The following are comments by Linda Chavez, conservative activist, former government official, and former Senatorial candidate:   "Some people just don't like Mexicans - or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans."

She continues: "Where once the xenophobes could advocate forced sterilization and eugenics coupled with virtually shutting off legal immigration from undesirable' countries, now they must be content with building walls, putting troops on the border, rounding up illegal aliens on the job and deporting them, passing local ordinances to signal their distaste for immigrants' multifamily living arrangements, and doing whatever else they can to drive these people back where they came from."

Lest there be any doubt, I agree completely with Linda's comments.  My conservative friends, if we lose the Linda Chavezes of our movement, we've lost more than something of value.  In fact, we will have lost everything.

Please add Linda's name to the distinguished conservatives mentioned below who believe we must cleanse our Party of racism and nativism.  As conservative Rep. Bobby Inglis of SC said recently, we must do everything possible to avoid becoming some sort of South African-type White People's Party. 

Noah Goldberg of National Review and a Townhall essayist bristles at Linda’s comments.  He says that opponents of immigration reform are merely calling for the enforcement of our laws and border security.

I don’t believe it for one minute, and Noah Goldberg is being intellectually dishonest when he confuses his own commitment to a narrow legalism with anti-immigrant fever sweeping much of the country.  Tom Tancredo, supposedly an opponent of illegals, let the cat out of the bag the other night.  He called for an end to “LEGAL” immigration.  Gee, that seems a little . . . whacko.

If you want to know the real driving force behind MUCH (not all) the opposition to immigration reform, just read the comments on TH.  Check out especially people like Pasadena Phil, VirginiaPatriot, and Renee.  Such people look at illegal immigrants (and perhaps also legal ones?) not as our brothers and sisters, but rather as some sort of human slime. 

Gee, Noah Goldberg, I don’t see Renee – or thousands (millions?) of others really making a case for the rule of law.  I see them, to borrow from Linda Chavez, as people who don’t like individuals from south of the border.  Too many of them see Mexicans as some form of human slime, unworthy of any of the love of neighbor that Christ defined as the Second Great Commandment.

When the “law” is used to harm innocent human being, then the “law” becomes something that should disgust decent human beings.  Somehow I keep thinking of Rosa Park disobeying the “law” by refusing to go to the back of the bus.  I think of the Founding Fathers participating in the ultimate disobedience of the law by launching a revolution.   When the laws of man conflict with the laws of God, then it is our duty to adhere to the latter, a point made compellingly by Martin Luther King in his “Letter from the Birmingham Jail.”  Yes, at times the good people are in jail, and the bad ones are outside, looking in. 

I obey the law.  In general, I respect the need for law.  However, I do not revere it, meaning I don’t treat as some sort of Gospel Truth.  There are good laws, such as the ones against murder and rape, and bad laws, such as the one that said Rosa Parks had to go to the back of the bus.   People like Rosa Park and Linda Chavez are well aware that bad laws have been used frequently to undercut the rights – and the dignity – of minorities.

Sometimes, as our Founders put it, “in the course of human events,” it becomes necessary to violate laws that are intolerable.  Noah Goldberg might reflect on the “laws” in another country – Germany – that allowed the mistreatment of minority groups in that country.  In fact, our country was founded on the breaking of laws established by the British Government. 

The argument that it’s illegal to cross the border in order to feed your family is not one that impresses a lot of Hispanics.  If you or I were in their position, it wouldn’t impress us either.   Feeding your family and ensuring that their general welfare takes precedence over any law ever passed.  In this I find myself in agreement with Cardinal Mahoney (no relation) of Los Angeles, a man with whom I rarely agree on anything.

A month ago I offended a lot of people when I uttered a truism of social thought: “perception is reality.”  I hear from a lot Platonic idealists who insisted that there was an objective reality and, coincidentally, it mirrored exactly whatever was in their heads. 

A conservative heroine – and an Hispanic – like Linda Chavez has paid the price for her conservatism.  She has tirelessly supported political principles in conflict with the beliefs of many in her ethnic group.  Her perceptions should be important to us because of the character she’s demonstrated over many years.

Her perception is that many (most?) people who oppose immigration reform are hostile to people who come from south of our borders.  Most Hispanics share her perception, as do I, a non-Hispanic.  I salute her for her candor. 

In what important sense is perception reality?  People – nearly all people – vote on the basis of perception.  They aren’t political scientists, philosophers, or economists.  They’re not concerned with issues of ultimate reality.  The vote on the basis of what they see to be true.

In 1960, Richard Nixon against John F. Kennedy and received 32% of the Black vote.  If a Republican presidential candidate could get anything like that percentage, they might not even bother to hold an election.  Nowadays, it’s more like 5%-6%.  That makes it almost impossible to win elections in many of the biggest states.

What happened? In 1964, Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, whom I supported generally, opposed the Civil Rights Act.  He was wrong to do so.  In essence, the Civil Rights Act was nothing more than human decency applied to Blacks.  It was a disastrous moment in the history of Republicans, the Party of Lincoln.

After Goldwater opposed the proposed legislation, Blacks deserted the Republican Party, their home since the Lincoln Era.  After that, Republicans were lucky to get even a small percentage of Black votes.

I fear the same thing might happen with huge Hispanic cohort in the U.S. – 40 million people who are here legally.  On Townhall Thursday, a woman was quoted as saying the Republican base’s stand on immigration would not “effect” the Hispanic vote.  I would have been more convinced of her argument if she’d known the difference between “effect” (the wrong word) and “affect” (the right one). 

Doing the right thing is even harder than choosing the right word.