"[A] national consensus has formed around what the president calls "comprehensive" immigration reform--that is, impenetrable border security plus earned citizenship and a temporary worker program."

Just goes to show that the majority can be wrong. If the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed that it was OK to sign everything over to the United Nations, would that make it OK?

The immigration issue will be a good test of the media - we already know that what gets reported affects (if not controls) public opinion. Let's see if the reporters deserve that control.

Where are the investigations into cases like the one in Alabama that I pointed out the last time this topic came up, where American workers turned out in droves only to be let go because the Mexicans had arrived? I would think that a good investigative reporter would start checking to see if there were other similar occurrences, but maybe that's just me.

Barnes' line strikes me as generally sensible, even if I don't entirely agree with all the pieces (like the proposed Gastarbeiter program). However, I have to say that it strikes me as highly odd to say that there is an immigration crisis, but there isn't a health care crisis.

If the overwhelming majority of Americans agreed that it was OK to sign everything over to the United Nations, would that make it OK?

I am trying not to be snarky here, but it's comments like this that lead me to think that there is a lot of paranoia on the right.

The American people are not on the side of the House Republicans who favor toughened enforcement and nothing more.

Not according to this poll.

Alan, that poll is almost unimportant for the actual topic you're bringing up. It asks "which of these three options is the most effective approach to stop illegal immigration?" not "What should be done about illegal immigration". Also, it only offered 3 options, employer penalties, national guard troops, or building a wall. Clearly, it didn't ask "Do you prefer enforcement only or enforcmenet combined with legalization", which is what you're trying to use it to argue.

"...comments like this that lead me to think that there is a lot of paranoia on the right."

You can't be led where you aren't inclined to go anyway, but the comment was simply used as an illustration to make a point. I started to go with "if everyone in the neighborhood decided to jump off a cliff," but I went with the other instead. ;)

If everyone did jump off a cliff, after a little while it wouldn't hurt at all.

You go first.... ;)

"impenetrable border security"

LOL. This is what happens when you staff the WH with MBA's - they import the common business custom of naming things/products after their idealized results rather than on their actual capabilities.

"Impenetrable" borders are as realistic as a perpetual motion machine.

Its going to be a boondoggle. They will spend billions on a Wall/"Security Fence" with all the latest gadgets and then will man it with a skeleton crew that cannot hope to actually keep it secure. The Southwest delegates will love the pork, the defence contractors will love all the orders, and the agencys will love the new funding. Everyone willpat themselves on the back and the only thing that changes will be the cartels getting richer.

What it will accomplish is to block off accesible channels and funnel even more immigrants into the hands of the smuggling networks. The drug runners already have mile-long tunnels at numerous locations - the police keep finding them and the cartels keep digging more. They, of course, will love to have all these people forced to pay for the use of the tunnels - or forced to pay their debt by being a drug mule. Then, of course, there is the sea.

None of this is written in stone, but the only way to stop it is to increase the number of agents by 100x and constantly monitor the entire border to a depth of several miles as well as the nearby coast. Of course, this will never happen. Instead they will increase the budget by 100x and spend the lions share on "Sensor networks" which are flashy and wow the public but simply not as effective as popular imagination holds. But it does make for big contracts and thats what matters in congress.

Note that the numbers on the poll don't add up to 100%. Some people didn't like any of the choices, and that was a small number. My point is that Fred Barnes is completely out of touch with the voters. He is certainly out of touch with conservatives, as the post right above this one points out. The GOP will lose bigtime at the polls in November if it wusses out on immigration enforcement.

"The GOP will lose bigtime at the polls in November if it wusses out on immigration enforcement."

LOL. You're right, but they will also lose big-time if they get serious about it. The party base wants immigration reform. The big party donars definitely don't. How do you choose between the base of the money - you need both to win. It'll take some skill or luck to get out of this bind.