Maria McFadden Maffucci writes, “If the information presented in Lopez’s article is so ‘unimpressive’ that we should be ‘embarrassed’ to have published it, why the uproar?” This question doesn’t even make rhetorical sense. The “uproar” is precisely because the HLR has run a shoddy attack on immigration restrictionists. She now concedes that “perhaps his brush was overly broad.” But if the point of the article wasn’t that we should never listen to anything a restrictionist says because some restrictionists had unsound views about population control, then it had no point at all. (Why else hunt through two decades of CIS publications to highlight a few that sound sort of kind of opposed to the sanctity of human life?) Take away the broad brush and there is nothing left to that article. Which is why HLR ought to be embarrassed.