Goalpost-shifting alert: Restrictionist weathervane Mickey Kaus reluctantly points out that -- contra the last 15 years of anti-immigration hysteria -- the ongoing reduction in the number of immigrants, legal and illegal, will probably amount to a net negative on the solvency of the welfare state:

to the extent the current immigration debate unexpectedly chases FICA-paying illegal immigrants away, and discourages admitting more legal immigrants, mightn't it by the same token make Social Security less solvent than currently projected? ... kf's solutions: a) If the number of illegals actually falls dramatically, that's what will make it possible to eventually get public support for a reasonable increase in quotas for legals; b) Find other ways to make the system solvent--like reducing the benefits of the affluent. If we have to raise taxes or cut benefits a bit more to make up for controlling the borders, it's worth it.

If Kaus genuinely thinks that his border-wall bedfellows will a) develop an overnight enthusiasm for legal immigrants, or b) enthusiastically back an entitlement cut that even Republicans barely bother talking about anymore, then I suspect he's in for a disappointment. But the more interesting tell here is that unless restrictionists unexpectedly develop a complicated starve-the-beast scenario, they're going to have to eventually ditch the whole illegals-are-sucking-the-welfare-teat argument for more traditional phobias, particularly as Boomers retire and Mexico runs out of Mexicans.

For a great rundown of how illegal immigration affects government largesse, scroll down to Shikha Dalmia's contribution to reason's excellent August/September 2006 cover package. Excerpt: