But I mean no such thing. In my experience, most Latino immigrants want very much to be part of the American dream, and want nothing to do with the Marxist mau-mauing of the reconquista types. (Generally, the radical elements of the pro-immigration side seem to come from those oases of loopy radicalism -- college campuses, the Chicano/a Studies departments, in particular.) Likewise, most immigration restrictionists bring very practical, reasonable concerns -- not xenophobia or racism -- to the debate.

That said, the extremists are there. Bridget has ably documented the reconquistas for us. And as for the nativists/racists, they're hard to miss. I say this as a conservative, who has worked in conservative media and listens to plenty of conservative talk radio. Mariel, Jonathan, and I -- who have all written on the immigration issue -- can all attest to the racist e-mail that invariably comes in response. Or just read some of the comments/posts on some of the more popular anti-immigration blogs. Listen to some of the "jokes" or angrier callers on the talk-radio shows. There is a definite know-nothingism that infects some portion of the anti-immigration crowd.

The extremists may be a minority on both sides, but they are loud. Worse, they reinforce each other, and alienate those who gravitate near the middle.

For the nativists, the reconquistas justify their nativism -- see, the Mexicans hate us and want to take us over! Likewise, in the mind of the reconquistas, the nativists warrant their anti-Americanism -- see, the whites hate us and want us ethnically cleansed! Politically disinterested Anglos and Latinos alike -- who want nothing to do with this whole debate, and just want to raise their families well -- can be frightened by the extremist language into adopting more radical positions of their own. ("I've got nothing against them, but so many of them seem to have something against us!")

Thus the extremists poison the immigration debate, making compromise and reform impossible. Worse, though, they poison race relations and undermine assimilation.

So what's the solution?

It begins, I think, with the more reputable elements of both sides of the debate doing more to call out and condemn the bigots in their midst. Too often, it seems, the pro-immigration types are willing to tolerate the reconquistas just to get more bodies at their marches, while the restrictionists are happy to have anyone flooding Congress with letters and e-mails, even xenophobes.

This is common in politics -- we always hold the other side to higher standards. That's why many liberals who find Ann Coulter so offensive have no problem with Michael Moore or the Daily Kos; and plenty of conservatives who grumble about the likes of Keith Olbermann still love Michael Savage. But it's hypocritical, and in this case, nationally destructive.

Both sides love to denounce the others' extremists, but what if they would start denouncing their own? What if they would both work to take the racists and radicals of all types out of the debate? That would be a powerful act of good faith, and could just possibly lead us to a greater sense of trust and cooperation -- rather than the hatred and bile that have gotten us nowhere.