We agree on immigration?

Foreign Affairs has published a good article reviewing the current immigration impasse and presenting a blueprint for ever-elusive "comprehensive immigration reform." It doesn't break much new ground--and often uses phrases like "busboys and gardeners" as shorthand for low-skilled immigrants (something that even the most liberal commentators are prone to doing)--but it does make a couple of interesting points:

1. Most Americans are in agreement with regard to immigration, supporting immigration policies that continue to allow high levels of immigration, so long as (A) enforcement efforts are bolstered and (B) current undocumented immigrants are allowed a way to "honorably" earn citizenship (i.e. instead of automatic granting of amnesty).

2. Many politicians ignore this consensus, fearing that a core group of supporters--mostly white males lacking college degrees (the author's words, not mine)--will wield influence beyond their numbers and shut down any policies falling in line with the above.

3. Barring the construction of a border wall, traditional law enforcement at the border simply does not work; the Border Patrol budget has tripled in size and quintupled in budget over the past decade, yet undocumented immigrants continue to arrive in the same if not greater numbers.

4. Given (1) and (3), the most intelligent way to improve enforcement would be to provide a legal avenue for most of the current stream of immigrants entering the country. The author analogizes this to the repeal of Prohibition, when allowing and regulating alcohol ended widespread lawlessness.

Again, not groundbreaking stuff, but it is helpful to see an establishment publication like Foreign Affairs addressing this issue in a sensible, unalarmist way. (I.e. instead of that Time magazine cover a couple years back, "The United States of Mexico.")