Here is Heather MacDonald’s must read NY Post column on Bush’s immigration plan:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/15335.htm

It emphasizes that no plan to deal with illegals now in the country can ever work until the complete sham of border enforcement is addressed.

With regard to the first post about Heather Mac Donald’s excellent column in the New York Post (which comes from the City Journal), I wanted to comment upon the totalitarian atmosphere regarding dissent at the Wall Street Journal. It is commonplace to remark about that the NY Times only tolerats their own point of view. However, on the immigration issue, they have published dissenting opinions and even op-ed pieces that diverge from their own editorial page. Yet, in the Wall Street Journal, there has not (and I have never seen in the past) ever been one letter or one column that gives the opposing viewpoint to the open borders position of the editorial page. No unlike Pravda. Do you think it is due to fear of providing a forum for other ideas or willful intolerance and disdain?

Mr. Peroutka’s welcome statement indicates he strongly supports immigration reform: he is actually calling for the deportation of the illegals already here, which is like pressing the politically nuclear button in today’s intolerant politically correct environment.

Some sensible comments by John Derbyshire, himself a (legal) immigrant, about the vacuity of the Bush proposal, and how nothing is likely to come of all this:

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/15335.htm

Some sensible comments by John Derbyshire, himself a (legal) immigrant, about the vacuity of the Bush proposal, and how nothing is likely to come of all this:

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200401160714.asp

Susie is correct in her comparison of the Wall Street Journal to Communists. For years Bartley, Gigot, Fund, and the whole crew have treated any critical position on immigration as simply some sub-human manifestation to be instantly dismissed. In their absolute rigidity and closemindness on the issue they evince the mentality of true ideologues, “Communists for Capitalism” as someone once called them.

Re The WSJ:

It is not just pieces that are mainly about immigration that demonstrate their bias. Here is the body of a letter I sent a while back to a couple of immigration commentators:

“Thank you both for your informative articles regarding America’s immigration policy.

“May I point out to you both, as astute chroniclers of immigration policy and media view thereof, a minor incident.

“In the Wall Street Journal November 4, 2002, Section B1, “Marketplace”, there was a fascinating article about encryption and computer transactions. The math, I confess, was quite beyond me. In short, some guy from India solved a very difficult mathematical problem. Computer geeks love him. Possible Nobel Prize (still meaningful division).

“Anyway, the final paragraph was, I quote:

“”The professor worked on primality testing with two of his graduate students: Neeraj Kayal and Nitin Saxena. They had planned to join him on his U.S. victory tour. But the American Embassy in New Delhi, the times being what they are, refused them visas. The two young geniuses had to stay home.”

“Pretty cute, huh? Aside from the fact that this little datum was nearly completely irrelevant to the story, and hence was, as they say, “another story,” this last paragraph is mere lazy cliche. “[T]he times being what they are,”? What is that? So, did these guys(?) get rejected because they were threats? Because they were members of dangerous groups? Because they failed to submit a proper form? Well, who knows? Not the WSJ. A little snide irrelevant comment at the conclusion of an article is enough for the party, the party of open borders. The times being what the are….

“As if any rational immigration policy would exclude a mere visit of those who could teach us about mathematics.

“Yeah, the times being what they are….”