If you oppose comprehensive immigration reform - aka amnesty - you aren't just fighting against its overt, "usual suspect" supporters. Another group you need to deal with are those who might at first seem to be on your side but to some degree aren't:

1. The first group includes the American Civil Liberties Union, almost all leaders of the Democratic Party, the far-left, the US Chamber of Commerce, the Service Employees International Union, and so on. These are all "usual suspects", and they're quite open about their support for amnesty.

2. The other group is much more pernicious because many who actually oppose amnesty might think they're on their side. Except - in varying degrees - they aren't. Some of them are as much opponents as the ACLU, others are only slightly opponents. Note that I'm not including groups that actually, truly oppose amnesty in this set, such as FAIR, a handful of immigration-related bloggers, several House members, Mark Krikorian at National Review, and so on. And, note also that some of those I'm including are more or less only "weak sisters"; they aren't intellectually sound enough or don't have enough integrity to oppose amnesty, but they could be propped up. If all of this sounds vague, that's because those in this camp have to be handled in a nuanced way. Examples of how not to handle things in a nuanced way abound, but one fairly recent example comes from the way that ALIPAC dumped Lou Dobbs, thereby helping the far-left with their celebrations.

Clear examples of "false friends" include Dick Armey of Freedomworks and Grover Norquist. Slighly less clear examples include the tea parties: just as they sat by silently while George W Bush worked against U.S. interests, even those among the "partiers" who pretend to oppose amnesty have sat silently by while those inside the Beltway did things like keep immigration out of the tea partiers' "Contract from America". The tea partiers might be useful if someone can get through to them and force them to act like effective adults, but as it is when it comes to amnesty they're helping the opposition. Their leaders are smart enough to use them, but none of the followers have shown even the barest smidgen of intelligence.

A group that's clearly on the other side but which some people might be confused about are libertarians. If you oppose massive and illegal immigration, the libertarians are on the other side. And, because they have power disproportionate to their numbers - to a good degree due to funding by the Koch family and similar groups - they need to be dealt with. Thankfully, it's not difficult to show how libertarians are wrong because few of them can think things through. The problem is finding others who can and are willing to do it. Included in this group are major rightwing bloggers, most of whom lean or are libertarian.

Some of those rightwing bloggers (and pundits) might put up a good front in order to not lose readers, but many of those won't put up much of a fight or will be open to a compromise. This includes Glenn Reynolds and other rightwing bloggers; a good portion of the reason I criticize and try to discredit people like that is in a somewhat vain attempt to reduce their possibility of having an impact on this issue. The vast majority of rightwing bloggers are simply unprincipled partisan hacks. Some rightwing bloggers compound that with being extremely establishment- and business-friendly, such as Ed Morrissey of HotAir. Others are simply weak, such as his colleague Allahpundit. Many others add great incompetence into the mix, or mean well but are just completely incompetent.

Once again: how you deal with those who fall into the second group depends on the individual situation and a nuanced approach is necessary. While I'm not perfect - and I occasionally do things that might be somewhat counter-productive - please watch what I do and who I oppose and who I support for clues as to how to help block amnesty.