Redstate

this is why I stopped voting early after something similar happened in a local election.

I doubt it makes a big difference to many. But Juan is involved with outreach to Hispanics, not policy in any way. And it should be obvious that McCain doesn't agree with every non-paid outreach coordinator on his campaign. But I guess if talk radio talks about him, there must be a diary on it.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

What a load. If McCain has advisors he doesn't agree with, ...what? 300 million is too small a country for him to find ones that he DOES agree with? He has to settle for a freaking agent of a foreign government that he STILL doesn't even supposedly agree with? What kind of crap IS that, anyway?

Bulls**t. He agrees with him. McCain suffers people who don't agree with him way too poorly for your case to fly.

Vote for McCain, if you believe in him. Go ahead - it's your right. But don't expect anyone to believe you when you then say you're for secure borders. I know, I know -- you don't have to agree with him on everything. But the deviations you're willing to tolerate, and what they say about you, will be known to all, because there's no putting this genie back in the bottle.

This goes a long way toward validating my theory that people don't *support* McCain so much as they *love* him. No true-believing secure-borders'er, thinking with his head, would back McCain. If you do, you're either not a secure-borders'er, or you just don't care, because you're in love.

------------------------

"It will not be McCain."

-Taniwha

mat

But do you trust McCain to do the first fully and then the second after you have control of our borders?

I was pretty sure that McCain could be trusted, but when he has open border supporters and advisers, my level of trust with McCain gets a serious knock.

Let's be clear here, McCain was not a supporter of the fence before last year, and I am beginning to believe
he is doing a pander on the topic.

Here's a quote from one of the debates, the money line is at the end.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

If for any other reason he is running for President, not supreme dictator. No bill will ever be presented to McCain for signature that doesn't address the security issue first and build a fence. It will not be politically possible. Nothing else will get through both the House and the Senate. Even Barack Obama says that.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

mat

Then why is McCain so tone deaf as to have this open border ex Mexican official as an advisor...it makes one go hmmmmmm.

It's a matter of trust, and who has the kings ear, this guy who is his Hispanic outreach adviser is bad bad bad.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

In my view that means listening to all sides of the issue and then taking the best position.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

Mat - The point is, McCain is only listening to one side: the side he's agreed with all along.

McCain got one thing right last summer--we havelost trust in out government officials. What he has wrong is that pandering by him is the way to restore the trust. Deeds, not words, are what is needed.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Matt

I know all about solving problems, I am in engineering management which is all about solving problems.

But let's be clear here, McCain was wrong dead wrong on the need to build a fence back in the summer of 06, McCain acknowledges that now. Now do we believe that he got it, the spanking the American people gave him, or is his current position just a pander?

I believed for a while that McCain got it, but now that he's being advised by this openly Open Border ex Mexican official, I'm beginning to smell a rat, or as it's also known, El Rata... It's a matter of trust, and I'm not sure I trust McCain on this issue.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Mat
In my view that means listening to all sides of the issue and then taking the best position.

Whatever happened to taking a positon based on PRINCIPLES? Mccian has done that when he tried to push through the 'amnesty' legistaltion last year. He has done that when he said he preferred 'clean government' over 1st Amendment freedoms (No Incumbent Left Behind Act). He has done that when he sided with democrats on AGW. He has done that when he wanted to close Gitmo and bring terrorists into our legal system. He has done that when he sided with kennedy and edwards on lawsuits. He has done that when he opposed taxcuts (twice). He has done that on deficit reduction and spending bills (a good thing).

I'd say 'listening' is not what Mccain does well.
I've seen senor hernadez and read some of his work. He is an enemy of this country, a serious member of our 5th column. If Mccain has him as an advisor, that would be a frightening situation if he is elected, and it speak volumes about his real stand on immigration and border security.

I think his line at the end was something like,

"As Reagan said, 'A shining city on a hill' (unintelligible), not going to erect barriers and fences."

That sounds like he is against the fence.

Whereas every other candidate, including Mitt and Rudy, are FOR the fence.

I don't think that McCain can be trusted on immigration.

It's called Pandering with a capital 'P'. McCain is trying to have it both ways, parsing language on national TV and throwing a bone to the open borders crowd behind closed doors. He probably hopes no one noticed. It's pandering at it's worse because it threatens national security and somehow McCain gets away with it.

Dr. Juan openly and often states his position that Mexico and the U.S. are not two separate countries, but “just a region”. He does not beleive in a sovreign United States of America. That is treason. He has an active role in Aerican politics and in an AMerican Presidential Campaign. Openly working to undermine U.S. law and U.S. sovreignty while working for Presidential campaign is despicable. I'm sure there are more than a few legal scholars who justify the ultimate punishment for such treason, especially if he endeavors to influence national policy in some sort of quasi-official capacity.

You know, it says that you have to have a trial and be convicted of something before you can be hung. It isn't something that should be taken lightly and used as a political football so you can score points for your side and take down a fellow Republican (McCain) a few notches.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

The rule of law doesn't matter to the amnesty group. It only matters if you oppose them.

How many times do business owners go to their local city council and ask for a code change so they can create jobs? Is that breaking the rule of law? Just becuase some are considering alternatives to a system that isn't working, that doesn't mean they don't resepect the rule of law. It means sometimes the rule of law has to be adjusted to fix a problem. That is why we have legislative bodies who can create, abolish, or amend laws. It is called a Democratic Republic.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

Obviously I meant, for pete's sake.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

mat. A democratic republic does exactly as you described. But in this case massive lawbreaking happened first and then an attempt was made to adjust the law. That isn't a democratic republic. That's a lawless, gangster state mentality.

And it is very dangerous.

There's 20 million more than the good senator who have no respect for the rule of law. Not immigration law, not tax law, not identity theft law, not fraud law. We're just expected to welcome them with open arms.

There is no rule of law in the blogoshpere. However, there is rule of law on the Arizona border and in New York City, something that mssrs. McCain and Rudy don't seem to appreciate. If anybody needs a lecture on rule of law, maybe you should have McCain forward a letter to Dr. Juan "Mexico First" Hernandez.

By your logic we should abolish all elected positions in this country and only have a Supreme Court who can enforce the rule of law. It is you folks that don't have respect for the democratic process, not I.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

You brought up "rule of law" in response to my hyperbole regarding Juan "Mexico First" Hernandez. What does a blog comment have to do with 'rule of law'. I can say Hernandez is a traitor just as I can say O.J. was guilty or that Sandy Berger is a crook. What's your point?

The Supreme Court doesn't "enforce" the law, the executive does. We are a representative republic, not a pure democracy. Go read up on the Constitution Matt, it would do you some good.

