ON THE ONE HAND-ISM. "The [immigration] compromise, which leaders of both parties struck almost two weeks ago, has met stiff resistance from the left and right of both parties," reports New York Times . "Liberals tend to oppose the section that would add emphasis on admitting immigrants with education and job skills and less on family reunification. Conservatives tend to dismiss the plan as an amnesty bill." Show of hands: Has anyone seen serious liberal opposition to the education and skills components of the immigration compromise? Because I haven't. And I've been following this pretty closely. There's a fair amount of liberal opposition to the hoops required for citizenship (leaving and reentering the country, say) as opposed to mere legalization, and a ton of anger over the guest worker program, but so far as I can tell, scarcely more than a whisper of worry over moving to a skills-based regime. For the Times to elevate those quiet concerns to parity with the Right's fury over amnesty is a serious misrepresentation of the situation. It does, however, allow them to make both sides look obstructionist in equal measure. Meanwhile, the article is, in fact, about the asymmetry of opposition -- an asymmetry so fierce that Bush has begun taking on the conservative coalition rather than arguing with the liberals. He knows, after all, who's most upset about this bill, and most prepared to kill it, even if the New York Times seems confused. --Ezra Klein
