Because Victor Davis Hanson has so sycophantically ingratiated his way into the favor of those who control the Republican-hack wing of the MSM – primarily by his disgusting cheerleading of the Iraq venture – it would be easy to overlook that the man can actually observe and think.

Migrating border debate The Washington Times October 7 2006

is in fact an important piece. His contention

When I wrote “Mexifornia” more than three years ago, much of the criticism came from the academic and open-borders left. The memoir was considered insensitive in our politically correct age for complaining it was not wise or moral that millions were here illegally from Mexico.

is of course in quite wrong a qualitative sense – Sam Francis and Peter Brimelow dealt with it far more substantively from a Paleoconservative standpoint – however, Hanson has fully adapted to his patrons’ strategy of ignoring and repressing criticism from the Right.

But in fact in the current essay Hanson has important things to say:

Broad class considerations are now transcending particular party, racial and ethnic views of illegal immigration, pitting the well-off few against the less-fortunate many. Many of the more privileged Americans who frequent fancy restaurants, stay in hotels and depend on hired help for lawn and pool maintenance, home repair and child care don’t think illegal immigration is that big of a deal.
Those in the higher-paid professions do not fear low-wage competition for their jobs in law, medicine, academia, the media, government or the arts. And many who have no problem with the present influx live in affluent communities with good schools insulated from the immediate budgetary consequences of meeting the needs of the offspring of the 11 million here illegally. These wealthier people aren’t so much liberal in tolerating illegal immigration as self-interested and cynical.

Of course this was also true three years ago – but better late than never.

In contrast, the far more numerous poor and lower middle classes of America, especially in the Southwest, are sincerely worried — and angry. Indeed, it is no longer possible to caricature opponents of illegal immigration as part of a small nativist fringe.

Nativist! One hopes this view trickles up to the Washington Establishment.

In the last three years, while I haven’t changed my views about the need for an earned-citizenship program or the impracticality of deporting 11 million illegal residents, an angry public has passed “Mexifornia” by. Once caricatured as illiberal for calling for an end to illegal immigration, the book now reads as middle of the road, if not passe.
Indeed, if extremists continue demonstrating for open borders, blare out ethnic and linguistic chauvinism, and flaunt the law, this current public anger against illegal immigration will unfortunately appear mild compared with what is on the horizon.

Writing like this, Victor Davis Hanson, is going to have to churn out a load more pro-war propaganda to keep employed at National Review

The Arizona Republic has chosen to publish a thorough and reasonable survey of the 1986 Amnesty.

The amnesty program that tried and failed –by Daniel Gonzalez October 8 2006

The law signed 20 years ago this November by President Ronald Reagan was supposed to put an end to illegal immigration. It granted amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants, beefed up security along the U.S.-Mexican border and, for the first time, tried to punish employers of unlawful workers. The rationale was that illegal immigration would stop for good if the job magnet was cut off.

But employer sanctions never fully materialized, and illegal immigration soared… President Reagan described the employer sanctions as the bill’s “keystone.” The sanctions created fines for knowingly hiring unauthorized workers and criminal penalties for repeat offenders…

The government never followed through on the promise to crack down on employers. The government at times tried to come down hard, but then backed off after outcries from employers and powerful lawmakers. That’s what happened in the late 1990s, when immigration investigators targeted the onion industry in Georgia and the meatpacking industry in Nebraska… While employers faced fines or even criminal penalties if they hired unauthorized workers, some employers faced discrimination lawsuits for firing workers they thought might be undocumented. The result was a huge loophole

Purists might detect an anti action animus in the publishing of this essay, and an important failure to grasp the significance of the 1965 Immigration reform disaster. A superficial reading could induce defeatism. But it is actually a good account of the implementation of actual, as opposed to declared, national policy.

Separately, the Champagne –cooling victory celebration preparations for the Arizona 8th District race continue to gear up. Reuters has produced an exultant piece:

Arizona race a test for tough immigration stance - by Tim Gaynor Reuters October 8 2006
reproduced (unusually) in its entirety by The Washington Post

The Republican National Committee pulled $1 million in funding from Graf’s war chest in recent days, while retiring Republican moderate Rep. Jim Kolbe has withheld his endorsement.

What might happen if the $1 million were spent? Very clearly, this is a victory the Republican Establishment does not want.