America stands for bold colors!

Tim Schieferecke

What do you mean, "you folks" Matt?? Sounds like you're an open borders, hanky-ringing RINO who's content to ignore the devastion to our culture and economy brought on by illegal immigration. Why not lose the attitude if you're going to use the "I believe in grace.." tagline, because my take on your postings is that you're a little short on the grace thingy. And we know where you stand...McCain, leave the illegals alone,..so why not limit your postings to 15 or so.

I meant devastation

If they're staying here, with minimal penalty. it's amnesty. Exactly. Amnesty.

But you have to first define what "minimal" is, and your definition might not be the same as mine. This isn't black and white no matter how hard you try. That is why we have a democracy. So let's have the debate in Congress and get something done to fix the problem. The makeup of Congress isn't going to change no matter who the President is. It is almost as if you guys sometimes wish we could quit talking about it just so you don't have to accept the fact that their is no reasonable policy solution that includes shipping 12 million people out of the greatest country in the world. I can't believe advocates of small government and less spening would even consider such a notion that would lead to nothing more than another large, money sucking, failed government program. Geesh.

"I believe in grace, because I have seen it. In peace, because I have felt it. In forgiveness, because I needed it."

-George W. Bush

I'm not advocating shipping 12 million people out of the country. Oklahoma and Arizona have recently passed laws with some teeth. Illegals are flying out of those states.

Fred had it right. Simply enforce existing laws, eliminate citizenship for illegal babies, don't give social services and there is no reason for them to stay.

I am going to the nursery this afternoon to pick up some rose bushes. My wife cannot accompany me to help pick out the plants. If she does, she will be exposed to the most vulgar cat calls from the hordes of day laborers hanging out there doing the work Americans don't want to do.

My grand daughter's 3rd grade class has 24 children. 8 have very little English language skills. The teacher is not trained to teach Enlish as a second language students. Guess who gets short changed. My grand daughter.

The emergency rooms in this town are overflowing with these folks and most of the public hospitals are facing very serious financial problems as a result.

Not to mention 20 million new democrats.

I'm sick of all of this and McCain's amnesty plans are not going to change it.

I'm not advocating shipping 12 million people out of the country. Oklahoma and Arizona have recently passed laws with some teeth. Illegals are flying out of those states.

Exactly right. That's what you and countless other's have been explaining for months, over and over, to the amnesty-plus-reward advocates. But no matter how many times you explain it to them, they desperately cling to their straw man argument. It's like almost every McCain apologist has been hard-wired to respond on any immigration issue with "But there's no realistic way to deport 12 million people."

it certainly feels like no one listens.

FredHead for Mitt Romney!

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Thanks for the insight

...stand mute in the face of 12 million (probably 20 million) people coming and staying without permission and in defiance of its laws and sovereignty?

Not likely.

And after a "President McCain," future generations of the "formerly greatest nation on earth" might just have to testify to that. I guess the only question left would be in which language will such testimony might be spoken.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

relation the legal immigration process.

If a law is enacted that essentially puts illegal immigrants ahead of people attempting to legally immigrate, then the illegal immigrant is being allowed to retain the benefit of their illegal action (they remain in a better position as law brakers then people who followed our laws) and thus the term amnesty is applicable, since amnesty at its core is to overlook an offense.

If you want to call it de facto amnesty fine---but you never hear McCain address this point.

Is it sound public policy to reward lawbrakers at the expense of people who follow our laws?

Answer me this:

If someone illegally parks, and he gets a $200 fine, is he being granted "amnesty" merely because his car isn't towed? After all, someone else might have taken the spot.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

In real life McCain would fine you $200, not tow your car and give you title to the parking space.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

"If someone illegally parks, and he gets a $200 fine, is he being granted "amnesty" merely because his car isn't towed?"

That would indeed be a form of partial amnesty, if the penalty for illegal parking in that spot includes towing the car away under the circumstances described. He was allowed to park there at a high price, and no further penalty was exacted. His infraction was thereafter ignored (forgotten).

Amnesty - from the Greek amnestia, 'forgetfulness.'

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

If someone illegally parks, and he gets a $200 fine, is he being granted "amnesty" merely because his car isn't towed?

If the value of that time parking time is say $50, then it's not a complete amnesty because the punishment leaves the offender worse off than if he had complied with the law. If instead the "fine" is actually a bargain price, then it is amnesty. Say the fine is $10 - then the offender is better off getting the parking space for the $10 "fine" discount price instead of being one of the suckers who pays $50 to comply with the law.

If I steal a car, amnesty is if I just give back the car and don't suffer any punishment. Amnesty PLUS REWARD is if I get legal title to the car by paying a "fine" that's cheaper than the value of the car.

If I reside illegally in the U.S., amnesty is I just go back home now, and I don't suffer any punishment for all the time in the past that I was illegally here with fraudulent ID. Amnesty PLUS REWARD is if I get a green card for a "fine" that's far cheaper than what legal immigration applicants would be willing to pay.

McCain non-amnesty would load the voting rolls with Democrats.

You know why the Democrats support "a path to citizenship" for illegal aliens. They have no problem with the 2 trillion dollar price tag (according to the Heritage Foundation) of the increased burden on our social welfare programs.

But why did McCain vote to pass the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, which passed in the 2005-2006 Senate. So, it's reasonable for Tim Russert to ask, as he did, whether a President McCain would sign McCain-Kennedy as passed by the 2005-2006 US Senate.

It would be different if McCain was just one of the go alongs becuase the issue was a hot potato, he was leader of it and he will not change his postion. This man believes what he said last year, and we the people better get used to it. Please go back and look at the damage Kennedy has done through immigration policy over the 40 years, each time claiming it won't change the lanfscape of America. McCain being involved in any way with Kennedy on this issue should make him unelectable as a Republican. It's amazing how unaware the elctorate is regarding the damage going on in this country because of these practices. Our sovereignty is being given away piece by piece. I don't care what McCain can do militarily, he gives the country away from the inside out, what is left to protect. I do not wish to live in some type of new North American Union. I'm not a conspiracy guy, but the way most people are dealing with this I starting to become skeptical.

too emotional to think clearly. lol

Immigration is an economic issue which makes McCain even more dangerous. Let's make everyone legal and eligible for entitlements just in time for a recession to kick in. Throw in universdal health care and global warming crap... great ecomic policy.
Following the rule of law on the books would solve the problem and already is in many cities and states.
A new guest worker program to make it easier to find workers in a good economy would be fine as long as the taxpayers aren't burdened when times are bad and they return home.
People complain about stagnate wages, do you really believe people working for less is helping? This also helped create an artificial housing market that were now facing. We're being eaten from the inside out and McCain IS NOT the answer for any of this.

