I think this points to a larger problem with this whole fight. All day long I’m fielding email from folks telling me why NR’s position is racist when their arguments are almost entirely drawn from inference. Much like the WSJ’s view that NR’s opposition is “cultural” but we “can’t say that.” They don’t like the plain text of the arguments so they invent nefarious unsaid motives that explain our real problem with amnesty or open border or whatever. It’s all very reminiscent of the liberal trope of assuming support for states’ rights just has to be a cover for racism. It can be a cover for racism, but sometimes it’s just support for states’ rights.

I think the restrictionists do the same thing from time to time. Since they find the WSJ-school arguments so unpersuasive on their face, they assume there must be some more sinister vision lurking behind them. Now, I’m sure there are pockets of villainy here and there (in fact I know there are), but for the most part this is one of these arguments where both sides actually have serious and principled positions.