It's "they can't be serious" time as the New York Times offers the editorial "Immigration Reform, in Pieces".

They're disappointed in Bush's failure to push through the "comprehensive" immigration "reform" he proposed, and they express their hope that a real leader on the subject will step forward. There's too much to respond to, but let's just consider this:

Among the most poisonous provisions is one that would give state and local police agencies authority to enforce federal immigration laws. Police departments big and small have bristled at the idea, saying they lack the expertise and the resources to enforce immigration law. They say it would cripple crime fighting by severing hard-won relationships with potential victims and witnesses: immigrants who will end up fearing and avoiding them.

Note, of course, that those agencies wouldn't be required to enforce those laws, it would just be an option. More on that bill (the "Immigration Law Enforcement Act of 2006") - together with the same scare tactic talking points - here: immigrationforum.org/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=843. Wouldn't enforcing our immigration laws lead to fewer illegal aliens, and wouldn't that lead to fewer illegal aliens who won't report crimes out of fear of being deported? Won't continuing to fail to enforce our immigration laws lead to the current situation getting even worse?

Then, the NYT says other stuff that's wrong, and just before saying more stuff that's wrong says this:

Anti-immigrant fervor is a flame that spreads easily. But leadership can help people look beyond resentment and fear.

Surely the NYT must realize by now that enforcing our immigration laws isn't "anti-immigrant", nor are the bills they discuss. Let's be fair and call that a typo.

And, as long as there's even just one person whose support for the bills or immigration enforcement is not motivated by "resentment and fear", the NYT's argument is ad hominem: it applies to those who are so motivated, and not to the issue of the bills or enforcement. Let's be fair again and assume that their use of "resentment and fear" is simply another mistake and wasn't done because they've run out of argument and in order to cloud the issue and portray their opponents in a bad light.