Tom Bevan: sarcastic or idiotic?

Welcome to the first edition of "Tom Bevan: sarcastic or idiotic?" Bevan runs Real Clear Politics, and says:

Yesterday Governor Bill Owens signed a package of new immigration laws which he called the toughest in America. Among the new set of laws is one unbelievably draconian measure that "requires applicants for public benefits such as welfare to provide proof that they are legally in the United States."

Is that really draconian? Certainly, there are some people who don't have that, but I'm sure there are alternative ways of proving that they are in fact here legally.

And, should taxpayer money really be spent subsidizing corrupt, inefficient businesses?

Thus, the title. Is he being sarcastic, or is he just an idiot?

At post time, I'm favoring the latter explanation, based in part on this post, which engendered the following unanswered reply from me via email:

---
1. You argue against making those who've settled here go home. Presumably if your argument is valid now it would be valid (and used) later. So, you're saying that, despite our laws to the contrary, once someone has settled here you don't want to send them home. So, you're adding something additional on to any legislation that's passed. No matter how strongly that legislation opposes illegal immigration, the "Bevans Rule" is that those who've settled won't be deported.

Needless to say, the "Bevans Rule" will lead to even more massive illegal immigration.

2. The public is only coalescing around "comprehensive" "reform" in the fantasies of push pollers and GOP hacks.

Whatever you do, do not add comments to your site, because you - and especially Ryan Sager - would get eaten alive.
---

The fact that Sager is also a contributor there tends to make me favor the "idiot" choice.

Immigration · Tue, 08/01/2006 - 14:39 · · Importance: 1