Daniel: Good interview with Lindsey Graham. Glad to see he’s still pushing for amnesty, but his comments on strategy take us right back to the logic of comprehensiveness in immigration policy. It’s not entirely clear, but he seems to be suggesting that the constitutional amendment he’s calling for (permitting Congress to regulate citizenship at birth, without detailing a specific policy) would be part of the package that would include amnesty.

But such an amendment couldn’t be part of the amnesty package — it would have to be passed by two-thirds of Congress and three-quarters of the states before Congress could include in “comprehensive immigration reform” any provisions actually denying citizenship to children born to future illegal aliens. Otherwise, the illegal aliens would get their amnesty but the requisite number of states may never ratify the amendment authorizing Congress to change the citizenship rules. (And I’d bet that the ACLU would go to court to try to stop consideration of the amendment in the state legislatures — I can’t imagine how that’s possible, but you know they’ll come up with something and that they’ll find a judge to buy their sophistry.)

On those terms, I might actually be for Graham’s idea: No consideration of amnesty until after we amend the Constitution to enable Congress to limit citizenship at birth! (And in the meantime, increase immigration law enforcement.)