In retrospect, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that it took Fred Thompson – yup, moseying, slow, Fred Thompson – to put together a popular, reasonable illegal immigration policy that can be summarized in three words: “Attrition through Enforcement.”

Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty.

Also note this element of the Fred plan:

Immigrants and foreign workers who play by the rules need to be rewarded with faster and less burdensome service, not delays that last years.

I think that no matter what happens to Thompson’s bid, you’ll hear a lot of talk on this vein on the trail in the coming year. One of my top sources on the ground in South Carolina – known as Campaign Spot Dad – notes that illegal immigration continues to be the topic that gets the blood pumping among the grassroots in that key early primary state. (Including among African-Americans.)

#more#

Here in Virginia, it’s a constant topic on local talk radio. (In a Washington Post poll, 74 percent of likely voters said illegal immigration would be an important issue in their voting decision in state legislative issues this year.) Nationally, the biggest mobilization of the listeners to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, and the rest has been to fight the various amnesty proposals coming up through Congress.

And while some may not want to admit it, one of the reasons that (an admittedly charismatic) Republican candidate came within 5 points of winning a heavily Democratic district in Massachusetts was the illegal immigration issue.

The other element, that I think really drives the passions on this issue, is the degree to which the other side of this debate insists that the restrictionists have bad motives.

I have friends who are open-borders squishes more sympathetic to the arguments for a path to citizenship for those already here. They’ve focused on the success stories, the folks who came here illegally, worked hard, and have built lives for themselves. Every once in a while I find those arguments compelling — most of the time I don’t. (For example, this guy worked on reconstruction of the Pentagon after 9/11, and has a certificate of thanks from Donald Rumsfeld. Okay, now all the liberals want him deported immediately.)

But none of my disagreeing friends have said, “Jim, you’re a racist,” or brought out the tired cards of “xenophobia”, “we’re a nation of immigrants”, “you can’t round them all up”, “jobs Americans won’t do” etc.

But nationally, the argument from the other side, and that includes a large chunk of the national Democratic party leadership, is “not only do we refuse to secure the border, we’re going to call you racist and hateful for wanting to do so.”

Ironically, in this debate, elements on both sides seem hell-bent on insulting a portion of the electorate. The Tom Tancredos of the world hurt their cause when he calls Miami a “third world country”. (What clearer demonstration that he doesn’t distinguish between legal immigrants and illegal, or the native-born of Latino ancestry?) On the other hand, the amnesty crowd can’t get through a debate without demonizing large swaths of the American public as racist.

You will never get somebody’s vote if you insult them. In fact, that’s what makes somebody want to walk across broken glass to vote against you.