One of the most frustrating aspects of the debate over illegal immigration is the inescapable sense that we’re watching the performance of an ever-recurring, yet interminable and tedious, play. The proponents of amnesty regurgitate a series of formulaic talking points that we’ve become inured to, beginning with the specious assertion that “we’re not going to deport 11 people,” and usually concluding with the declaration that we need to grant all of these illegal aliens American citizenship. Opponents feel compelled to respond with well-reasoned, amply documented rebuttals that are blithely dismissed by open borders advocates, if they’re considered at all.
Mark Krikorian has noted the groundhog day-like quality to these discussions, and Mickey Kaus has explored on more than one occasion the intellectual incoherence-or insincerity-of amnesty advocates who purportedly believe that we should begin enforcing immigration laws after the latest batch of illegal aliens is legalized and enfranchised. It worked swimmingly the last time it was tried, if I’m not mistaken.
Our good friend Anthony Bialy has a fantastic piece which explains once again why an old, bad idea remains a bad idea, even repackaged. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety.
h/t Anthony Bialy.