Over the weekend, Derb and I exchanged views on the implications of a Democratic congress for immigration reform. At this point, I feel the need for an outside consultation. So I’ve gone straight to the top–the top of the pro-immigration side that is. Tamar Jacoby is surely about the sharpest and most influential advocate on the “pro” side of the immigration question, and Jacoby has just published a major article, “Immigration Nation,” featured on the cover of the brand new November/December issue of Foreign Affairs.

So what does Jacoby have to say about the politics of immigration reform? Well, according to Jacoby, the sort of immigration legislation she’s hoping for has been blocked because a number of Republicans in the House have been listening to conservative opponents of ‘comprehensive reform.” Imagine that. House Republicans have been listening to conservatives. But here’s what Jacoby has to say next: “…such circumstances will not last forever. The political stars will realign, perhaps sooner than anyone expects, and when they do, Congress will return to the task….” Can’t you just hear Tamar Jacoby rubbing her hands together in anticipation of defeat for the House Republicans? And here, again, Jacoby returns to the heart of the matter: “The Bill passed in the Senate last May reflects the essential architecture of comprehensive reform. The critical question for the future is how to protect the design as it makes its way through the political process–particularly in the House.” Got that? “particularly in the House.”

So let me get this straight. The House Republicans listen to conservatives, and bring “comprehensive” immigration reform to a crashing halt. The top pundit in favor of comprehensive reform implicitly fingers defeat of the House Republicans as the key to getting her favored bill through Congress. And we’re going to sit home on election day and defeat the very congressional Republicans who did what conservatives asked them to do?! Oh yeah. That makes a whole lot of sense.

Now I’m far more sympathetic to the House approach than to the Senate plan. But I have been willing to settle for a House-side-leaning compromise. I remember a couple of months ago when Mark Krikorian called on the House Republicans to refuse to go to conference with the Senate on the immigration bill. At the time, I thought that was dangerous political advice, and unlikely to happen in any case. I was wrong. The House Republicans did exactly what Krikorian asked them to. On the other hand, their move did turn out to be politically dangerous, although not for the reasons I anticipated. What got the House Republicans into trouble was sticking their necks out for a bunch of conservatives too ungrateful to give them credit for what they’d done. Is this is how we reward House members who actually do what we ask them to do–and under considerable political pressure to go the other way? To kill off the House Republicans after they take a hard conservative line at our request is not only ingratitude, it’s downright self-defeating.

Now how about the substance of that Jacoby article? Well, as I moved through the piece, I kept wondering what Jacoby would say about my first concern: the problem of assimilation. Turns out, Jacoby saves assimilation for the very end, where she concedes that this is indeed the most serious objection to “comprehensive reform.” But Jacoby offers no plan to deal with this critical issue. To me, that’s a very bad sign. I already know what happened to Europe when they opened the floodgates to Muslim immigrants based on strictly economic considerations, with scant regard for the challenge of assimilation. And while I don’t believe the problems in America will be quite as serious as those in Europe, neither will they be trivial. I’m open to a compromise on this issue, but I’m uncomfortable with the culturally naive worldview that seems to underlay comprehensive reform. Kill off the House Republican majority, however, and “comprehensive reform” is exactly what we’re going to get.