From Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator, Heritage, Levin Call for Immigration Debate:

Paul Ryan issued a challenge.

The Heritage Foundation picked up the challenge.

Mark Levin wants to see this debate as well.

It’s time — past time — for a full and open discussion in the conservative family about immigration. To stop with the sound bite presentations. To put an immediate stop to the idea of comprehensive immigration bills zipping through Congress with all the usual backdoor wheeling and dealing.

It’s time for a William F. Buckley-esque debate between conservatives that finally and quite publicly puts those involved with the issue together on one stage at the same time. Puts them there for an open, televised, candid, and serious discussion of a seriously momentous issue for the future of America. An issue that is being shoved through Congress with all the speed of a rocket accompanied by the usual Washington bipartisan game playing and theatrics.

The Heritage Foundation is precisely the right venue for this.

The participants? Levin suggests Heather Mac Donald, Ed Meese, and either or both Ted Cruz and Jeff Sessions for one side.

My feelings too. The Gang of 8 went behind closed doors, and then issued a mammoth bill which has grown by hundreds of pages.

But we have not debated key issues as a party, chief among them giving amnesty to adults who knowingly broke our immigration laws, and advantaging them over those who abided by the law.

That fundamental point — whether it’s “legalization” or citizenship — has not been debated. It’s been danced around and buried under over 1000 pages of legislation with innumerable squirrels thrown in to distract people.

Democrats want the quickest possible path to giving citizenship to adults who broke our laws to get here. What do Republicans want?

Update: The latest squirrel, Breakthrough in Senate immigration talks; announcement set for Thursday:

Republican Sens. John Hoeven and Bob Corker have been working on an amendment to the Gang bill that would satisfy Republicans who say the legislation as currently written does not have strong triggers to make the awarding of green cards, or permanent legal status, conditional on the completion of strict border control measures. A Senate aide familiar with the talks says the agreement would require that such measures be in place before immigrants could win permanent legal status.

The key feature of the deal is a massive increase in the number of Border Patrol agents. The Hoeven and Corker amendment would call for the number of agents to be essentially doubled, to about 40,000 from its current force of 20,000. “It’s hard to contend that you can’t control the border with about 40,000 Border Patrol agents,” says the Senate aide.

Really?  What happens when the president refuses to enforce the law as he has done many times, or comes up with waivers, or tells the new hires not to detain people?  Border security is important, but it’s not the central issue, and in fact, concedes the central issue of amnesty.