David Brooks, as you all know, is a conservative columnist for the New York Times. I usually do not find myself agreeing with him, at least not completely. However, in today's column, I basically think he "gets it" on immigration exactly where people like Jerry Kilgore do not. Here's Brooks' argument in a nutshell:
1) Acknowledges that our immigration system is "out of control."
2) Realizes that "we can't just act like lunkheads and think we can solve this problem with brute force" and that "We're not going to deport 11 million people, many of whom own homes and businesses."
3) Understands that "[w]e need these workers but we force them underground with our self-delusional immigration policies."
4) Also understands that "The more we simply crack down, the more disorder we get."
5) Argues strongly that we need "legal, controllable channels through which labor can flow in an aboveground, orderly way" and says, "We can't build a wall to stop this flood; we need sluice gates to regulate the flow."
6) Praises aspects of the proposed McCain-Kennedy ("effective temporary worker program") and Kyl-Cornyn bills ("tough border security provisions."), and points out that the bills "complement each other" and should be "combined."
7) Concludes optimistically, saying "Everybody's expecting a big blowup on this issue, but we've got a great chance of enacting serious immigration reform."
I can barely believe I'm saying this, but I think what David Brooks writes in today's New York Times makes a great deal of sense. Maybe Jerry Kilgore should read what Brooks (R-NYTimes) has to say, before he starts demagoguing this issue again?