It’s a great day for those of us who believe in law and order. See here.

Addendum: One reason the immigration bill went down to defeat is that its proponents insulted its opponents, calling them “nativists,” “xenophobes,” and “bigots”—as if there are no legitimate reasons for opposition to a bill that rewards lawbreaking and (thereby) encourages further illegal immigration. This sort of Leiterian name-calling and motive-questioning not only doesn’t advance the cause; it sets it back. See here for an example of gratuitous, self-defeating name-calling.

Addendum 2: Michelle Malkin deserves a great deal of credit for (1) keeping people abreast of events in the Senate and (2) motivating her readers to communicate with their senators. Here is Michelle’s latest post. I’m proud to say that my senators, Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, voted against cloture this morning. I will reward them when they come up for reelection. What we need now is enforcement of the laws that are already on the books. Secure the border; deport those who are here illegally; punish employers who hire aliens. Then we can talk about how many (and which) people to allow into our great country.

Addendum 3: Two things are notable about this New York Times story. First, there is no suggestion that each side of the immigration debate produces intemperate individuals. Surely, at least one senator who opposes the immigration bill has been threatened. Did the reporter try to find one? If not, why not? Second, there is no suggestion that threats are made on other issues besides immigration. The implication is that only one side of one issue produces thugs. This fits the narrative of elite mainstream news organizations such as the Times. According to this narrative, there are two types of people: (1) those who are open-minded, compassionate, civil, well-meaning, and rational, and (2) those who are close-minded, cruel, violent, bigoted, and irrational.