I invite my readers to read the column "Two Steps Toward a Sensible Immigration Policy" from the NYT's David Brooks in a Tokyo Rose accent:

What do you say to the working-class guy from the south side of San Antonio? He feels his wages are stagnating because he has to compete against illegal immigrants. He watches thousands of people streaming across the border, bankrupting his schools and health care system, while he plays by the rules...

What's he doing in San Antone? That's what I want to know.

The system is out of control.

That's a stock talking point. I've been keeping track of its use, and my coverage starts here.

...Tough enforcement laws make us feel good, but they don't do the job. Since 1986, we've tripled the number of Border Patrol agents and increased the enforcement budget 10 times over, but we haven't made a dent in the number of illegals who make it here...

Yes, as my readers know the Bush administration is all about tough enforcement of our immigration laws. In the last year, three companies got enforcement warning letters. That's tough enforcement, I tell you what.

We've got agents chasing busboys while who knows what kind of terrorists are trying to sneak into this country...

Now, let's compare this bit from cheap labor cheerleader Tamar Jacoby:

[BP Agent Lee Morgan] criticizes the apprehensions as a waste of time and resources. "They're just poor people trying to feed their families," he shrugs... "What if the bastards come across here in Arizona and I don't catch them because I'm so busy chasing a busboy or a gardener that I don't have time to do my job--my real job--catching terrorists?..."

Speaking of the devil:

We need these workers, but we force them underground with our self-delusional immigration policies. As Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute says, "It's very hard to enforce unrealistic rules." ...So it doesn't matter how many beer-swilling good old boys appoint themselves citizen border guards, we're not going to get this situation under control until we understand this paradox: The more we simply crack down, the more disorder we get...

I think I'm going to stop right about here, ayup. Obviously, Brooks is more than just an NYC elitist. He's also a Bush-supporting hack, much like a more famous version of Hugh Hewitt.

He goes on to support both the Kennedy-McCain and Kyl-Cornyn massive amnesty schemes, parroting Jacoby's support for them. And, he ends with his support for "serious immigration reform".

This column appears under various names:

Immigration policy to suit San Antonio working guys

Regulating the flow of immigration

Brooks: Immigration: Let's get practical

Two Steps To Sensible Immigration Policy

I suggest that henceforth we put Brooks in the same category as Jacoby, Hewitt, and the rest.