In the aftermath of Tuesday’s election, and especially the losses of Hayworth and Graf in Arizona, many of the usual suspects are taking their whacks at the part of the Republican coalition that is steadfastly opposed to uncontrolled immigration.

I can certainly understand how the more rough-around-the-edges anti-immigration types would set off alarm bells with liberals, and make Republicans—especially those who crave the approval of liberals—feel all icky inside. On the other hand, I don’t believe most people who are worried about illegal immigration are “nativists”, and I think the blithe labeling of them as such is insulting.

And I certainly am no “nativist” or “absolutist” myself. I am in favor of a level of immigration much closer to the Wall Street Journal’s ideal than Pat Buchanan’s. At the same time, I fervently desire our southern border to be tighter than a tick. And I don’t understand why these two positions should have to be mutually exclusive.

Pro-immigration partisans seem to be advocating, either as explicit policy or through inaction, an uncontrolled southern border, over which stream immigrants who are overwhelmingly Mexican and Central American, self-selected, undocumented, and uneducated. Now I can understand how this would be La Raza’s nirvana; but is it really the WSJ editorial page’s as well? (And if so, if they do take that absolute of a free-market and libertarian view, why aren’t they calling for the abolition of passport control at the international arrivals terminal also? Or do only people who travel by foot have the right to enjoy a world without borders?)

The whole world wants to come live in America. Doesn’t it make sense, with such a vast pool of individuals from so many countries to work with, for America to pick and choose its immigrants? Doesn’t America have the right to? Don’t the American people deserve to have the cream of the crop join them in this great country, and not just the first two four eight twelve million people who manage to wade across the Rio Grande?

Imagine sealing the southern border and taking a million college-educated Chinese next year instead. And a quarter-million Russian engineers and technicians. And quarter-million Indian computer programmers. And a hundred thousand Italian cooks. And fifty thousand Central European beauty queens. (Okay, so I’m getting a bit silly and self-indulgent as I go along…but you get the point.)

And, sure, we can throw in another couple hundred thousand Mexicans and Central Americans each year, but we will get to choose who they are from now on. So sorry, Presidente Fox & co., but we won’t just sit idly by and let you export your societal problems to us any more.

If the overall level of immigration were high enough, this sort of policy ought to still satisfy most pro-immigration people—their most important goal is to simply remain open to lots of immigrants, right? Meanwhile, the greater diversity of immigrants, coupled with a requirement of a certain level of English competency before their permanent visas are even issued, should do much to help quell the Mexifornia business and other concerns that anti-immigration folks have about the National Question. And, of course, the security imperative ought to already be providing both sides plenty of motivation to control the southern border as tightly as it can possibly be controlled.

So what am I missing here? Why must the pro-immigration side insist that doing nothing (except for issuing amnesties) is the only acceptable option, and then resort to calling people names and hinting at dark “isms” if they find this unacceptable? How could anyone reasonably find the current state of affairs to be acceptable in the first place? I just don’t see it.