Ramesh: I am indeed willing to concede — not concede, but say outright — that there are conservatives who are unwelcoming of Hispanics. But there are different definitions of “unwelcoming.” Is insisting on the exclusive use of English in matters of governance unwelcoming? Is resisting calls for amnesty unwelcoming? Is calling for the elimination of the visa lottery unwelcoming? My answer is, obviously, no, but the high-immigration Right would answer yes, without a second thought.

So my definition of who’s “unwelcoming” is a lot narrower, and certainly doesn’t include the chairman of my board, Peter Nunez, former U.S. Attorney for San Diego under Reagan, nor George Borjas, nor Robert Vasquez, nor these folks. But I suppose Norquist would say that they’re not “authentic” Hispanics.

As for conservatives who really don’t want Hispanics in the movement, I guess that would include, say, Michael Savage maybe, and the American Renaissance boys. And yes, there are ways I “would approve for conservatives to distinguish themselves from them” — an outreach effort that explicitly included both restrictionists and expansionists, but avoided immigration altogether and focused instead on immigrant integration (promoting private-sector initiatives for English-language instruction, for instance), but focused mainly on more general issues where there’s likely to be some resonance, such as life, marriage, and anti-jihadism.

I suspect the reason this hasn’t happened is that restrictionists on their own fear ending up like Christian missionaries in the Muslim world — few people will convert and the ones that do will be in big trouble. And expansionists interested in Hispanic outreach don’t seek to include people like Rep. Lamar Smith, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Kris Kobach, Borjas, John O’Sullivan, et al. because they’re eeeeevil.