The New York Times' resident faux conservative, David Brooks, believes that establishment Republicans ought to mount a "philosophical assault" on President Trump's immigration policy.  In his most recent opinion piece, Brooks contends that while the Trumpists "have a story to tell the country about what's gone wrong ... [t]he regular Republicans have no story, no conviction and no argument."

When Trump says "we need to build walls to keep out illegals," he is telling "a tribal story," Brooks contends.

Brooks wants establishment Republicans to tell a very different story.  "The whole point of America," he writes, "is that we are ... a universal nation, founded on universal principles."  The whole point?  There is a not a word in his screed about where those principles came from and who brought them over.

The founding principles set out in Declaration of Independence may be framed in universal language, but they are the product of a Western, specifically Anglophone, culture.  If we cherish those principles, then it should follow that any immigration must be done slowly and carefully so that new entrants are properly assimilated.  But not according to Brooks.  There isn't a word in his essay about assimilation.

One can almost hear the orchestra swell.  "This striving dream is still lurking in every heart.  It's waiting for someone who has the guts to say no to tribe, yes to universal nation, no to fences[.]" (My emphasis).

Brooks's advice to the Republican establishment, in other words, is to openly advocate the "open borders" policies of George Soros.  I'm sure this would be wildly popular with bicoastal elites and a handful of policy wonks in D.C.  That Brooks thinks it would be embraced by heartland GOP voters shows how out of touch he is.