Yes, it is 'illegal immigration, or nothing' to the folks at the IBD, as it provides a rosy underclass for business exploitation, which is really all they're concerned with. (If they were truly concerned with social security, they would also be concerned with the social welfare costs of the immigration bill they support.)
But the 'tunnel vision' applies to their careful selection of the range of issues they put forth in this article...they may as well praise the 'vision' of Ted Kennedy with No Child Left Behind and the immigration bill, and, as for Social Security Reform they spend half the column praising, what has actually come to pass? Do you think that the President will get any such thing now, so late in his term, with so much of his political capital evaporated? Or are 'good intentions' enough for just not the Left any more?
And the second part in this series is about Homeland Security-- if you can separate that from illegal immigration, be my guest.
If we're going to laud him for his 'vision,' let's not squint to pretend that it's only limited to the things we're boosters for.
If you have insight into IBD’s editorial stance on illegal immigration, feel free to post some details of it here. Otherwise, you are simply engaged in the sort of anti-business, knee-jerk reaction that is common on [ahem] other websites.
I just glanced through some back issues of IBD. It has published editorials disparaging the immigration bill by Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson, and Thomas Sowell. That was after maybe ten or fifteen minutes of work.