Jonathan Chait of New York Magazine thinks the GOP has to choose between immigration "reform" and losing Asian and Hispanic voters. That's a false choice: there are other alternatives.

Is Jonathan Chait capable of figuring out alternatives? Even if he can figure out alternatives, is he willing to reveal them to his readers? If he can't figure out alternatives or won't mention them, then is he really qualified to discuss immigration?

The questions below are based on Chait's "How House Republicans Screwed Their Next Presidential Nominee" ( peekURL.com/ztfMNzQ ) which includes "

Immigration provided the one possible area for significant legislative action during President Obama’s second term, and also the one material way for Republicans to patch up holes in their leaky electoral coalition. The Republicans’ incentive to pass immigration reform is intuitive and obvious: They need to get right with the large, growing cohort of Latino and Asian-American voters. In opposition to this intuitive logic, several conservatives have argued that passing immigration reform is irrelevant or even harmful to solving the GOP’s troubles. A mini-industry devoted to debunking the political logic of immigration reform has proliferated on the right. Some of these arguments coat a thin patina of logic atop deep flaws; others lack even the patina."

That's cute, but if he can't answer the questions below then he isn't really qualified to discuss immigration issues.