1) Did I hurt Linda Chavez’s feelings? Hey, she is the one who called everyone on my side of the debate a bigot–a claim that Jacoby comes close to endorsing in her letter (although she weasels out). I said nothing remotely comparable in response.

2) Jacoby is blowing smoke on what is, in fact, probationary legal status. It is a type of legal status that comes before any of the triggers are met, and the open letter she signed misstated the facts. Jacoby, who is supposed to be an expert on immigration, should know better.

3) Jacoby’s positioning of herself as one of the “conservative” supporters of what she styles immigration reform is one of the longest-running frauds in this debate. Her conservative credentials, as far as I can tell, consist entirely of supporting immigration legislation that most conservatives abhor. If the case for that legislation on the merits stands, that’s fine. But this rhetorical gambit of hers is ridiculous.

4) If Jacoby really wants a conversation in good faith with opponents of the bill, she should stop implying that they are all “yahoos” (her recently-quoted words) or that it is perfectly reasonable to dismiss them all as bigots. Opponents of the bill have put forth reasoned arguments for the proposition that the legalization component of the bill is its most important part, and that the other provisions are, for various reasons, meaningless window dressing. Calling that proposition “dishonest” is not a refutation of it, unless you’re willing to take Jacoby’s word as writ. Which no sensible person would do.