I was gratified to see the statement on “colorblind immigration” that John Miller linked to yesterday, which insisted that any “any legislation addressing immigration should make explicit that while immigrants and their descendants should be afforded the right to compete fairly and freely in every aspect of American life, they should receive no special benefit on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin.” It’s a sentiment I, and probably most Americans of all political leanings, agree with. My question is whether those signatories who also support amnesty, like Grover Norquist and Linda Chavez, really mean what they say. Are they willing to kill any possibility of amnesty (or whatever they’re calling it today) if it doesn’t include such a provision? Because there is no way — none whatsoever — that an immigration bill could pass if it contained a ban on affirmative action benefits for amnestied illegals, let alone for all immigrants. I think pushing such an amendment would be a great way of exposing the absurdity of affirmative action for immigrants, but then I’m against amnesty, so it works for me in that respect too. But what about Grover and Linda? Is the lack of such a ban a deal killer?