Today there are THREE offerings by conservative "elites" who are lamenting the tone and divisiveness of immigration.
There's Domenech, over at the Federalist asking, "Are Republicans For Freedom or White Identity Politics?" (that HAS to be a rhetorical question):
“Identity politics for white people” is not the same thing as “racism”, nor are the people who advocate for it necessarily racist, though of course the categories overlap.
...
If a large – sorry, yuge – portion of the country wants existing bipartisan immigration laws to be enforced, and one party tells them “Yes,” but means “No,” and the other party tells them, “No” but means “You’re a racist,” then it’s only a matter of time before some disruptor is going to emerge to call them out for their game.
Elite consensus indifference to public opinion has created a vacuum
...
Then there is the token moderate, Michael Gerson, who is the Washington Post's answer to David Brooks who is pleading GOP candidates to avoid saying they agree with Trump:
When it comes to Trump, some conservatives have adopted the strategy of saying “There are some good points here, but . . . ” and “He is tapping into some real anxiety, but . . . ” It is an approach that effectively legitimizes Trump’s disturbing enterprise. He is not making a series of arguments about the role of immigration in depressing wages or increasing unemployment. He is choosing an enemy in order to organize and direct public anger. There is a difference between striking a populist chord and feeding cultural resentment with racial overtones.
O RLY? The GOP has been feeding cultural resentment about "others" for DECADES. Remember the existential threat by gay marriage and muslims?
Finally, we have warmonger, Krauthammer, imploring the GOP to back off:
The Democrats’ presumptive candidate is flailing badly. Republicans have an unusually talented field with a good chance of winning back the presidency. Do they really want to be dragged into the swamps — right now, on immigration — that will make that prospect electorally impossible?
Yes, I understand. The anger, the frustration, etc., etc., that Trump is channeling. But how are these alleviated by yelling “I’m mad as hell” — and proceeding to elect Hillary Clinton?
Krauthammer if you remember had a genius suggestion for the GOP to solve their problems. He basically called on them to fold completely 100% surrender on immigration,
and change absolutely nothing else.
None of these very serious adult mature conservative pundits have put out a self-reflection on what has pretty much been the official electoral strategy of the GOP
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” - Lee Atwater, former GOP Campaign Consultant
Karma's a bitch people. You reap what you sow.