This is the position of Alex Nowrasteh writing for Cato, who in the course of a useful Twitter exchange tried to convince me that his use of “anti” (see: “Rebuttal of Senator Sessions’ Anti-Immigration Talking Points”) was some accurate hyper-literal label, bracketing the fact that I’m certain he knows it to be fraught with the weight of implied xenophobia, nativism, et al.

My response to Mr Nowrasteh was that favoring a decrease in the numbers of legal immigrants at a time when so many American citizens are out of the workforce is a sober and legitimate policy position, not q sign of anti-immigrant bigotry. Further, I noted that simply by using the label, any subsequent argument Nowrasteh made was already lost — given that it hinged on a misleading (and I believe intentionally so, from the perspective of rhetorical strategy, “anti-immigration” being a kind of shorthand used to color the entirety of the argument and diminish an opponent by way of demonization).

In reply, Nowrasteh began trying to justify his use of the term by way of comparison:

.@proteinwisdom If somebody wanted to decrease private gun ownership by 70%, would you have him/her "anti-gun"?

— Alex Nowrasteh (@AlexNowrasteh) January 14, 2015

Now, it is clear to me at least that there is a difference between wishing to hamstring a clearly articulated and constitutionally sanctioned protection of a natural right, and conflating such a desire for unconstitutional restrictions with a desire to take legislative authority on questions of sovereignty and America’s best interests seriously. Which I mentioned.

But where the discussion got interesting is when Mr Nowrasteh — and another fellow, Adam Gurri — began trying to make the claim thqt “anti-immigrant” was merely descriptive and carried no negative baggage with respect to, say, nativism and xenophobia, a claim belied by Nowrasteh himself in an earlier Tweet replying to a specific prompt:

Writes Nowrasteh:

@barries1 @kw_watson Arguing for a different immigration policy is not treason.

— Alex Nowrasteh (@AlexNowrasteh) January 14, 2015

Look: I have no problem with your position as long as you are honest about it. If you believe Sessions, or the millions of Americans who wish to see some reasonable restrictions on immigration (or abortion, or government spending, or confiscatory taxation, etc) as “anti-” those things, that’s fine: you may be logically incorrect but at least you’ll have the benefit of stating your case honestly and consistently.

Which raises the question: if you are so confident in the righteousness of your position, why back away from it when you are challenged on it? My guess? Is that Mr Nowrasteh was caught playing the Alinsky game, misrepresenting Sessions’ position and therefore guilty of tipping his hand. The walk-back, therefore, is more telling than the original utterance: this is an attack at the seams of the argument, looking for the proper soft spot through which to try to penetrate.

As is my wont, I refuse to let others define me in ways that I know to be untrue. This isn’t terribly popular when in so doing I find myself often at odds with many on the right as well as the majority of the left. But what it is, I believe, is principled. And that’s about all I can lay claim to — even if it costs me readers and Twitter followers.

There is nothing noble in dissembling for the sake of comity, particularly when the stakes are so high. I just wish more people would understand that and embrace it as a point of pride.

You can see the full exchange on Twitter by going to my timeline.