Is it really worth pointing out that the WSJ is still touting open borders and smearing opponents?

In the runup to the 2006 elections, I noticed how MSNBC had taken out ads which put a prominent picture of disgraced preacher Ted Haggard on political blogs, and kept it there even as they adjusted the ad to include other current stories. It became a sort of running joke around here--News flash: the Rev. Ted Haggard is still gay! And the ads stayed up till after the election, reminding us of the Rev. Meth&Masseuse's transgressions.

Well, news flash: The WSJ is still agitating for open borders. Not on their free opinionjournal site, where they have gems like this column about terrorist surveillance, but hidden behind their rich businessman subscriber firewall. George Melloan is worried that--to paraphrase the country song--we've picked a fine time to crack down for real, with poor hungry diners and the crops in the fields:

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.

Arizona's legislature, which apparently has learned nothing from the federal law's failure, has just compounded the crime by passing a measure that is even more draconian than Simpson-Mazzoli. It has caused an uprising among Arizona businessmen and farmers, who shout that a law making them felons for trying to keep their enterprises afloat is just bonkers.

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.

I am really tired of the sneering and smearing from these people. They refuse to engage border security arguments and instead escape to a fantasy world in which they're the wise solons wearily surveying us grunting, easily led morons who, out of base passions, want to interfere with the natural order of things.

I am inches away from cancelling my WSJ subscription. I knew when I first subscribed in 1997 that they are for open borders, and I know they always have been. That's fine. I understand where they're coming from and I expect they will continue to advance that point of view. Their editorial page is right, bright, and clear on nearly everything else and I enjoy reading them. But on this go-around, they've begun smearing everyone who disagrees with them as "haters" and "racists" and "irrational". I wish they would stop that. It convinces no one and alienates their potential readership.

Now Mr. Melloan does make an interesting admission in his informal survey. He says that our enforcement is having an effect. Enough illegal labor isn't getting in to pick crops:

A few days later, when our journey has taken us to Twin Falls, Idaho, we read in a local newspaper that potato farmers are being forced to obtain convict labor because there's a shortage of the migrants they have traditionally used to work their fields. In fact, the farm worker dearth is national, particularly for growers of labor-intensive fresh produce. Crops are rotting in the fields and prices going up.

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.

But you'll excuse me if I want to take a look at their resume and make sure theyre 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. Read about it there in the WSJ.

I guess thinking like that makes me a nativist, and a hater. Oh well. Just one more "hate site" I write for.

Say, JYB readers, I've got a little favor to ask.

Would you kindly write an e-mail to Mr. Melloan, and remind him that everyone who disagrees with him on this issue doesn't do so out of hatred or racism?

I'm just guessing at George Melloan's e-mail, but it's probably going to be his firstname.lastname @ dowjones.com. If that doesn't work I'll try to figure out something else.

PLEASE be polite. Mr. Melloan thinks we're mouth-frothing bozos who eat little immigrant children and who pick up talk-radio mind-control waves on our tinfoil hats. Please prove him wrong.

Thanks.

PS if you send something, paste it into the comments section here on this post. I'd love to see what you're saying and it might be grounds for further posting.

EDIT: Commenter Christoph points out that the way I've rendered Melloan's email address invites spambots to harvest it, which is not my intention. I'll change it into a secret codeword format.

BTW, I notice in the little "Related Articles and Blogs" section at the bottom of the page--a fancy trackback list, basically--this post of mine didn't show up. I can't say I blame them, and they're under no obligation to link to posts critical of their position. But my posts on WSJ articles usually show up there.