Well, the "we can't pay decent wages to have our houses cleaned and our lawns mowed" crowd is at it again. The WSJ editorial board has an article about how "work" is a conservative value that trumps all others. The "market", they claim, has created a demand for millions of non-assimilating "immigrants" and who are Conservatives to place the Rule of Law above the "work ethic". The article is so full of mis-representations and bizarre conclusions it is difficult to know where to start.

The very first thing that Mr. Henninger does is to confuse the entire issue by combining legal and illegal immigrants. He then goes on to make an unsupported claim that the places where immigrants go is where there is economic opportunity.

"What that list of states with high rates of in-migration tells me is that immigrants, legal or illegal, go where there's work. They constitute what in one of the few felicitous phrases in economics is called "labor-force participation."

He doesn't say why or how it "tells" him, so he throws in what I suppose he thinks is an intellectual sounding phrase, "labor-force participation".

Is there any chance, any remote possibility, that these people might go where there is the least enforcement of immigration law, or because they receive the highest amounts of Welfare? Of course there isn't, and his source for this information? the "Pew Hispanic Center"?! Pew is the organization that faked a public outcry about "Campaign Finance Reform" and then admitted they were lying later. But they are really, really telling the truth this time?!

But this part, is so disconnected from reality as to be beyond belief.

"No wonder it's hard to pass a bill. It's hard because Congress is trying to elevate one American value, respect for the law, by demoting an American value that up to now has been an unambiguous, uncontested ideal--respect for work, for labor."

Why one or the other? Why would "work" trump the "rule of Law"? The "Rule of Law" respects and rewards and protects those who work. Mr. Henninger has it exactly backwards. Those who support amnesty for illegal aliens claim that the work ethic trumps the Rule of Law. No, they are equal, the practice of one does not negate the need to adhere to the other. It is true that both are "unambiguous, uncontested ideals" but it is he who claims that one should be held above the other.

Ultimately the biggest lie of the "pro-amnesty" crowd, Mr. Henninger included, is the idea that these people are immigrants. The are not. Immigrants are, by definition, attempting to become part of the culture to which they immigrate. Invaders, on the other hand, wish to bring their own language and culture to the place where they are invading, rejecting the culture of the people to whose land they have moved. How can one view the existence of organizations like "La Raza" or the giant number of non-English speaking people who wave Mexican flags and boo the National Anthem as "immigrants"?

Looking for Nobility does not find any at the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.