Tamar Jacoby and Grover Norquist don't speak for 75% of Americans

Tamar Jacoby and Grover Norquist offer "Hard-liners don't speak for GOP". As anyone who's familiar with them might be able to predict, it's like entering bizarro world, in which those who want to reduce illegal immigration are "hard-liners". Of course, that's the position of three-quarters of Americans, and that percentage would probably go up if they knew everything involved in the issue.

And, oddly enough, they also have some kind words for "liberals":

Over two days of emotional debate on the floor, Democrats railed against the legislation, standing up, member after member, to defend our tradition as a nation of immigrants. Most of the Republicans who spoke used an entirely different vocabulary -- all about policing and punishment. A few brave GOP dissenters stood up to say that we can have both -- can remain a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.

As you might expect, that's complete BS. Democrats support massive illegal immigration, and they do so for various corrupt reasons. Simply enforcing the laws will not stop us from being a "nation of immigrants": we already admit almost a million new citizens per year.

According to the authors, this new tack is designed to rally the base. As they might say, just one problem: the base isn't buying it. They know that Bush is only slightly modifying his talk in order to keep trying to sell a "temporary" worker scheme.

They also say:

the heavily partisan votes made the party look unappealingly anti-immigrant.

HR 4437 isn't "anti-immigrant". It's (supposedly) designed to reduce illegal immigration. Anyone who calls it "anti-immigrant" is simply smearing. Why would one group of conservatives attempt to smear another group? Shouldn't conservatives fight against such "liberal" smears rather than being just as bad as a "liberal"?

Then, they let us know that the "reform wing" of the GOP is alive and well, and it includes many of those on the other side:

political operatives such as Ken Mehlman... business friendly Republicans at The Wall Street Journal, the Cato Institute and elsewhere... security-minded Republicans like Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and his predecessor Tom Ridge...

Then, they give the impression that a) Ronald Reagan is still alive and b) would have supported their schemes:

And then there are Republicans like Ronald Reagan and now President Bush who understand in a more general way that immigrants are good for the country: that they bring entrepreneurial energy and family values and fresh patriotism -- and that, as Reagan emphasized, the nation must remain a beacon to the world... None of these Republicans think enforcement or legality are unimportant...

In fact, not only is Reagan no longer with us, but he deeply regreted the amnesty he signed, and it's partly because of that amnesty that we have so many millions of illegal aliens here today.

Of course, one of the reasons there are editorials like this is because those on the other side are scared. That's definitely a good thing, but I wouldn't suggest getting over confident, since the other side has a lot of money and a lot of influence.


Found an amazingly succinct statement of the issues by commenter Rick Darby at 2blowhards.com. The only major issue he doesn't address is the touchy one of massive demographic transformation. This is the one issue that Americans are forbidden to discuss. But you can be sure the Mexicans would up in arms if they were faced with millions of Russians or Chinese entering their country.
There's no use debating any of this with people who believe more population density is better, that corporations should be able to profit by paying substandard wages while sticking the taxpayer with the social welfare costs, and that the economy will hit the rocks without a huge permanent underclass.
Posted by Rick Darby at December 21, 2005

Anarchists are 'business-friendly'? Perhaps so, in the way that Lenin was, when it suited him.

The beacons were lit, not to beckon the Spanish or the monarchists, but to facilitate the repulsion of them. These activists want to make a bonfire of the interests of the net taxpayer and the citizen, in order to beckon to the welfare grabbing hordes to the south. Liberty and freedom, mean freedom from aggression, not a licentious invitation for the third world to come and participate in a bacchanal of plundering.