Here’s a new feature for M.O. that I think I’ll make regular: letters to the editor. I spent some unhappy hours at the New York Post editing the letters. Let me tell you: My regard for my fellow man took a hit.

But the loyal readers of RealClearPolitics.com are an engaged bunch. And I look forward to getting a lot more feedback from y’all. I’ll respond when I can, but there’s a lot of mail, so forgive me when I can’t.

Anyway, the responses ran — I’d guess — four-to-one against me on my immigration column. I’ve reprinted a bunch of them after the jump (starting with a nice, positive one).

[All letters reprinted on this blog will be with the permission of the author, and email addresses will always be omitted. There will be no editing of the letters, save any obvious misspellings flagged by my spell-checker.]

Great and thought-provoking analysis, thank you!  But what about what Dick Morris and Charles Krauthammer call the "grand bargain" — fence the Mexican border, increase border patrol yet again, and then legalize the remaining illegals, plus increase legal immigration?  Wouldn’t this square the circle for Republicans, and indeed for the country?

Thanks,
Eric Field
Denver

PS: And why don’t President Bush and Senator McCain yet acknowledge and discuss this possible compromise?

* * *

A few quick comments;  You point out that in California, only 30% believe "immigrants" take away American jobs.  So what?

I don’t believe "jobs" to be a zero sum gain.  Put me in the 70%.  I do believe "immigrants" lower wages and place a burden on social services all out of proportion to the taxes they pay.  For that, and half a hundred other reasons, I am vehemently opposed to this massive wave of "immigrants".

Polls almost never measure the intensity of peoples’ feelings on issues.  Countless polls have claimed that Americans want "more gun control", yet "gun control" keeps losing in the federal and state legislatures and NRA backed candidates keep getting elected and re elected.

The really cynical ones are the GOP elite who see the restrictionist party base and ask, "where are they going to go, to the democrats? Ha! Ha!"  In 2008 a third party candidate with a clean police record and some money in the bank could have them laughing out of the other side of their face.

RKO
Los Angeles

* * *

I notice your analysis ignores the Heartland which I suspect lines up more with the South than the Southwest. As for losing a few GOP seats as you suggest, there are still quite a few Dem seats in the South that could be lost over the immigration issue and they would balance out the others. When 2/3 of those polled (usually biased toward Dems and the young ,who vote in lower numbers) shows border security is the primary focus, I fail to see how an anti-fence, pro amnesty posture by Dems is a winning proposition. The backlash is probably even larger than that because some of the silent majority are cowardly when it comes to telling pollsters the truth. We witness this all the time when the actual numbers tallied for Black candidates is at least 5 points lower than pollsters predicted. Immigration will be a huge issue in local rep races in 2006 and for most of them Republicans who stand for tough border security and no amnesty will reap the benefits of such a stand. The backlash is bigger than just the South which some candidates (and out of touch pundits)will discover to their chagrin when the votes are counted.

Susan Boyer
Brevard, N.C.

* * *

Red state, blue state, DC politics …. blah blah blah.

This perspective is why the folks in the field are so angry. While pols and wannabe opinion makers are droning about who wins a district or state our schools, hospitals, cities and roads are being trampled asunder by illiterate hordes of peasants from the four corners of the world.

Living in Houston I see with my own eyes what the Wall Street Journal and others tell me is not so. With over one million illegal aliens in Houston alone the fact is that the country has a crisis on its hand. And after the commies from south of the Rio Grande to Antarctica destroy their economies the country will be overrun by more hordes. The public will have to take matters into their own hands to solve the problem. Frankly, it won’t matter who controls the White House or Congress.

You may think I’m being too dramatic. Yet people seemingly always underestimate risk, and the worst case scenario. Mark my word, you’ll see fighting in the streets for control before its all over.

In the meantime, the crisis builds while people talk red state, blue state.

Bill Cross

* * *

My native South Texan gut tells me that you are dead wrong, and the polls are rigged. You betcha the "Silent Majority" is steaming over the illegal immigrant rallies, and they are going to stay steamed, as the alternate media get out the truth around the corrupt lying filth in the mainstream media. The amount of tax dollars that go to support illegal immigrants and their families, and the number of illegal immigrants in our jails and prisons, when repeated loudly in a mantra, will afford the GOP a chance to score big on a hard stand against illegal immigration.

Marco Gilliam
San Antonio

* * *

I don’t have a problem with an elected official representing the views of their constituents.  So it is no surprise that in states like Colorado, there are those who are forced to represent views they may not personally agree with.  That is the nature of a representative democracy.  I am thankful that the country as a whole does not support unsecured borders and lawless invaders.  The majority will have their way, the question is how many incumbents will need to be removed to accomplish it.  Anarchy is not yet the sentiment of the majority of Americans.

Jon K. Kristinsson
Littleton, CO

* * *

In your May 5th article, Immigration South and West, you ignore the issue of illegal aliens until the last paragraph as if "illegal" is not important. Rather, it is the focus of the whole debate.  No one is hostile to legal immigration.  No harsh laws are being considered for legal immigration.  And the majority of Hispanic legal immigrants in the West as well as elsewhere resent the fact that illegals want to dispense with the legal immigration process.  The western states have to pay for Medicaid and emergency room treatment for illegals.  They must also pay for the schooling of illegals. Your article implies that there is a moral issue at hand.  Morality is not the issue. Economics and Legality are.

Tony Kawas 
Matawan, N.J.

* * *

First: there is no single West just as there is no single South.  There are many Wests (only considering it by states); there is the coastal West (Ca., Or., Wa.,) which is on balance very liberal, there is Hawaii and Alaska which have to be viewed each separately from any other state, there is the changing West (NM, AZ., NV) and then the rest may be called the mountain West.  So presuming to lump all the West into one category which you imply is more liberal in its views on issues than the South is too broad a presumption.  Further, there is no single South and I will not attempt to ‘dissect’ it at this time unless you so desire.

Second: the immigration issue is one which could be easily solved if both parties really wanted to cooperate.  Here the ‘onus’ is on the opposition party, the Democrats, to put aside campaigning for future Hispanic votes by addressing the needs of current Hispanic Americans and those of the rest of the Americans.  The solution, which others have put forward independent of yours truly, must contain all elements to be successful and, if so containing, would be supported by the majority of Americans and probably a good majority of Congress, excepting those on the hard right and the ‘labor’ left.  1) Build a wall, a real regulated and enforced wall.  We can’t allow the current situation to continue allowing anyone in the world free access to the privileges and rights of the citizens.  2) Current illegal immigrants must be identified and ‘regularized’ if qualifying to be future citizens (no criminals, etc.) and deported or detained if not.  Incentives must be given to have these people ‘come in’ for identification and penalties if they do not.  This is not amnesty but a part of the qualification process for eventual citizenship (getting in line as it were).  Realistically, we are not going to deport 10 million people, anyway.   3) Immigration quotas for all countries need to be reviewed and increased greatly.  Our country has benefited greatly from immigration over the centuries and we will continue to do so.

Third: this issue splits both parties but not along geographic lines alone.  It is a bigger issue along economic and labor lines with the big union money being anti-immigration.  I don’t think ‘big business’ cares as it doesn’t usually employ illegals.  Small business, many of which are owned and operated by illegals (see masonry, landscaping, framing, etc.) or are using illegals (see small motels, restaurants, etc.) has an interest in this issue but is too splintered to make much of a political impact.

That’s it for now (probably too much, you are thinking, but feedback is important in any business).

Thanks for the article.
Ralph Wright
Colorado Springs, CO