Albert R. Hunt of Bloomberg News (formerly of the WSJ?) offers "Letter from Washington: Unlikely duo may end immigration impasse", and WaPo staff writer Charles Babington offers the similar "GOP Fears Fallout Of Immigration Split". Both offer the conventional-but-incorrect wisdom, and both promote the Senate's illegal alien amnesty scheme.

The first starts with this:

Lindsey Graham, a pro-immigration American politician, knows the ugly side of this issue: Some of his constituents derisively call him Lindsey "Gomez."

Since I can't find anyone calling him that online [1], perhaps they're all doing so non-internetally. Alternatively, perhaps he's just race-baiting.

The article goes downhill from there. Al Hunt reports on the split between the House and the Senate, then says that, "facts and history may be casualties" of the debate. He then proceeds to try to correct some of the misconceptions. After having used the phrase "anti-immigration" after having blurred the lines between the legal and illegal varieties, I think I'll pass on his attempt to set the record straight. Then, he engages in Appeal to Tradition. Then, he trots out this moldy old slice of conventional "wisdom":

Twelve years ago, Governor Pete Wilson of California, a Republican, won re-election by going after illegal immigrants. In the process, he alienated Hispanic voters, and Democrats have dominated California politics ever since.

Then, since he doesn't know what he's talking about, I stopped reading.

The article from Charles Babington of the WaPo is similar, with the name "Lindsey Graham" replaced with the names "Chuck Hagel" and "John Thune", both amnesty supporters:

House Republicans "are probably right in the short term," Thune said. But for Bush and Rove, he said, "the question is, 'How can we reach out to a group that is the fastest-growing segment?' "

Bush and Rove are reaching out to the far-left wing of Hispanics, those who will never vote for them. And, not only that, they're giving more power to that far-left wing and increasing their number of race-minded constituents. Isn't there the ever-so-slight possibility that Rove and Bush are either completely wrong, or they're playing a different game entirely? The article ends with this:

"We are seen by too many as an intolerant party," Hagel said. "And the majority of Americans are not going to elect intolerant representatives."

Is encouraging illegal immigration really the best way to show just how "tolerant" you are? Perhaps Hagel could prove his "tolerant" bona fides by, for instance, reaching out to legal immigrants. That way, he'd be supporting our laws and our founding principles instead of trying to work around them.

-----------
[1] 11/10/13 update: I deleted the link to search results, but the reader can do a search themselves.