WSJ Opinion on Immigration Is Not Helpful

HT to the Junkyard, who subscribes to the WSJ and excerpts a few choice grafs from an essay by George Melloan.

Hotels and restaurants in places like Chicago, Miami and just about every other city would have to shut down without waiters, maids and others with dubious credentials. The well-manicured lawns in my home town would soon become weed gardens in the absence of the Mexicans who man landscape services. Americans genuinely worry about maintaining the rule of law, but the biggest threat to that is the disrespect for law created when legislative grandstanders pass draconian measures that the authorities are incapable of enforcing.

Then he goes on to say what he really thinks:

Washington efforts to reform Simpson-Mazzoli are plagued by the death struggle the two parties are conducting over control of the government. Republicans, who perhaps have noticed that they are losing that struggle, are frozen in the headlights of the anti-immigrant campaigns being conducted by nativists and vigilantes in their home states. Hate and emotion do not produce good laws.

Once again, the WSJ's condescension gags maggots. Simply not helpful, George. Sorry.

In other venues, I have made it clear that the current legal immigration number (12K/month) from Mexico is simply ridiculous. The number must be increased, for a lot of good reasons.

And I agree with Junkyard that there are additional options--temporary workers who are NOT 'immigrants-with-intent-to-be-citizens' is one.

I agree with the WSJ people that we're going to need to increase our legal immigration to meet our labor demands. And I know that much of that labor is going to come up from Mexico. I think that's just peachy keen. I also realize that some of these temporary workers and manual laborers are going to want to become American citizens. Great. Can't say I blame them. As many as we have room for, and can accommodate without breaking our social systems, welcome aboard.

It's my suspicion that even the Vast Liberal Conspiracy would agree with Junkyard's next graf:

But you'll excuse me if I want to take a look at their resume and make sure they're not a terrorist, child molester, gang enforcer, or drug runner. And you'll excuse me if I want to build a wall to make sure the only people coming in are people whose names and fingerprints we have on file. Can't be too careful these days; I hear there's a war on.

What's so hard to understand?

Or is someone's "well-manicured lawn" more important than the safety and security of our children, Mr. Melloan?