Not only will illegals feast on entitlements at our expense (for generations) they'll also be guzzling our dwindling gas rations (give it a few years...they're on the way). Have you ever seen an illegal driving a hybrid? No way....give them a 10 mtg truck any day.

"Vote for Romney; his family is better than yours."
hmmm...

Tim Schieferecke

HTML Help for Red Staters

When they link primary sources, it is

Great Youtube find. I hate to be so harsh towards McCain and Hernandez, but we shouldn't even have to consider someone's allegiance and loyalty to this country ina a presidential campaign. It's truly appaling that people with such views hold so much influence. I know they lurked in liberal think tanks and the backrooms of the Clintonista headquarters, but I thought our GOP was a stalwart against this type of treasonous sell-out and Balkinization of America.

I knew the name sounded familiar, but now seeing him brings up many memories of this guy all over cable news, and none of them are good. I don't see any conservative could associate themselves with this insufferable open borders demagogue.

So that's Juan Hernandez! I'd already forwarded your post to my husband and son. Now I'll put the face to it.

My husband had been leaning McCain, but was impressed with Romney in the debate. (I'm for Romney.) But we both have seen this Hernandez guy and were talking back to the TV every time. Did not know of his relationship with McCain, though.

Thanks.

Kathy
=============
Life is not fair, but It's still a Wonderful Life!

I'm glad that shining a little light on this is persuasive, and I appreciate that you've forwarded it along.

The Juan Hernandez crisis is starting to look like a major problem for McCain. How can he have Hernandez involved in that particular role and expect that his assurances about sovereignty, security...or other supposed lessons he's learned on just about anything...be worth believing.

My Magic Eight Ball says: No.

And I'm far from the only one.

Michelle Malkin's in the same spot with two great posts.

Outreach Director?

Reform Institute

If you don't like Michelle, Kim Prestap's on it with one of these exact same quotes.

Or, how about NewsBusters?

The guy's just bad news...for McCain, and for America.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

Election-wise this could be damaging, as obviously people will draw the conclusions you have about sovereignty.

I am taking this seriously but, so far, I'm not finding anything from this guy about security. I also didn't see anything particularly alarming in your video of clips. Most of those clips, btw, are touted on this guy's website.

Where are the links or videos about border security? It seems that is the most important thing to post here.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

He says "We're never going to have a secure border."

Consider: McCain chose this guy for a key appointment as his main interface with Hispanics.

What? Was Vicente Fox unavailable? For crissakes, while he doesn't actually mouth the exact words, the guy even describes the need for a North American Union!

Not that I believe it's really on anyone's agenda (whipser SPP)...for fear I might be fitted with a tinfoil hat (whisper SPP).

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

We're never going to have a secure border if he gets to influence immigration policy.

About the trilateral references I hope. There is good reason certain things get one tagged with certain hats made of certain materials.

"Consider: McCain chose this guy for a key appointment as his main interface with Hispanics."

I haven't seen any evidence of this claim.

If you read my other post about open borders, I'm sure you'll agree we have little common ground, you and I.

Nevertheless, he is dead wrong if he thinks we can't secure the border. Ancient Egyptian technology such as fences may not do it, but then we are not subject to that technology limitation. We can and should secure the border. This guy doesn't think so, then he's dangerously, dangerously wrong. I agree with you that far.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

Regarding the SPP and the NAU, I'm skeptical but wary. It does bother me that it appears to all stem from a CFR working paper that actually does call for a North American Union. And I don't like the SPP's ability to act outside Congressional oversight.

Primarily I have faith that American citizens won't tolerate being forced into such a union, but it does get my attention when someone starts speaking in NAU tongues like Hernandez does.

Despite contrary thoughts because Hernandez isn't officially mentioned on the main McCain web site, Mr. Hernandez's blog posting with the title on an apparently official site, keeps the question regarding his role valid.

Looking at the McCain list of Hispanic Advisory Board Members, I'm drawn to someone I do know. And something this guy, who McCain does listen to, said before the National Council For La Raza does stick in my craw.

“It is important that we emphasize the Spanish language and that we keep the Spanish language, and that we transmit that emphasis to our children and our grandchildren” - Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

It makes an American Founding Father's thoughts seem quite prescient.

"These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their number, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.

To me, this is just more evidence that when McCain makes choices about people he brings into his flock, it's a good idea to pay attention that his preference in friends too often makes my skin crawl.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

My grandparents on my mother's side are German. They fled here during the rise of the Nazis. A whole crew of them. Throughout my life, they all spoke German frequently, and I am learning German and teaching it to my children.

That we don't wish the United States to become Spanish speaking is not in conflict with the quoted statement above. Keep Spanish? Why not? I keep German. It isn't undermining the fabric of freedom.

Spanish to the exclusion of English is different. Show me the quote that says that and I'll be a little more alarmed.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

Absentee, do you still think of yourself as a German first? That's what Hernandez preaches. Imagine if Germany had a contiguous border with the U.S. and all Americans of German descent were taught to always put Germany first. It's got to make you a little sick in the stomach. No. This crowd is tearing this country apart and needs to be thoroughly rebuked.

Look, innocuous quotes like "Keep Spanish and transmit it to their children" are hardly blood-chilling. It was that comment I was replying to.

If the purpose of Finch's comment was to show some wolf on the advisory board, that was a pretty benign quote to select. I think my reply was a reasonable response to that quote.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

Today, assimilation is widely scorned to our nation's detriment...and Diaz-Balart's words and audience (National Council for the Race) to which they were delivered are indicative of it.

So, you can bring to the table all the family stories you like, and they'll remain irrelevant and unhelpful as examples for our addressing the current situation. The current situation mocks your Grandparents for letting their kids become Americanized.

My wife's grandparents were from Germany too. We intended to teach our daughter german as a second language before she learned any other, but it proved to be impossible considering we can't find a school, public or private, that doesn't mandate spanish instruction.

So, she's learning it in Pre-K, and it sickens me. This sort of imposition - that I can't choose the most appropriate second language for my daughter to learn first - is just so wrong on so many levels. I can assure you that if the line is crossed in which any alien history and heritage become part of the lessons...before my child has a complete appreciation for her own heritage...I'll be making sure she's removed from those classes.

There is no reason whatsoever for the imposition of any one specific language as the secondary langauge to the exclusion of all others, unless there are at least tacit agreements among "leaders" that we simply have to accommodate...assimilate...to the pervasive other.

