The Wall Street Journal offers what is probably a daily attempt to support importing cheap labor in "Hispanics and the GOP" (possible author: Stephen Moore). It's difficult to point out all that's wrong with it or how similar it is to past efforts, but let's consider this bit:

While GOP candidates debated the urgency of erecting a fence from California to Texas along the Mexican border, Democrats debated in Spanish on Univision.

Actually, (to the chagrin of Bill Richardson), they "debated" in English. It was translated into Spanish. And, Richardson practically had a sign around his neck saying, "vote for me, I'm Raza". And, both Hillary and Obama were asked to defend their voting for the fence. And, leftie Elena Maria Salinas asked questions that indicated her support for illegal immigration, which the Dems answered as one would expect. Would the WSJ have the GOP reduce itself to that level?

To reverse current trends, the GOP need not resort to ethnic pandering, which is the left's metier.

I fail to see how they could avoid stooping to ethnic pandering, if they're going to support massive immigration from one region and especially from one country. And, that also means giving in to the racial power demands of "community leaders" who've made it clear that they put their race ahead of their country. So, how would the WSJ do it?

But Republicans would help their cause tremendously if the party at the very least adopted a welcoming stance toward Latino newcomers... Tone matters in politics, and getting people to vote for you is easier when you're not likening them to Islamic terrorists, or implying that Latino men are hard-wired for gang-banging.

Nice strawman. I'm not aware of GOP leaders that do that. Chuck Schumer did produce a video showing illegal aliens climbing over a fence and discussing the threat of terrorists infiltrating the U.S., which he quickly pulled because a couple racial demagogues complained. Should the GOP engage in such gutless behavior? Should the GOP turn a blind eye to terrorist infiltration because racial demagogues want them to turn a blind eye to massive illegal immigration by others of the same race?

There's much more, including this:

Republican pols may decide to follow Mr. Tancredo, Lou Dobbs, Fox News populists and obsessive bloggers down this path, but it's likely to lead to political defeat.

Oh well. Even if I were a member of a party I'd put what's in the best interests of the U.S. first, and I invite the WSJ to consider doing the same.