When it comes to immigration, there are two basic sides: those who want more of it and those who want the same or less. The great majority of Americans are in the second camp: they want to keep immigration levels the same or reduce them and they oppose illegal immigration.

Those in the first group - the group that wants to keep increasing immigration and that supports or doesn't exactly oppose illegal immigration - include ideologues (e.g., libertarians), racial power advocates (e.g., Luis Gutierrez), those who have a financial motivation (e.g., immigration banks), and paid hacks (e.g., Tamar Jacoby).

Speaking of whom, Tamar Jacoby offers "Romney crosses the immigration divide / In a recent speech to L.A.'s Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, he unequivocally repudiated the party's restrictionist wing" (link) in which she recognizes and cheers that Mitt Romney is on her basic side of immigration:

The question that divides the GOP today is even more fundamental: Are you for or against immigration, period? Republican immigration hawks believe American has admitted enough, or too many, immigrants and should be moving to restrict the flow. Those on the other side of the divide believe that immigration — legal immigration — is key to what makes the country great, economically and in other ways, including by renewing our spirit and revitalizing our communities.

What's significant about Romney's appearances this week is that he came down firmly and passionately with the second group: in favor of expanded legal immigration and unequivocally repudiating the party's restrictionist wing.

Not only that, but the speech comes at a pivotal moment, as both hawks and doves are girding up for a new, intensified fight.

...No one in the GOP can say it today - after all, Romney is the nominee - but many clearly feel he went too far in the heat of the primaries and are glad to see him clarifying his position now.

The truth is, most of what Romney said this week he has said before, many times. But now there can be no mistaking which side he's on: still opposed to illegal immigration, still adamantly against "amnesty" and still in favor of tough immigration enforcement, but not - emphatically not - a restrictionist.

What if Romney's pandering doesn't pay off? Jacoby's covered her bases on that too:

Most immigrant rights advocates and Latino activists dismissed his outreach as too little, too late - Romney can't compete with Obama on immigration.

If Romney's pandering doesn't raise his share of the "Hispanic vote", then those like Jacoby will blame Romney's stance on immigration in the primaries. What they should blame is the fact that it's impossible for the GOP to out-pander the Democratic Party, as I've pointed out repeatedly.

For more, see these:

* Romney's pandering won't work

* Romney pandering at the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

* Romney wimping out on Univision

* the Mitt Romney chronicles his ever-weakening position on this issue