YOUR Grandparents didn't foment such ridiculous crap after they came here. Your Grandparents didn't elect shills like Lincoln Diaz-Balart.

I seriously doubt you've lived any place so affected by mass-immigration that it provoked a mass-exodus of nearly all the original American citizenry. When you see 90% of your friends and social network up and leave, then feel force to follow, it changes your attitude. All the pleasant stories that as yet unaffected people tell, trying to equate their immigrant ancestors to today's situation, become laughable.

You have to laugh to keep from crying.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

The quote you selected above said nothing of not integrating, it said nothing about undermining security. It said "learn Spanish".

That I don't feel like laughing and crying about that is a pretty reasonable response, I think. My anecdote about German was completely relevant in that context.

That's a shame about your children, but frankly I don't see how the immigrants are to blame. The schools are liberal hell-holes. They cram Global Warming down my kids' throats every day. That they are politically correct about Spanish doesn't surprise me in the least. It's a different issue. My daughter took German at school in first grade. She never had to take Spanish. Probably because we live in North Carolina and we southern hicks are ornery about some things.

Regardless, the comparison to a different era wasn't absurd at all. You expressed mortification at what looked to be, and still does, a pretty innocent quote. If you want to show he's inflammatory, why not just post something inflammatory he said?

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

the SouthWest.

There are major parts of Metro Phoenix where English is virtually not spoken. If you tell someone to "speak English", you've got a fight on your hands.

I have no problem with legal immigration, however we need a law that declares English to be the official language and put a stop to printing ballots and contracts in ANY language but English.

This bozo and McCain are not harmless. They will destroy American culture. It's already beginning here.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Absolutely need such a law, and I agree about this guy. Above I asked Finch about a border security quote and I got one. I also said here:
"Security should be non-negotiable. If this activist is against border security then he is against me."

The current thread we are in was about some different guy that is on John McCain's website.

I don't know why there is virtually no assimilation of immigrants from Mexico anymore, but I expect it is a natural outgrowth of identity politics, polarized special interests being seen as an acceptable thing, run-amok political correctness, and direct interference by American liberals.

I know free and open borders can work, I know they are not working. I also said in this thread that McCain should fire this guy and make a statement.

I still haven't seen any evidence that the guy holds a position of any authority, that he has any advisory access to John, or that John hand-picked him. So I'm being careful.

But I'm only being careful, not unserious. This is a big deal and, as I told Finch, I'm not taking it lightly. I want to hear an explanation for what exactly is going on here.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

Which is the exact word Jefferson used to describe the threat to liberty he foresaw in immigration, particularly in relation to high numbers.

Further, you are not yet in dire threat of being compelled either to relocate or to submit to things you would not have to endure if we had a sane and prudent immigration status-quo (but NC has serious problems before it). You lack the requisite experience to properly understand that Diaz-Balart's words are, indeed, inflammatory. Probably intentionally so.

His speech raised red flags for me, and for many of my friends now scattered about the country because we know he means something utterly different from how you're reading it. He means to keep his culture cohesive, lock, stock and barrel, for future ethnocentric political gain.

Don't believe me? Go live in Miami for a year.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

Your dancing around your semantics..."tell me it says..blah, blah.." I got the same impression about your "learn Spanish" that the other guy did. You're playing the same game Clinton did with his "depends on what is, is" Give me and everyone else a big break. You tapdance like McCain does when he says "I never advocated amnesty.." Of course he did..and so do you. So, spare us the parsing.

If a picture paints a thousand words, a 5-minute video paints 1 million.

McCain has sold out to those who don't want to respect immigration laws.

Romney 2008

Highly recommend this video--watch it for sure.

The important things to watch for aren't necessarily precise statements of fact, intention, or policy. Watch for the impression Hernandez creates. This is a man on a mission, and the mission is to have illegals accepted as legal. Period. Not for humanitarian reasons, but for the changes that will bring to the USA.

It is a quick statement, but note that he wants later-generation Mexican-Americans to think of "Mexico first," just "like Jews do." That isn't a direct quote, but it captures his meaning. I hadn't been aware until now that American Jews don't think of "America first."

His answer to a question about why so many illegals use counterfeit documents is that the authentic documents are "so hard to get."

Amazing! Such is the sophistry that abounds in the world of those who want to make something legal because it will be difficult to face it head on, or for other even more selfish reasons.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

I guess reasonable people can disagree about what exactly constitutes amnesty. For me, it is allowing illegal aliens any legal status that allows them to stay permanently in the United States. Put another way, it is allowing illegals a path to citizenship w/o first having to return home and get in line as if they had never been here.

So if the path to citizenship for an illegal is [in addition to the usual]: cutting off their right hand, selling their left kidney on the open market, and kicking their closest male relative in the testicles, that's an amnesty plan?

I ask this because your third sentence is not your second sentence, put another way: and it grows wearying to try to argue that something isn't "amnesty" when the people using the term don't even provide a consistent definition over the course of a standard paragraph.

Moe

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Something can't honestly be called a punishment if the "punishement" makes the offender better off than before he got the "punishment". Thus there is no punishment in McCain's policy of cheap green cards for illegals, which makes it an amnesty plus reward for violating our laws.

McCain's policy of selling green cards to illegals for a discount price restricts the cheap green cards offer only to those foreigners who are here illegally without our consent. Try putting the same "punishment" in an auction to foreigners who are applying legally for immigration - those foreigners who respect our sovereignty would pay many thousands of dollars, probably 5 or 6 digits, for the opportunity to be "punished" the way McCain's shamnesty would "punish" illegal immigration.

Moe, you have to quit looking for a dictionary definition of "amnesty" to settle the argument. It won't happen, because we all bring different viewpoints to the issue. The fact is, the term is used by both sides to mean different things, either as a type of shorthand, or as an obfuscation.

For some, there exists a predisposition to allow the illegals to remain in the US; therefore they say the imposition of a fine or other punishment removes those who would be allowed to stay from the state of "amnesty." To them, the illegals have earned their right to stay, so it's not amnesty.

For others, no matter what the illegals are forced to do before they can stay, the fact that it would be voluntary, as in "do it or leave," means that the illegals are being given a choice that those who decided to follow our existing immigration laws aren't being given. Whatever the "what" is that they must do to stay, it is neither a fine nor a punishment--it is merely an additional fee to be paid to allow their immigration to become legalized. For those of us who look at the issue this way, "amnesty" is just shorthand for "they are being allowed to stay, even though their presence here was illegal to begin with."

The point is not whether the word "amnesty" is the proper descriptor or not. The point is, do we as a country want to tell the world, "If enough of you break our laws, and you do it over time rather than all at once, we will acquiesce to your rewriting of our laws"? At one time, it would have taken a war to do that. Now, it just seems to take a short-sighted electorate and its officials.

