Ramesh: I wish it were just a matter of tone, for I too want a more constructive tone in the immigration debate. Alas, it’s more than tone. I’m afraid that George, Norquist, et al. meant just what everyone else means when they say “comprehensive immigration reform” — the bargain of legalization for illegals and increased legal immigration in exchange for measures ostensibly intended to tighten enforcement. Here is the CNS News account of Tuesday’s press conference, where they back not only amnesty but also “eliminating workplace raids” (which Obama has already done for them, so they can cross that one off their list).

And here is the video specifically on immigration — “Matters of Principle: Comprehensive Immigration Reform” — and I’m afraid it exhibits all the sentimentalism I mentioned in my earlier post:

“Latinos believe in hard work, individual responsibility, entrepreneurship.”
“Latinos believe in marriage, as we do, as the union of a man and a woman.”
“Latinos believe in the family and the responsibilities of families to take care of each other.”
“Latinos believe in the sanctity of human life.”
“Latinos believe in caring for the common good.”

Well, some do and some don’t. They’re people, after all, not cardboard cutouts, and they’re susceptible to the same stresses and temptations as the rest of us — more susceptible, maybe, because unlike Americans who have had several generations of gradual change to ease into modernity, many of today’s immigrants are going straight from the shtetl, as it were, to the 21st century, getting hit with a century’s worth of social and economic change almost overnight.

And as far as tone goes, even I, with my thick skin and phlegmatic personality, occasionally get tired of being called a bigot. And make no mistake — that’s the message:

“We represent a form of conservatism that is welcoming to people of all racial and ethnic and religious backgrounds who share our basic commitment to America’s founding principles.”

Well, who doesn’t? I’m reminded of Nancy Reagan’s question when Bush 41 talked about a kinder, gentler conservatism: “Kinder and gentler than who?” The “who” in this case are those who oppose “a generous policy of immigration”:

We believe in a generous policy of immigration. We are pro-Latino, not anti-Latino.

There’s no way to read this other than immigration restrictionists are “anti-Latino” — and that’s part of the tone we need to change.