Huh?

Ramesh Ponnuru writes this headscratcher at the Corner...

An Immigration Lesson [Ramesh Ponnuru]
I was more sympathetic to the House than the Senate or the president on immigration, and I still think, contra Bill Kristol and others, that the House had the better of the political argument. But I also think that this election confirmed something we should already have known: A monomaniacal opposition to lax immigration policies is a political loser. The only places it gets traction are places where immigrants and people sympathetic to immigrants are also a sizable constituency.

Okay, there may be an argument there, there may not, note that he doesn't back it up with anything in the way of, you know, facts, but be that as it may, the last two sentences leave me scratching my head.

A monomaniacal opposition to lax immigration policies is a political loser. The only places it gets traction are places where immigrants and people sympathetic to immigrants are also a sizable constituency.

Is he arguing the negative? It seems to me that it should read "those unsympathetic to immigrants."

Or does he think the anti-illegal immigration ballot measures in Arizona were sympathetic to aliens?  Or that Tom Tancredo is sympathetic to llegal aliens?

Again, the elites will be trying all through to the 2008 elections to paint yesterday as a win for "comprehensive immigration reform. By way of example Hugh Hewitt writes...

The anti-illegal immigration absolutists got their heads handed to them. As the fence goes up, their rhetoric must go down --dramatically.

K, yes some candidates such as JD Hayworth and Randy Graf lost but Tom Tancredo won along with several other candidates just as strong on border enforcement. I do not see this as any sort of clear cut issue, but the elites do and that should tell you something.

Note also how none of them attempt to make a case on the merits. Just throw out statements that verge into non-sequitor territory.

"Some candidates won, some lost, however every ballot initiative in Arizona against illegal aliens won so you see it's a clear victory for 'comprehensive immigration reform."

To be fair, that's not exactly what Hugh is saying, but that statement of his smacked me upside the head, and this guy was a lawyer, knows how to construct an argument? This will be the CW for the next two years, get used to it.

My take is this, illegal immigration is a tough issue, no doubt about it.  Given the structural deficiencies and weaknesses of the Republican party (corruption, a Mexican president in the WH, general fecklessness, hell they just sucked!) these were not the folks to make this happen, this year or any year.

However, give me a clean candidate from a strong, non head up their asses party, and I think you'll find this issue does just fine.

My .02

If you have a different reading of Ramesh P's statement let me know.

Technorati Tags: illegal immigration, border security, hugh hewitt, ramesh ponnuru