Your question sounds emotional:

"So if the path to citizenship for an illegal is (in addition to the usual): cutting off their right hand, selling their left kidney on the open market, and kicking their closest male relative in the testicles, that's an amnesty plan?"

Given that it would be voluntary, and based on what I just wrote, many of us would answer "yes, it's an amnesty plan." I hope all of us would call it "bad policy," however. We all know the additional requirements aren't that bad though, don't we?

One last point that is seldom made: The people that we are addressing here, the "good, law-abiding citizens" of ANOTHER COUNTRY, are not being asked to do anything more than to give up what they weren't supposed to acquire in the first place, and return to the state where there will be no charges of any kind to be placed against them. If they're asked to give up the legitimate fruits of their hard work, don't we also ask the same of any common criminal who is jailed? He not only loses his freedom, he often loses his family and material wealth as well, above and beyond his fines and prison sentence. That is far worse than what we want from illegal aliens.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

...from the people who like to use the word "amnesty" to describe their opposition's immigration position re what precisely they mean by it is not the fault of those people using the word.

I can't wait to hear you explain why this disinclination of one side to define their terms from the start should still somehow protect them from having their opposition simply assume the worst possible interpretation of those terms.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

I guess I didn't understand your question. But this time the question (although stated as if it were a declarative) is,

"So the inability to get a straight answer from the people who like to use the word "amnesty" to describe their opposition's immigration position re what precisely they mean by it is not the fault of those people using the word."

This requires a two-part answer. First part: Actually, it has been explained by many of us, many times, including by me, here, and by Aurelian, and by "I can't remember whom," who posted a long entry explaining how Black's Law Dictionary has used the Reagan-era legislation that admittedly included amnesty (and it was called amnesty) to define "amnesty." We all say essentially that "amnesty" exists if the lawbreaker is allowed to profit from his misdeeds, whether he suffers some punishment or not. Since allowing the illegals to remain in the country (which was after all their main objective) is a key part of the McCain plan, it therefore becomes amnesty, and their fines and requirements are just additional conditions for admission. I'll say it even more succinctly--"If you don't have to give up what you broke the law to get, you've been granted amnesty." Partial amnesty, at least.

I know you can find dictionaries that don't follow that definition, such as the Compact OED that I have in my hand, which speaks only of "official pardon... of political offenses." But what I wrote is the definition in Black's (we are told), and it is also an accepted meaning in the vernacular. While honest people may have differences of opinion about it, the definition in the vernacular is pretty clear to most of us and shouldn't require an explicit defining paragraph in every discussion of the topic.

Second part: The only folks who want to argue about the meaning of "is" or of "amnesty" are those who hope to gain (or not lose) by clouding the issue. If "amnesty" is attached to a plan, it's a sure loser, so it behooves McCain or like-minded people to decry the word, EVEN WHEN IT ISN'T USED. It's a handy straw man to deflect the argument from cause/effect considerations to a search for a friendly dictionary. I almost never use it myself, for that very reason. Just like, as is mentioned nearby, the words "treason" and "racism."

So, the "disinclination of one side to define their terms from the start" stems from the disinclination to start out by immediately devolving the discussion into semantics. I might also ask, what other terms in common usage do we need to have defined up front before beginning to talk? Personally, I wish we wouldn't use the word, and when it's used as a defense by McCain the answer should be, "I haven't called anything 'amnesty.' Why are you so defensive about it?"

In my opinion, it's an extremely weak argument that has to claim that the opposition is using a word improperly, especially when both sides know what the other side means.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

I didn't realize I would upset you so much with those two sentences. To me, the third just built upon the second, as I believe anyone allowed to stay permanently will inevitably be given a path to citizenship. But I guess I could have worded it better, so here goes;

To me, if an illegal must not first return home with absolutely no guarantee, promise, or expectation that he'll be allowed back in, then its amnesty. To me, any illegal who is given a path to citizenship w/o first having to go home w/o any guarantee, promise, or expectation that he'll be allowed back in, has been given amnesty. Achieving permanent legal status, and then an inevitable path to citizenship, is winning it all.

And more generally, I'm still waiting for a conservative to try and make the argument that giving a path to citizenship to millions of illegals, and then allowing them to bring in millions more legally via chain migration, will not be a disaster for the GOP and conservative movement. Current high levels of legal immigration are already pushing the country demographically towards the Dems. Passing anything like McCain-Kennedy will only accelerate the process. Couldn't conservative proponents of a 'path to citizenship' at least support getting rid of chain migration asap, so as to lessen the demographic damage?

I only get upset in these circumstances when people do stupid things, like presume to read my mind. Thirty years of Democratic presumption in that regard were quite enough, thanks.

As for your point: thanks for clarifying that physical mutilation + third party retribution + green card still = amnesty. You'd be amazed how difficult it is to get a straight answer out some of your colleagues.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Aurelian, I believe McCain's plans to reward millions of illegal aliens with legal status is amnesty. McCain's plan would allow millions of illegal alien lawbreakers to obtain legal status and a path to citizenship. Illegal aliens that violated federal immigration laws would be able to obtain legal status and a path to citizenship while remaining in the country that they illegally entered.

In a Fox News presidential forum, McCain said "I have never, ever supported amnesty, and never will". Yet, in a May 28, 2003, press conference McCain said "I think we can set up a program where amnesty is extended to a certain number of people". He also said at that press conference that "amnesty has to be an important part" of such a program.

McCain supported and voted for S.2611, the United States Senate's 2006 amnesty bill. McCain and nearly all of his supporters deny it was an amnesty. I can think of no better authority anywhere to substantiate my opinion that S.2611 was amnesty than Sen. Jeff Sessions. He is a former Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney and Alabama Attorney General. On April 5, 2006, he spoke on the floor of the United States Senate about S.2611: http://sessions.senate.gov/pressapp/record.cfm?id=253622. Sen. Sessions and a majority of Senate Republicans voted against S.2611. During his speech, Sen. Sessions mentioned the defintions of amnesty that several supporters of S.6211 had given including Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, Arlen Specter and John McCain.

Here a few things that Sen. Sessions had to say about S.2611 and amnesty:

"This debate is often centered around whether we are dealing with amnesty here, and I believe this legislation, by all definitions, is amnesty."

. . .

"So in an effort to redefine this situation to mean what they want it to mean, they have said unless there is no condition whatsoever, you can't have amnesty. But people agreed that 1986 was amnesty and placed quite a number of conditions--some more significant than the ones in this bill--on those who were given amnesty.

