Speaking of listening to the other side, have you listened to Haley Barbour on the immigration issue lately? It is reported that, at a recent, post-election Governors’ Conference, he said, in reference to Latino immigrants who work at chicken processing plants in his state, “Col. Sanders needs these guys.” So perhaps my inference about what’s driving the pro-immigration “reform” movement in the Republican Party is not too far off.

“Col. Sanders need these guys.” I suppose native-born Mississippians are not sufficiently compliant, and accepting of low wages, for the good Colonel and the politicians he sponsors. What an inspiring vision of the American future.

Gee, if only we had nominated Haley Barbour. Ah, what might have been!

I’ve heard what the other side (in this case, the other side of the conservative movement) has to say on this issue. They’ve been saying it for quite a long time, they have quite a megaphone, and, until, four years ago, they exercised quite a bit of power in this country. Probably, I would have agreed with them, for the most part, back when I was more mainstream/neo-conservative in my thinking (I still read Commentary and the Weekly Standard, incidentally, both of which are friendly to immigration reform). So I don’t think you can indict me for not being willing to listen to the other side. After informing myself and engaging in some reflection, I don’t think what they say makes any sense, from the point of view of reviving conservative political fortunes. Whether the damage they have done can be reversed is another question.

In the spirit of Pete Spiliakos’ original post above, maybe this is an opportunity to actually listen to what the other side has to say. To wit, your previous characterization of the pro-immigration side is a cartoon. I am not even saying that the view you hold against immigration reform is incorrect, but responding to the argument by calling it ridiculous and then invoking a caricature of that opinion is a sure indication that, perhaps, your understanding of the issue may benefit from a more nuanced appreciation of the other side.

In which case I would be very interested in hearing your thoughts in response to Aguilar’s contribution in the panel discussion I linked to.

On the other hand, if you don’t think it’s worth your time, well, maybe that’s exactly the attitude that Pete is trying to warn against in the article that started this thread.

I didn’t suggest you were-but your description of it as “consistent”.

The idea that the GOP can save itself by embracing “immigration reform” (i.e., amnesty, which would in fact lead to more waves of illegal immigraion and more amnesties) is so ridiculous on its face (for reasons well explained by Ponnuru, Lowry and others) that the inference seems inescapable that establishment GOP politicians, operatives, consultants and think-tankers keep coming back to it because it is what their business funders (both big and small business) want. In other words, the establishment GOP position is being driven, not by any sort of long-term strategy for conservative resurgence, but by the short term financial interests of contributors. Namely, to keep down labor costs (for small business) and to increase sales volume (for big businesses that sell to the mass market). I hate to sound like a Marxist (which I emphatically am not), but this does seem to me to be an instance of the capitalists selling their enemies the rope with which the capitalists (at least the small business people -I’m sure Walmart will make out fine) will ultimately be hanged.

“No wonder the young find Libertarians appealing; at least they have a consistent message.”

There’s a difference between consistency and absolutism. Take it from a guy who was a paid subscriber to Reason magazine.

There’s a reason libertarianism is largely populated by disaffected young males and economics professors. Both tend to imagine they know something about the world and are largely insulated from responsibility.

http://www.aei.org/events/2012/11/19/conservatives-and-immigration-reform-now-what/

I’ll summarize my take-away. Three of the four panelists were very pro immigration reform with the most articulate advocate being Alfonso Aguilar who represents a conservative pro-immigration group and had worked closely with the W. Bush administration on immigration reform policies. There was only one immigration reform skeptic, but it was Ramesh Ponnuru so the skeptics were more than well represented. The other two panelists provided color but the real core arguments for immigration reform were from Aguilar.

My summary of the main disagreement is as follows: Aguilar insists Romney lost the Hispanic vote and the election the moment he went anti-immigration in the primaries by which Aguilar sited his criticism of the dream act and endorsement of Arizona’s immigration laws as examples. According to Aguilar, Romney’s attempts to moderate those positions later came across as lacking credibility to hispanic voters. Aguilar insists Obama’s entitlements had nothing to do with why Romney did so poorly with hispanics. This latter point was a point of real contention between Aguilar and Ponnuru, the latter insisting that according to polls hispanic immigrants support a whole number of entitlement and statist policies that simply are not compatible with conservatives. Ponnuru’s main argument against the idea that hispanics cost Romney the election was that lack of white working class votes also cost him, and its unlikely that these voters will be brought back into the fold if Republicans suddenly become pro-immigration.

My other take away is that there definitiely seems to be significant antipathy between the pro-immigration side and what they describe in this panel discussion as a sort of insidious nativistic anti immigration consituency that is supposedly scaring the party from responsible immigration reform. They clearly were not talking about Ponnuru but others, so no rebuttal from this side of the debate was had, but I suspect that is where the battle lines will likely be drawn inside the party if immigration continues to be revisited by conservatives who are soul searching in the aftermath of this last election.