In the past couple weeks there's been a spate of editorials and reports that imply that we need "immigration reform", and, oddly enough, most of them seem to be reading from the same script.

Here are their main points:

- They mention the Richardson/Napolitano epiphany...

- There are just two or three options for this "reform": the McCain-Kennedy mass amnesty, the Cornyn-Kyl version thereof, or, perhaps, Bush's nebulous version. None of the ones featured below suggest the revolutionary concept of simply enforcing our current laws...

- In one way or another they work in the stock talking point "the system is broken and needs fixing..."

- They mention one or more other canards: illegal aliens take the jobs Americans won't do, the choices are between mass deportations (which we're told is impossible) and an amnesty plan of some kind, etc...

- According to these editorial and reports, the U.S. has strong immigration enforcement. And, it's been beefed up and much has been spent to no avail. But, we're told, enforcement won't do it alone. Oddly enough, none of those featured below discuss interior enforcement or prosecuting employers...

- The various amnesty schemes are described using words like "comprehensive" or "sensible"...

Here's a list. See if you notice any major differences between these:

8/26 WaPo editorial: "Border Emergency"

8/25 CBS News report: "Arizona Border Dispute" (more on this Bryan Sanders report)

8/25 International Herald Tribune report from Brian Knowlton: "Letter from Washington: Immigration strains spread into heartland"

8/23 AP report: "Congress divided over solution to immigration problems" (also here as "Borderline Division")

8/22 Chicago Sun-Times editorial: "Washington must move now to stem illegal immigration"

8/22 Orlando Sentinel editorial: OK guest-worker plan (doesn't mention a specific amnesty plan; more here)

8/22 Huntsville AL Times editorial: "Bush to the rescue?"

8/20 People's Weekly World report: "DeLay hit for anti-immigrant remarks" (OK, this one is just here for comic relief, but it does fit the pattern)

8/19 Baltimore Sun editorial: "Deal making"

8/14 David Brooks: "Two Steps Toward a Sensible Immigration Policy" (If this reads like a Tamar Jacoby column, perhaps that's because he uses her terrorists/busboys false choice, and perhaps it's because he quotes her towards the end. Here's more on this David Brooks column.)

What, you are probably wondering, is going on? Was there a central meeting held at which talking points were issued? Why are none of these intelligent people able to come up with any worthwhile ideas? Why are they trying to sell their readers on something that is bad for America and that most people don't want?

Why, you might wonder, do none of these reports mention anything about going after those who employ illegal aliens? Could there be a less-than-wholesome reason why they wouldn't mention that effective tool against illegal immigration? Why do none of them mention the idea of using that to slowly but surely reduce business' dependence on illegal labor? If they're unwilling to even discuss that, should anything they say be given any weight whatsoever?