Ramesh: I have no problem at all with conservatives calling themselves pro-Latino and salute efforts at outreach. The whole point of my own work is to make the case for a pro-immigrant policy of low immigration; fewer immigrants, but a warmer welcome.

My concern, instead, is twofold; first, how much outreach is too much? Jews are much more likely to be pro-choice than Gentiles, and yet the energetic and commendable Republican efforts at outreach to them do not include an embrace of abortion on demand, nor should they. Blacks are much more likely to support expansions of government services, and yet conservative outreach efforts directed at them don’t embrace bigger government, and shouldn’t. Support for lower immigration, while overwhelming among Republican voters, has yet to fully percolate up to the GOP elite, so it’s a perfectly legitimate topic for debate among conservatives whether amnesty and mass immigration should be part of outreach to Hispanics.

What’s not legitimate, and this is my second and larger concern, is that all supporters of “comprehensive immigration reform” on the Right either imply or say outright that opposition to their policy agenda is inherently anti-Hispanic; if you’ve run across an exception to this, anywhere, I’d love to see it. And I’m afraid that this George/Norquist effort is no exception. This is something conservatives should be especially sensitive to; after all, supporters of welfare reform are routinely derided as anti-black, opponents of gay marriage are accused of hating homosexuals, those with pro-life views called anti-woman, tax-cutters labeled enemies of the poor, and so on. Unfortunately, supporters of mass immigration on the Right have adopted this left-wing tactic.