Mahoney, immigration, language

Like Eduardo and others -- including, apparently, Cardinal Mahoney -- I think the recently enacted Arizona law is misguided.  Rob asks about the appropriateness of Mahoney's language condemning the bill.  I have to admit (and, of course, this might reflect badly on me) that I thought the language was in-bounds.  This, in particular, seemed sensible to me:

What led the Arizona legislature to pass such a law is so obvious to all of us who have been working for federal comprehensive immigration reform: the present immigration system is completely incapable of balancing our nation's need for labor and the supply of that labor. We have built a huge wall along our southern border, and have posted in effect two signs next to each other. One reads, "No Trespassing," and the other reads "Help Wanted." The ill-conceived Arizona law does nothing to balance our labor needs.

A fair critique of the Arizona law can recognize, it seems to me, that the national government is failing badly at dealing with the problem of, and costs associated with, illegal immigration . . . and that people in states like Arizona are being forced to bear a disproportionate share of those costs.  And so I was glad that Mahoney did not, in a sweeping and unfair way, simply attack all of those who support the law as racists or nativists.  (I suppose I should say that this defense does not reflect any great respect for the way that Cardinal Mahoney has performed as a bishop.)

That said, I'll defer to Michael S., who (unlike me) actually knows, writes, and studies about immigration.

UPDATE:  Well, thinking more about it, and re-reading Mahoney's statement, I feel differently.  Rob's concerns ring true; the statement goes too far, with the Nazi and Soviet bits, I now think.  I'd delete my initial post, but that would be too easy, since it would hide my too-hasty initial reaction.