Replies

The WSJ open borders crowd have no creds regarding the illegal alien issue.

Back in the Simpson-Mazzoli era, amnesty seemed to have a rational basis. It proved to be wrong.
The reason is simple; Mexico has never been cordial to the US since the US took a huge swath of its territory. It is a foreign and only in a limited sense friendly country. Compared to the US, Mexico has xenophobic laws prescribing the local language to the exclusion of other languages (read, English) and circumscribing the ownership of real estate by foreigners (as a practical matter, Americans) and prohibiting political demonstrations by foreigners (i.e., Americans).
Consequently there are limits to what a pure one-to-one amicability will do for the US. Mexican culture considers itself to be the victim of gringo culture, and exploiting America economically and politically seems not merely justified by a cultural duty. Native-born Americans who are looking up at middle-class status find Mexican, and hispanic generally, competition for jobs and status. America could admit a lot more professional people from Europe than it does, but the WSJ position on the border issue means that instead legions of poor people from poor countries arrive here, and burden services of all kinds.
Democrats love hispanic immigrants - because without them the party is in danger of running out of poor people. The Wall Street Journal in general, and this article in particular, take none of this into account in their analysis.