Op-Ed: Party Labels Are Helpful in Deciphering Immigration Debate

A border-control advocate argues in the New York Times that Congress' inability to "compromise" on immigration is due to party labels. And that, he says, is a good thing.

"The vocal support for the DREAM Act and other amnesty measures by a Democratic president and Democratic congressional leadership is actually helpful in clarifying the politics of the issue. It unites most Republicans in opposition (even some who might otherwise be unreliable on immigration) and presents voters with a clearer choice for the future between Republican immigration hawks and Democratic immigration doves," writes Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies.

"There will continue to be exceptions, but they will remain anomalies, like pro-choice Republicans and pro-gun Democrats, able to hold their heterodox opinions so long as they keep quiet about them.

"This doesn't mean that immigration hawks like me will always win (though the public's broad support for tighter immigration controls makes that likely). But it does mean that we'll be more likely to settle on an immigration policy and follow through on it."

Krikorian's observations are one more damning indictment of the newfangled "No Labels" movement, in which squishy liberal losers like Charlie Crist try to reinvent themselves under the guise of consensus and moderation.