In response to:

The GOP's Immigration Mess

Kepha Wrote: Jan 26, 2013 10:11 AM
One of my big grips about the immigration debate is that "immigrant" now means "someone who entered without papers". Having lived and worked in Taiwan in accordance with their laws, and as the grandson, husband, and father-in-law of LEGAL immigrants, I deeply resent this subtle redefinition. As far as I'm concerned, America already has a clear and generous path for citizenship for immigrants: anyone who is legally and lawfully admitted to the USA can become a citizen after five years if he wants to.

On Saturday I will be debating Mark Kirkorian on immigration policy before the National Review Institute.

I am a "wet," on the topic. Have been since I opposed California's proposition 187 in 1994.

Mark, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, is a "dry."

Here's the interesting thing about out "debate," to be moderated by National Review's Jim Geraghty: Even if one or the other of us succeeds in persuading everyone in the room of our point of view, it doesn't matter. Not a lick. The GOP is branded as an anti-immigrant party, especially with voters under 30, the...