Much criticsm of the Bush Administration’s immigration proposal seems to proceed under the assumption that there is no principled reason to make it easier for non-citizens to live and work in the United States. This is an error. National Review has long taken a principled restrictionist stance on immigration, but this is one of those issues (like drug legalization) upon which principled conservatives can, and do, disagree. Thus, the administration’s proposals received a more favorable response from David Brooks, Stuart Anderson & Cesar Conda, and the WSJ editorial page. I also expect the likes of Steve Moore, Fred Smith, Linda Chavez, and even one or two of NR’s own writers would generally defend the direction, if not the specifics, of the Bush plan. There is also support for a more open immigration policy from much of the business community. All this is just to say that not all conservatives feel “betrayed” by the Bush proposal and that perhaps, just perhaps, the Bush proposal is motivated as much, if not more, by the President’s personal belief in more open immigration than by political considerations.