Tamar Jacoby on immigration "reform"

Tamar Jacoby is back with another column entitled "Getting Beyond the 'A-Word'".

It was printed in the Open Borders rag known as the Wall Street Journal. She support immigration "reform" and the Kennedy-McCain amnesty. And, in other news, the sky is blue.

There's really no point in discussing her articles, as she's usually wrong when she's not making misleading statements, building strawman arguments, and the like.

But, just for giggles, I selected one small snippet:

...National security, too, demands that we come to terms with the existence of these 11 million workers. As is, they live entirely beyond the reach of authorities...

They do? What do they do, spend their days living in caves in the hills? No, actually what they do is live in our cities, consume public services, and work jobs at "respectable" businesses.

If there are no more non-emergency public services for them, and the Bush administration cracks down on the employers of illegal aliens, then a very large number of them will simply self-deport. So, they are in fact in the reach of our laws.

The problem, as usual, is that our laws aren't being enforced. See "Bush to illegal aliens: once you're in the U.S., you're home free" for how few companies have been targeted for employing illegal aliens, and see the cases of Arizona's Prop. 200 and California's Prop. 187 for examples of the American public trying to restrict services to illegals and our elites blocking the public's wishes. Note that Jacoby was opposed to Prop. 200: "Next time just stay inside the beltway".

Previous coverage starts in "Tamar Jacoby on the Kennedy-McCain mass amnesty", and make sure and listen to her interview on the John & Ken Show: "Tamar Jacoby gets her arguments shredded into tiny bits of straw".


When I first noticed that there was an article by a right-of-center columnist featured in an entry (listed on your sidebar), I was thinking that it would be a pro-immigration [real] reform piece... But then I thought, perhaps considering the quotation marks around "reform," that it may not be that type of article... and I see that it certainly is not. On foreign policy and immigration (and probably on trade as well), that paper's editorial page is very wrong.