It seems to me that Rich and Ramesh are right when they argue (in response to Mickey Kaus) that John McCain’s endorsement of an “Enforcement First” plan (Isakson’s with modifications?) helpfully moves the immigration debate to the right. Let’s not forget that last year 55 Senators who claimed to want to secure the border as part of “comprehensive” reform voted against it. I haven’t climbed aboard the Straight Talk Express. It’s not John McCain’s political prospects that concern me – it’s the weekly cabinet-level meetings the White House is hosting in the hope of coming up with a “comprehensive” Republican plan. Should John McCain – late of McCain Kennedy – endorse the primacy of border security thereby acknowledging that we will repeat the mistakes of the 1986 reform unless the security measures are fully instituted before any guest worker program could take effect the goal post shifts right for Senate Republicans. And one lesson from 1986 is that pledges, schedules, plans and reports won’t secure the border or workplaces. Serious efforts should mandate that only effectiveness markers, e.g. demonstrable, dramatic decrease in illegal border crossings, would trigger any future guest worker program. Conservative reformers worry that the prospect of a legalization/guest worker program is at cross purposes with securing the border and cracking down on visa scofflaws. I’ve wondered whether that concern would be mitigated if the growing ranks of the “enforcement first” caucus were only willing to endorse a guest worker program that gave priority to applicants who had been resident in their home countries for the previous two years. That could toss the magnet for illegal workers back over the border. Of course, given that he prospects for comprehensive reform this year are pretty dim, the question of whether the status quo (the border tightening up and de facto ammesty) is better than any reform remains.