Tar-water

I will use Coulter's recent tweets as a launchpad:

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 
Without @realDonaldTrump's immigration plan, it will be nothing but Obamas and Hillarys as president for the rest of our lives. 

 Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter
... too stupid to grasp that they'll never be in a position to do any of that unless we stop foreigners from voting in our elections. 

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 
Nothing else matters. Unless we stop 3rd worlders pouring in, bloc-voting 4 the Dems, conservatives lose EVERYTHING.  

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 
We haven't seen anything like this since Dwight Eisenhower's "Operation Wetback." Even @MittRomney wasn't this pro-American on immigration. 

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 
I don't care if @realDonaldTrump wants to perform abortions in White House after this immigration policy paper. 

I myself am I hardliner on illegal immigration. That said:

i) Notice that Counter's tweets aren't about illegal immigration in particular, but "foreigners" or "Third World" immigrants in general. It's not about legal v. illegal immigration, but First World v. Third World. 

ii) Race and ethnicity are not equivalent to ideology. A "foreigner" or "Third-Worlder" is not a synonym for "Democrat" or "liberal." How does Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley fit Coulter's taxonomy? 

iii) Considering how many Muslims now live in the First World (i.e. the EU and the UK), her stated position wouldn't screen out Muslim immigrants.

iv) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Trump has a wonderful position paper on immigration reform. So what? If he doesn't believe what he says, it's a campaign promise that's DOA. Trump was a registered Democrat as late as 2009. And in the last presidential election cycle, he was critical of Romney for being too harsh on illegal immigrants. 

So Trump's newly-minted statements on immigration lack credibility. He's pandering to the audience. Just telling them what they want to hear. But there's no conviction behind his words. He's the classic politician who will say anything to get elected. It's an applause line, nothing more. I have no interest in candidates who say the right things if they are lying. The label may say it's a cure for cancer, but if its tar-water inside the bottle, I'm not buying. 

v) It may well be the case that illegal immigration in general is a lost cause. I'm sorry to say that. Consider Pete Wilson's valiant, but futile attempt to deter illegal immigration. Unfortunately, he failed. That was the beginning of the end of California.

Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Rick Perry are weak on illegal immigration. But as a practical matter, how could an otherwise conservative politician succeed in Florida or the SW if he took a hardline on illegal immigration? Is that politically viable? Or does that banish you to political oblivion? 

Likewise, Florida is basically a must-win state for the GOP in presidential elections. And the electoral college math is the same for a fabled third-party candidate. How do you carry that state if voters perceive you to be anti-immigrant? Even if that perception is unfair, politics is unfair. 

Conservatives need to make allowance for the possibility that this is a losing battle. We have to pick our fights. If you alienate a necessary voting block, then Democrats will have a lock on the White House (and by extension, the Federal judiciary) for the foreseeable future. 

vi) At the same time, there's a difference between a candidate running for national office and a candidate running for a local or statewide position (e.g. mayor, governor, senator). What's politically feasible varies from state to state. 

vii) On a related note, I've read that some Trump supporters are concerned about outsourcing. However, it doesn't occur to them that closed shop and high corporate taxes are a major reason some American business outsource. Right-to-work laws and slashing (or abolishing) corporate taxes are a more targeted way to keep jobs at home. 

viii) Likewise, you can have voter ID laws. Again, that's a more targeted solution.