MICKEY KAUS, taking an unexpected turn:
Bush's Domestic Iraq, cont.: In today's WSJ, Jeb Bush and Ken Mehlman defend the Senate immigration bill [$] in part on the grounds that it will enable Republicans to capture the Latino vote. This is largely a fantasy, as Heather Mac Donald argues. Anyway, if the GOP has to move left in Western states to compete accommodate a Dem-tending Latino vote (as it almost certainly will, whatever happens) is that such a bad thing? If you move the GOP left you might get a more appealing GOP--the GOP of Gov. Schwarzenegger, for example. ...
P.S.: There's something obnoxiously managerial and thuggish in declaring, as Bush and Mehlman do, that
"Doing nothing is not an option."
Yes it is. It usually is. The whole structure of our Constitution--which makes it very difficult to pass new laws--is based on the premise that doing nothing is not only an option but often the best option. ...
Yet, most brazen and effective form of amnesty is the status quo. No one is being deported; laws aren't being enforced; and the border wall is little more than a bad joke, which everyone loves to talk about but no one will pay for.
The whole point of comprehensive reform is to replace the current lawlessness -- anarchy in some places -- with laws that can be enforced: laws that reflect economic reality and our common humanity. Indeed, enforcement isn't really a priority for most enforcement-first folks, who confuse tough talk with tough action. They want laws, but don't explain how the laws will pass Congress -- or work in the real world. If you doubt this, ask them where they will get the votes to pass their bill du jour or appropriate the money to make their tough talk more than hot air. Ask them too how they think the mass deportations will go.
But maybe this explains Kaus' grudging acceptance of the current failed system. If you can't have the laws that you'll ignore tomorrow, why not settle for the laws that you ignore today?
(In fairness to Kaus, he's suggesting that Weisberg's view of incremental reform may be a better model than the current morass of competing laws. If we're being fair, one might concede that he has a point. But why be fair?)