Those of us who are familiar with the law world--I served as a lawyer the best I could for a number of years, and I know Madam President is a lawyer--we know what Black's Law Dictionary is. It is a dictionary lawyers use to define words in their legal context. Black's Law Dictionary, as part of its definition of the word ``amnesty,'' says this:

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for many undocumented aliens already present in the country.

Black's Law Dictionary, the final definition of legal words, says the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for people here. It had conditions on it. It had some conditions on it; it just didn't have many conditions on it. So everybody recognizes it as basically amnesty, and that is why they called it that.

Again, I am not trying to use a code word here. What I am saying is there is a systematic effort in this body to redefine the definition of amnesty so they can tell their voters back home that although they opposed amnesty, this bill is not amnesty, and that is why they voted for it. That, unfortunately, I would have to say, is where we are."

. . .

" I want to go over some of the provisions in that act [the 1986 amnesty] and compare it to the provisions in today's act. Let's talk honestly here. There is no mystery here. I would submit, as several of the proponents of this legislation have tried to do, that you only have amnesty if you put no condition whatsoever on the person who is here illegally--and they put some conditions on those persons. Therefore, they say, Oh, no, I know we promised not to pass amnesty, but this isn't amnesty because there are conditions on the people who are here illegally. So there is no way to do this but go over it truthfully and analyze it and see what the facts are.

This was passed in 1986. What did it require, this amnesty of 1986? It required continuous unlawful residence in the United States before January 1, 1982. That is 4 years before the passage of the 1986 act--more than 4 years, because I am sure it didn't pass January 1. So for more than 4 years you had to be here unlawfully before this act applied to you. That is a restriction, isn't it, on amnesty, under the definition of those who want to say the current act is not amnesty?

But what does the 2006 act say? Physically present and employed in the United States before January 7, 2004--employed in the U.S. since January 7, 2004; continuous employment is not required. So the key date here is that you have to have been in the country before January 7, 2004. So we are requiring under this bill that you have to live in the country illegally for 2 years before you get on this amnesty track.

Under the previous law, they required 4 years. So with regard to 1986, I think it is a tougher standard, I submit, than we have in today's standard. I don't think anybody can dispute that.

Then you have a fee. They say they are paying a fine, a big fine. Well, in the 1986 act, they say there will be a $185 fee for the principal applicant, $50 for each child, a $420 family cap. Now we have a $1,000 fine, but it does not apply to anybody under 21 years of age; they don't pay anything. They paid $50 per child back in 1986. They don't pay anything. I submit that is about a wash. There is a little difference in money. You had an inflation rate; what difference is $1,000 to $420?

Both of them say you should meet admissibility criteria. That means, I suppose, that you are not a felon. That is one of the main criteria. Both of them said that. Surely we are not going to be taking in felons into the country. In fact, regarding this bill to which Senator Kyl and Cornyn have offered an amendment--which apparently is being blocked by Democratic Leader Reid from ever getting a vote--they are contending that this criminality requirement is not in this bill. In fact, this bill is weaker than the 1986 bill on the question of that issue of whether you have a criminal record.

In 1986, people were worried about welfare claims and so forth, so they put in language that said you are ineligible for most public benefits for 5 years after your application. They said if you are going to come here to be a citizen of the United States, we do not want you come here to claim welfare. We are going to prohibit you from claiming welfare for at least 5 years. After that, if you get in trouble and you need help, we will help you. But you have to come here not with a desire to gain welfare benefits in our country which exceed the annual income of most people in a lot of areas of the world. So they put that in. There is no such requirement in our bill. None of that. You can immediately go on welfare, presumably, under the legislation that is before us now.

It does require a background check and fingerprinting, but presumably that was done in 1986, also. But it focuses really on the crimes a person may have committed while they were in the United States. I don't think it has a mechanism under this act to actually go back to the country of origin--whether it is Brazil or Canada or Mexico--to see if they have a criminal history there. That is a weakness in the system. But even if it does, those systems are so immature and nonexistent, it would not be very effective, I suggest.

This requires an 18-month residency period. This one authorizes immediately a 6-year stay in the country. So they said you have to stay 18 months before you make your application for adjustment to permanent resident status. In this bill, you have to stay 6 years, so that is tougher. And you have to work. What are people here for if not to work? Spouses and children don't have to work. People are here to work. It is only a minimal work requirement--not continuous employment--and the proof level is very weak. Regardless, presumably the people who are here want to work, and they ought to be able to prove that they have.

Then you adjust to permanent resident status. That is the green card. In 1986, it required English language and civics. So, in 2006, it is English language and civics, a medical exam, payment of taxes--really? Presumably the people are paying their taxes. And Selective Service registration. So you earn your right to stay in this country by coming into the country illegally and paying your taxes. Thanks a lot.

Then the final step is, in 1986, you paid an $80 fee, $240 for a family. In this bill, it is a $1,000 fee and an application fee.

All I am saying is, if you add those up, I don't think a principled case can be made that 2006, in terms of conditions of entry and amnesty in our country, requires any more stringent requirements on them than in 1986, which Senator Reid and everybody else, including ``Black's Law Dictionary,'' have concluded was amnesty."

Raider, that was a lot of hard work.

Let's face it. The folks who want to allow the current crop of illegals to stay don't want to use the word "amnesty" because it scores very negatively among the American people. If they admit their plans include any tinge of "amnesty," their plans become doomed. Therefore, they'll argue night is day before they'll admit that the common use meaning of amnesty includes "letting the lawbreaker keep his spoils." Avoiding the word "amnesty" is necessary for their plans to become acceptable.

And, they'll argue the meaning of "amnesty" until the cows come home rather than argue the merits of their plans.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Why hasn't this great biparisan Senator tried to take care of this little matter? Because he doesn't want the fence. It's a snow job Neil.

Are you here to persuade?

Are you open to be convinced?

Or are you just venting?

I have to guess the latter, in which case I don't see the point.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Actions speak louder than words. Do with it as you wish.

It does seem blown out of proportion. But blown out of proportion works with voters. This could become sensationalized and damaging. Like to hear Senator McCain on it, maybe.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

activists Senator McCain could have turned to for assistance in reaching the Latino vote? He was forced to associate with THIS man, with all of his past history?

Given John's problems on the immigration issue, a smart campaign when approached by this wacko, would have said, thanks, we've got your number and we'll call if we need anything...

and promptly 86'ed Juan's contact info. That's not exactly what the McCain campaign did, and it raises entirely predictable concerns about McCain and his "commitment" to building the "g-d fence"...

