Well, Kristol publishes an online e-zine called the Weekly Standard. You can peruse all of his past issues and see the usual names in regard to immigration: Tamar Jacoby, Michael Barone, even Jack Kemp. They all sing from the same book: immigration good, restriction bad. Jacoby advocates legalization of all illegals right now. Barone is more circumspect, but in general always supports large numbers of "immigrants", regardless of ethnicity, religion, or political outlook. In Kristol's case, I can remember specifically an interview on TV where he referred to Buchanan's immigration outlook as "racist". All of Kristol's publications, and all of the people around him appear to argue either obliquely or directly for a Laissez-Faire immigration policy. It's rather well known, and debated far and wide. Look around; find out for yourself. These are not restrictionists. On the contrary.
Wolfowitz and Frum are generally thought of as being in agreement with this group. So, while I don't have specific statements (although Frum's words come out of other people's mouths, him being a speechwriter and all), I would simply say they are guilty by association.
My question to you is, why don't you understand this backdrop to the debate? Every one else here doesn't seem to need an explanation. Why do you think Longshanks called the National Review the International Review, and I referred to these guys as Trotskyites? Do some research. Find out where everyone stands and the sociopolitical backdrop to the debate.