The Washington Examiner has run a lengthy piece on market-based visas --- a legalize-and-tax system -- calling it a potential compromise to close the border to illegal immigration. Based on one of my earlier notes rounded out with additional commentary, How Biden could fix the border and get taxpayers $100 billion has a 'like' to 'dislike' ratio of 9:2 as republished on MSN. That's an 82% approval rate from the public for an approach which most of my professional readers consider radical.

It is hard to overstate the importance of this article, considering how it closes:

[Legalize-and-tax] might offer a compromise for both political sides by pushing illegal immigrants to enroll in the visa program or face deportation. “Long-term undocumented will face a choice: Take a work permit at a price they can afford or be deported. This is not a hard decision,” [Kopits] said, adding, “As the precedent of California's botched marijuana legalization shows, closing the border to contraband, whether marijuana or undocumented labor, is not enough to end the internal black market — in our case, the employment of undocumented residents without work permits. The prohibition on both new and existing migrant labor must be lifted to regain control over the border and bring order to the internal U.S. labor market.”

This is the stalwartly conservative Washington Examiner stating that we -- both the left and right -- need to formally consider a comprehensive solution using market-based mechanisms to end illegal immigration across the border and contemplate the near universal granting of work permits to long-time undocumented residents to clear the internal market. That's a big deal. A very big deal. This is vastly more ambitious than DACA or the Dreamers, and yes, you are reading about it in a hard-nosed, socially conservative paper.

Why, and why now?

The article's author, Paul Bedard, writes the "Washington Secrets" column for the Examiner. I've known Paul for several years now, and he regularly covers my monthly border apprehensions reports. He is the quintessential Washington insider (hence the 'secrets') and has his finger on the pulse of the conservative base. He has read most of my work on illegal immigration for the last five years and knows the legalize-and-tax thesis. I think he has focused on the idea for a number of reasons.

First, my border apprehension forecasts have proved accurate over the last several years, and certainly, that helps one's credibility.

Second, I think Paul has become more comfortable with the notion of illegal immigration as a black market in labor, one which can be addressed as we have other black markets, notably for alcohol, gambling and marijuana. That insight, that illegal immigration is like other problems which we have successfully resolved, I think has been central to Paul's thinking.

Third, no one has a compelling alternative. This is no surprise, because legalize-and-tax is materially the only proven approach to end black markets. Neither more enforcement nor greater leniency will solve the issue, and we know because it has not for the last 58 years. For all the vitriol, protesting, and editorial ink spilt over illegal immigration in recent decades, the border situation today is the worst ever by a substantial margin. We need a collective solution. Legalize-and-tax is the only one on offer.

My takeaway therefore is that Paul believes conservatives are willing to take a serious look at a market-based solution to illegal immigration. The approval rating on the article suggests that the public agrees.

It's time to move forward, and time for the pro-migrant side to weigh in.