Mark Krikorian wrote today in the National Review Online:

Roy Beck of Numbers USA has done a preliminary analysis of House results and finds that there are six incoming pro-amnesty Democrats replacing somewhat anti-amnesty Republicans, though none of the Democrats made immigration a major issue. On the other hand, three other newly elected Democrats ran on very strong pro-enforcement platforms and four others appear to be much more hawkish than the Republicans they’ll replace. In Beck’s words, “The results of this evening have not been a reason for celebrating. But neither have they been a reason for us to put on sackcloth.”

What about the Obama Administration? The president-elect’s instincts on immigration are, of course, just like those of his erstwhile opponent — let the illegals stay, loosen enforcement, increase overall immigration. When he was campaigning in the primaries, he even supported driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, probably never having met anyone in his parochial experience who thought otherwise.

But opposition to licenses for illegals is a 70-plus percent issue with the public. Despite Obama’s promise to Hispanic groups to address amnesty during his first 100 days, stepping into a steaming pile of amnesty would drain vital time and energy, a la Clinton and gays in the military, from things he cares about more, like socializing medicine and lowering sea levels. And whatever candidate Obama said about amnesty before the stock market meltdown, a proposal by President Obama to amnesty millions of illegals during the worst economic situation in decades would be a gift to the Republican minority in Congress.

Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff actually bodes well for immigration. It’s not that he’s a nice guy, like the Josh Lyman character on West Wing that he inspired. As Yuval Levin recently wrote at The Corner, Emanuel is “a vicious graceless partisan: narrow, hectic, unremittingly aggressive, vulgar, and impatient.” But it is precisely this partisanship, combined with an awareness of the visceral public sentiment on immigration, that has led him to counsel caution for his party on the issue. To the chagrin of hard-left activists, Emanuel has said of immigration that "For the American people, and therefore all of us, it's emerged as the third rail of American politics. And anyone who doesn't realize that isn't with the American people.” Last year Emanuel told a Hispanic activist that “there is no way this legislation [“comprehensive immigration reform”] is happening in the Democratic House, in the Democratic Senate, in the Democratic presidency, in the first term.” One lefty activist has described Emanuel’s cautions as “disgusting and immoral,” while another called his stance “cowardly or xenophobic,” and a third described him as a “war-mongering anti-immigrant NAFTA-pusher.” Considering the sources, those are pretty good endorsements!

Read the complete article here. 

What will this mean for Immigration Reform?  Will we move to grant citizen rights to all the people who are working, paying taxes and struggling for their piece of the American Dream or will we go hard line and bow to the Union Demands?