The last suggestion that The Times made was in support of subsidized housing in suburban neighborhoods — yes, the same Section 8 housing that crowds poverty-stricken, urban areas.

“Poor children raised in economically diverse neighborhoods thrive by comparison with those raised in concentrations of poverty, yet subsidized housing tends to be built in neighborhoods with high levels of poverty,” the editorial board wrote.

“Under the Obama administration, renters in some cities were offered larger vouchers if they agreed to move to areas with better schools, where housing tends to be more expensive.”

The New York Times wants to fix the outcome of an issue, not the root of the problem itself — which, in turn, would trickle down to begin the repair of many other problems.

The real concern is that the United States is outstretching its arms to one million immigrant workers, consumers and renters every year through its federal immigration policy. Things need to change, fast.

If those numbers were to be reduced — and a merit-based immigration system implemented — housing costs just might begin to stabilize, schools could improve and the agendas of some real estate investors (that often harm middle-class communities) would be diminished.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.