For once, Slate writer Matthew Yglesias is right. He is confused.
His confusion comes in the wake of Ramesh Ponnuru’s observation that the Congressional Budget Office thinks the Gang of Eight bill will reduce future illegal immigration by only 25 percent.
@RameshPonnuru writes CBO report has 'driven a stake through the heart of the Gang of 8’s case.' http://t.co/wbkyNrWwkD
— Byron York (@ByronYork) June 19, 2013
Thought the CBO projections were great for the Gang of Eight's case? @RameshPonnuru slaps you in the face: http://t.co/q6UexCvKyb
— Patrick Brennan (@ptbrennan11) June 19, 2013
In response, Yglesias states that the only two options on immigration reform are (a) the status quo (that is, a zero percent reduction in illegal immigration) and (b) the Gang of Eight amnesty bill (a 25 percent reduction).
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/347437056328343552
Getting serious about border security — something that most Americans support and something that other countries are already doing — is apparently not an option.
Why not?
Aha, here we get to the heart of the matter:
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/347437956086255617
At least Ygelsias admits it. Too bad other proponents of the Gang of Eight bill aren’t so honest.
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member