He should say something. It will become a serious weapon against him if left unrepaired.

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

Charles, it is a gift to our enemies. We are fighting a faceless and nationless enemy. As times and wars change, so must our definition of treason. No, we are not a t war with Mexico, but Hernandez aids and abets our enemies.

Few things could be more advantageous to Al Quaeda and our enemies in general than an open border, a corrider of lawlessness in the territorial United States, a state of anarchy with respect to the sovreignty of this nations borders and laws. The Southwest will become to America's enemies what Kosovo became to Serbia, an nation within a nation with its own loyalities often hostile to that of the United States and an open would to exploit.

Yes, I was engaging in a little hyperbole, but our sovreignty as a nation in no joke. It should be everyones number one issue. Foreign nationals advocating loyalty to foreign countries while working for Presidential Candidates is heinous.

I really appreciate this blog for spotlighting the kind of scum that McCain allows to be part of his campaign (paid or not). However you shoot yourself in the foot, by inviting a debate about your reckless use of the word "treason" to distract from what would otherwise be a devastating indictment of McCain. That overblown rhetoric was almost enough to hold off from recommending it.

If you had described Jaun Hernandez as "disloyal" or "un-American", there would be no way to credibly dispute that (or McCain's shameless whoredom in accepting such a lowlife in his campaign), as demonstrated by his statement that "I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first." However calling it "treason" just lets McCain off the hook by letting his apologists divert the discussion with valid points that advocacy for a policy can never qualify as treason.

"disloyal" or "un-American" to the point he puts the needs of his Mexican people above the sovreignty and security of the United States by giving terroists a launching pad to do what they desire in the territorial United States. By definition, giving comfort to our enemies is treason.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

Article III, Section III

...because the Founding Fathers had an opinion about letting people declare that the mere advocacy of a policy should be treated as treasonous. Hint: they were against it.

Prove that this guys actively working for one of our enemies and we'll talk. Until then...

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

Well, not here, at least not without actual proof.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

along the border of Mexico you would come to realize we are indeed at war with....illegals attempting to enter from Mexico attacking border patrol and local police...Mexican drug lords attacking border patrol...citizens and local police...and 29 incursions by the Mexican military armed for combat with our border patrol and local police....what does it take to be in a war?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-releases-border-patrol-repor...

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

According to his bio, he was born in Texas. He's a dual citizen. So, technically he can be a traitor. It depends on whether or not we ever find out that people with whom he is associated in the Mexican government somehow play a role in helping our enemies. That's certainly not out of the question, but not provable at this time.

Based on his commentary and history, it's not a stretch to expect that he'd take up a leading fifth-column cause if we ever were to use strict measures to deport Mexican illegal aliens. Clearly, his words reveal a strong preference for Mexico over the United States.

From what we now know, it's likely Hernandez is an unpaid actor in McCain's campaign. He's a volunteer who's been given a role and a title. In most instances, this status would render his work there un-noteworthy and un-newsworthy; however, he's a former Mexican government diplomat who maintains a newsworthy public persona specifically because of his open borders activism.

This is troubling.

What does someone with his ties to open borders advocacy groups, his obstinate ethnocentric posturing and his history of working for pro-Mexican interests really bring to the campaign? And would Hernandez bring it to the campaign if he was not sure that the true intent of the candidate was to at least to somewhat facilitate the path Hernandez advocates...the erasure of the US border with Mexico?

This Hernandez guy is bad news of a specific sort that speaks volumes about McCain's biggest problem in this campaign. If McCain doesn't have the common sense to keep such bad actors away from his campaign, then what other boneheaded decisions might he make with our nation if we elect him?

Look, I have always thought McCain would be a terrible fit for the position of leader of the free world. For me this is just more proof that my gut suspicions have been correct and warranted all along.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

... I made the mistake of assuming that the author of this diary (and Michelle Malkin) were correct in asserting that Dr. Hernandez is simply a Mexican citizen. Thanks for setting the record straight on that. Nevertheless, advocating an "open borders" policy is hardly treason, given that the traditional immigration policy of this country was an open borders policy. In fact, we only began regulating immigration at all in the late nineteenth century when this nation was inundated by more than 20 million immigrants from the Civil War through the early 20th Century. Today, most people (myself among them) believe that we can not afford an open borders policy, and that we should vigorously enforce laws against illegal immigration, but that does not make the tiny minority who think otherwise traitors. They're simply wrong.

As to the other issues, Hernandez may be with the McCain campaign in an unpaid advisory capacity (he works on "Hispanic Outreach" or some such thing), but it goes without saying that a candidate does not automatically endorse everything the people working for him believe in. As you suggest, Hernandez certainly sees some benefit in associating with the McCain campaign, probably because he knows that McCain supports comprehensive immigration reform, which at the very least provides current illegal residents with a path to documented status / citizenship, even though it also includes tougher border security and enforcement measures. Undoubtedly, Hernandez sees this as a "glass half full" situation. But obviously that does not mean that McCain endorses everything Hernandez supports. McCain has quite explicitly said otherwise.

The alarmist tone of this diary is especially uncalled for given the fact that, at this moment, there is no major presidential candidate in either party who actually supports unrestricted immigration. Not Hillary, Obama, Edward, Romney, Huckabee, or McCain. Hernandez is in such a tiny minority on this issue that trying to impute his views to McCain would be like trying to say that McCain supports the gold standard because he once took advice from a gold bug economist. Moreover, the suggestion that somehow McCain got Hernandez a job at the Reform Institute is unsubstantiated and just plain wrong.

Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me

...unless he's OK with the message the appointment is likley send to the Hispanic community by his mere presence: "Don't listen to what McCain says, he's really on our side and we'll have open borders if he's elected."

Bottom Line: Juan Hernandez represents John McCain to the Hispanic community.

You have to face the fact that McCain put a guy that often gets more face time on FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC than McCain does when the nation is in non-election mode. He gets that attention on the radical, leftist side of the very issue that is McCain's Achilles Heel.

Don't look at this as something that doesn't bother you, a hard-core McCainiac. Look at this from the perspective of the tentative McCain supporter who has doubts about how genuine McCain's promises are about his learning lessons from his number one pet bill being crushed by overwhelming public outcry against it.

Hernandez own web site provides fodder for the concern. He reprints and article from Hispanic Online entitled A Talk With Mexico's Migration Chief - Juan Hernández emerges as the architect of new Mexico-U.S. relations.

Excerpts of Hernandez's quotes:

"There are twenty million people, like myself, who have one foot in Mexico and one foot in the United States, and we're very proud of it."

And we can expect vital, singular-minded patriotism when it is most needed - at times of strife - from people so inclined?

