We disagree on immigration, no doubt. But I do agree with you that fringe groups can offer pearls amidst the swill when it comes to ideas. And, obviously, I don’t disagree with paleos on everything. But, when it comes to immigration I think there’s something important that needs to be added. Ramesh Ponnuru, for example, has written with great intelligence in favor of a more restrictionist immigration policy. Rather than greet Ramesh’s efforts as good news and opportunity to build a pragmatic consensus etc, they respond with sophomoric taunts about his ethnicity and suggest that anybody who disagrees with them “isn’t serious” and is part of the problem. Even on immigration, even if I disagree with you, I don’t see that they offer much by way of new “ideas.” They offer a sentiment, a pang, a grievance and when serious people try to translate that pang into policy they reject it out of hand in the name of purity — purity of politics and purity of ethnicity since Ramesh (born in Kansas) has committed the sin of having Indian immigrants in his family tree.