From: Virginia Paleoconservative [Email him]
I am shocked, shocked, but actually somewhat disappointed NRO has come out of the closet in favor of immigration amnesty in the article "Three Questions on Immigration" penned “By The Editors”(Rich Lowry?). Perhaps they could have at least waited to change their position until after the Senate’s CIR legislation was publically released, but I suppose the pressure was on so they had to move quickly.
This abandoning of position and defecting to the other side was not generated by pressure from the majority of the NRO readers/ posters who are against amnesty. Rather, in my opinion it came from outside influences, of what kind I can only speculate.
“We are not dead-set against providing legal status to some large group of illegal immigrants under circumstances where doing so serves the national interest. Whether or not this deal does so depends on whether it yields satisfactory answers to these questions.”[April 10, 2013]
In addition, NRO had this pathetic, obsequious article about how Grover Norquist and his organization Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) works to defeat the efforts of immigration patriots. I do find it ironic that the author of the article, Betsy Woodruff, a William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute, used the “Islamophobic” word “crusader” to describe Norquist (whose wife is a Muslim, and who is suspected of being a Muslim himself) but perhaps it was an attempt at humor on her part.
“Grover Norquist is known as an anti-tax crusader, but in the coming weeks he will be just as much a pro-immigration crusader, combatting (sic) what he calls the “bitter enders” who oppose comprehensive immigration reform.” [Grover vs. ‘the Bitter Enders’| The anti-tax crusader fights for immigration reform, April 9, 2013
See previous letters from Virginia Paleoconservative.