And then there's this view on immigration reform

The Federalist, which bills itself as "The Conservative e-Journal of Record" has its own take on the President's proposed immigration reform. The entire thing is here (it's under the heading "Top of the fold"). Here's an excerpt:

In the 48 hours since the announcement, the Bush immigration-reform plan has met with vehement resistance from every band of the political spectrum. Indeed, a sizeable majority of Americans are opposed to any expansion of existing immigration, or any legitimization of existing illegal aliens. While a great deal of this reticence was anticipated, and some of it justified, a number of qualifications on the issue of immigration reform must be brought to light.

First, this is not a new issue. Following a February, 2001, meeting between President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox, a U.S.-Mexico High Level Working Group on Migration was established. This group would be tasked with addressing the problem of illegal immigration from Mexico to the U.S., which is estimated to compose more than 60% of all such immigration into the U.S. On September 6, 2001, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to "match willing workers with willing employers" and "ensure migration takes place through safe and legal channels." Five days later, of course, the discussion of immigration reform, border policies and economic integration would come to an abrupt halt with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Second, the Bush plan is, in part, politically timed and motivated. With the ascendancy of Arnold Schwarzenegger, California will likely be hotly contested in the upcoming presidential race. As such, the Hispanic vote will become critical to either party's hopes of carrying the Golden State -- and its treasure trove of 54 electoral votes. Should President Bush carry California, his re-election would be assured. However, when seen alongside a strong economic recovery and significant progress in the war on terror, California is not essential to the President's prospects.

Consequently, charges of "hispandering" don't stand up to scrutiny. Rather, the Bush immigration-reform plan should be seen as a first step toward the more substantive reform we anticipate after this election cycle. Even congressional proponents of the measure do not anticipate a bill to pass in 2004, indicating that the Bush team is using this occasion to gauge and build public support for farther-reaching reform beginning in 2005 with the President's second term.

They sum up their analysis with this:

Summing up, the plan is intended to confront the realities of illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are in the U.S. now -- between 8 million and 14 million of them, according to various estimates. Simply by being here, these illegals benefit from a wide array of social services at the local, state and federal levels; they do not, however, pay taxes on their earnings. A temporary-worker program like that proposed by the Bush administration will channel this immigrant labor into the tax base, rather than permitting it to siphon off government resources.

One thing I've noticed about The Federalist is that they are not prone to knee-jerk reactions about this kind of thing. They take their time and present careful, studied analyses which sometimes disagree with the rest of the Conservative establishment. This may turn out to be a case of the President and/or those who advise him being a lot more shrewd than they appear to be initially.