In his New York Times column on June 12 (http://iraqwarit.blogspot.com/2007/06/brooks-immigration.html) about the immigration bill, David Brooks starts with a positive message.  He points out that the the immigration issue is really non-partisan, is not driven by racist or nativist attitudes, and is not tied to economic insecurity.  So far, so good - an apparent refutation of name-calling tactics being practiced by the President and by Senators who support the bill.

But then Mr. Brooks offers a straw man proposal: the disagreement is due to a division between Americans who are "cosmopolitan" and those who are "rooted nationalists".   He seems to think that a complex, high-minded dichotomy will make us feel better about the immigration bill than the simplistic attacks we experienced last week of being called racists and bigots.  As he puts it, "People with university values favor intermingling. People with neighborhood values favor assimilation."  Let's see - think locally, act cosmopolitan.  Try the Persian restaurant but make sure that its in your neighborhood.

What is really a simple debate about the rule of law and the responsibility of elected officials, Mr. Brooks calls a culture war.  He says that, "...the immigration debate is part of a newer culture war...between those who ride the tides of the cultural mainstream and those so driven by marginalization that they’re destroying the best compromise they will get."

The cosmopolitan vs. rooted nationalist straw man is academic and not worth debating.  Mr. Brooks could have filled his column with virtually anything since his main point - the column's final sentence - is indefensible and illogical.

People against the immigration bill don't want and don't need a compromise.  There is no need to compromise when 70% of the American public agrees on what needs to be done.  It's assumed that compromise must be reached because a "comprehensive" bill has been created with bi-partisan support by politicians but the American people don't want comprehensive reform.  In fact, they don't want reform at all.  They want something very simple from their elected officials: secure the border and enforce existing laws.