On Monday the NYT published a guest editorial entitled "The Mexican Evolution". The author is Matthew Dowd, "the senior adviser to the Republican National Committee" and "the chief strategist for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign".

In a nutshell, it says that Mexican illegal immigration isn't that much of an issue, in fact, we might have already seen its "high-water mark" due to demographic shifts in that country. All we need to do is wait a decade or two and then we'll be left wondering what the fuss was all about:

...any long-term project to close off the United States-Mexico border may use up money that could be more useful elsewhere... legislators and government agencies should spend more time and resources addressing the problems of immigrants already here and our direct security needs, and much less time on prescriptive laws aimed at stemming illegal immigration from Mexico...

Steve Sailer and Mark Krikorian have responses to this editorial, and they both show the fallacies in his demographic-related argument. Worth noting is that he concentrates on Mexican illegal immigration, as if that's the only kind we need to be worried about. Of course, even if Dowd is correct about the demographics, those corrupt corporations that profit off illegal immigration and the illegal alien advocacy infrastructure aren't just going to dry up and blow away. They're simply going to find another country that can become our cheap labor supplier. In that case, Mexico might switch from sending its own people to facilitating sending people from other countries such as Brazil or Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. There are dozens to choose from.

I'd also suggest a more basic approach to this editorial: as one of the first attempts to propagandize this issue and sell the American public on allowing massive illegal or legal immigration, something that the vast majority do not want. In that light, whose side is the GOP leadership on?