Linda Chavez - among other things a director of low-wage employers Pilgrims Pride and ABM - offers the misleading "Progressives and Immigration Reform" (link). The part where she tries to tar those who support immigration enforcement as heirs to the progressive movement appears to be a cheap attempt to glom onto Glenn Beck's crusade against that same movement:

I would argue that the real "progressives" in the immigration debate are the immigration restrictionists who offer nothing but Big Government/Big Brother solutions to the problem -- and those who favor market-based legal immigration are the true conservatives... A true conservative approach to legal immigration reform is one that assumes government isn't any better at predicting future labor needs than it is at predicting the weather. True conservatism trusts individuals and the free market to make better decisions than government bureaucrats.

What she fails to note is that low-wage labor is massively subsidized, and the "market of ideas" surrounding immigration matters is heavily biased towards those who agree with Chavez. With a true free market approach, not only would every American have all the information they need to decide how much immigration they want, but employers would pay the full and true cost of their labor. And, those costs wouldn't just include healthcare costs and the costs for schooling the children of their employees, but would also include indirect costs such as the political power that massive immigration gives to foreign countries inside the U.S. and all the other indirect effects. Does anyone think Chavez - or the business community - would support a true free market in labor? Isn't Chavez simply supporting a crooked market, where employers get cheap labor and stick everyone else with the bill?

She also alludes to her own personal tale of woe:

Like the earlier progressives, these immigration restrictionists believe that government regulation is the answer to almost everything. In 1986, they devised a plan to end illegal immigration by turning employers into gatekeepers and forcing every American who wants to hire a babysitter to be treated the same as a Fortune 500 company. And the whole scheme didn't work, as many of us warned at the time. More illegal immigrants have entered the country since the passage of the 1986 immigration bill than entered before it was passed.

She's still sore over this. And, of course, the reason it didn't work is because it wasn't enforced, with corrupt politicians working to undermine it since it was passed. In this and other paragraphs, she tries to tie restrictionists and those who want to use our laws to reduce illegal immigration as the rightwing's latest (and to some extent deserved) bogeyman, progressives. She also smears FAIR and related groups; something that has a long history.

I'm delegating the rest to the commenters at Townhall; a scan showed not a single one in her corner.