"We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people."

Let me translate: He wants no borders.

In addition, the article notes that Hernandez is apparently a familiar television face in Mexico, making similar points as those he makes on our news outlets.

John McCain has cozied up to a guy who not only represents a particular message to Hispanics, he embodies a particular message for Hispanics. That message is in line with the message McCain sent last summer, but is diametrically opposed to his current lip service.

To those who are on the fence, or leaning toward him with reservations, it's a good idea to ask: Which John McCain are we supposed to believe?

Hernandez's involvement confirms for me that McCain's true position's regarding immigration are about as flexible and redeemable as a Pedophile's positions regarding children. He can proclaim a million times that he's "learned lessons" or has somehow been properly affected by some other form of political cognitive therapy, but all such protestations are empty ones.

Elect this guy and he'll be right back at work on this odd fetish of his faster than crap goes through a goose.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

That first paragraph is extremely useful.

The story, as Michelle Malkin reports it, is the best kind of political story. It is sure to inflame and hard to deal with for the campaign. There are so many threads. Do you believe Senator McCain ought to address this?

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

Interesting.

"the Strive act which allows illegal immigrants to gain documentation if they "pay a $2,000 fine, pay back taxes, submit to a background check, learn English and civics, leave the country and re-enter legally.""

It reminds me that I need to not pay my taxes this year so I can pay them later. Just how many of the illegals have NOT been paying their taxes, anyway? Does anybody know? Isn't non-payment of taxes a crime? Isn't the "path to citizenship" supposed to exclude criminals? Has any candidate commented one way or the other?

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Imagine if you will Mitt Romney, a former pro-choice candidate, who turned pro-life decided to appoint Gloria Steinum to be the head of his Women's outreach program. I suppose your reaction would be similarly mum. Juan Henrnadez is to Mexican-American relations what Gloria Steinum or Naomi Wolf is to the feminist movement.

McCain waffels on immigration and this appointment tells you where his heart really lies. I don't care about his libne on official positions. Hillary Clinton has a lot of official positions too. She has them because they are practical and they sell to the general public. Behind closed doors, her allegiance lies with the radical left. Someone may have official postions, but when they appoint radicals like Lani Guinier, Zoe Baird, or in this case Juan Hernandez, it tells you something about how they truly feel.

Don't underestimate the influence of these La Raza, Atzlan, re-conquistadore ethnocentrists. Nearly one of the territorial United States is on a cultural and poltical path to pay allegiance to a foreign country. But hey, Mitt Romney said he was for gay rights in 1994. Lets right ten more diaries about that.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

IL-Glock

You claim "overreach" when it comes to suspicions about John McCain and illegal immigration, how special.

Here's a guy that was not only against building a fence back in the summer of '06, but capped his comments with a dose of well known John McCain temper, "Fine I'll build the G***** fence".

Along comes news that McCain is consorting with the worst kind of open border nut case, what are we to think? For those of us who were not happy with McCain and thought he was not getting our anger, what are we to think? It's like seeing a burglar casing your neighborhood, or at least someone who you know who's on parole cruising the neighborhood, what are we to think?

I trusted that McCain got the message on illegal immigration after the spanking he took, what am I to think now when he lies down with open border dogs, there's no fleas? Paid or unpaid this is not the sort of advice that anyone running for office should be soliciting.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Former Fredhead, Current McCainiac
absentee

If he was born here, but voluntarily went and took Mexican citizenship, declaring his loyalty to a foreign country, then there's something edgy about his being involved with a Presidential campaign in any capacity.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Neil - In the dim recesses of my memory, I found a gem that said "It is not possible to have dual citizenship with the US and another country."

Do you (or anybody) know if this is still correct, was once correct but has been changed, or has never been correct?

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

In theory US law forbids it. In practice that law is unenforceable, as we have no means of regulating foreign citizenship.

HTML Help for Red Staters

Except, of course, by relieving the person of his US citizenship. I suppose we have some statutory provisions that foreign citizenship is immaterial to US law.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

He's actually a dual citizen who always puts Mexico first that's why I consider him Mexican and if you are into racial motices look intothe crowd the Dr. Juan Hernandez hangs out with. Do your research on Atzlan and La Raza.

the good Ole US Of America!

John McCain is a HERO and Pro Life so even if that other stuff is true you should just really shut up about it cus... um er even Reagan did the amnesty thing... So there - and McCain is old too like Reagan was!

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Your ignorance is astounding. When Reagan signed S/M he was very concerned about the amnesty portion of the bill. He was assured by congresional leaders from both parties that the enforcement provisions would be put into place and that we would never have to face the issue of illegal aliens again.

Reagan signed the bill and Congress promptly forgot about enforcement. Keep that in mind every time McCain blathers about building a fence and enforcing the law.

He will do neither.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

He's flat out said that he knows he failed becuase people don't trust the government to follow through. He knows he has to find a way to change that perception if he wants to succeed.

I don't care if he has entirely the wrong reasons for doing the right thing, but I now have reason to believe he's now going to try an enforcement-first approach, just like Rep. Sensenbrenner tried to begin with.

HTML Help for Red Staters

"He knows he has to find a way to change that perception if he wants to succeed.

I don't care if he has entirely the wrong reasons for doing the right thing, but I now have reason to believe he's now going to try an enforcement-first approach, just like Rep. Sensenbrenner tried to begin with."

Well, he might try something besides lashing out at conservatives who disagree with him on substantive policy issues.

As I've said elsewhere, he hasn't convinced me that he either understands the extent of the problem or that he has changed his approach to it at all.

It isn't just "enforcement-first." It is "enforcement-first while not putting forth any trial balloons about what he intends to do after the border enforcement has been accomplished to his standards."

It is then "find a solution to the entire problem of 20 million-plus unidentified, poorly-educated, poor- or non-English speaking low-wage workers, creating a demand on social and economic structures that they are in no way able to supply themselves."

He clearly is set on a path of everybody except hard-core felons gets to stay because "we can't get along without them, can't deport them all, can't treat them like other lawbreakers/criminals, can't hurt relations with Mexico, can't let ourselves be called racists, can't whatever, we just CAN'T." And THAT is precisely why some people don't trust him and other politicians.

He needs to change that perception OF HIMSELF if he wants to succeed, at least to succeed with voters who are willing to look beyond his military service and claims of Senatorial experience.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

McCain WON'T do the "right thing" and we'll have no recourse.

John McCain is a pandering piece of crap, a professional legislator who will do anything, say anything to get his way. Then he'll do as he damn well pleases and you can just go to hell if you don't like it.

If you're planning on voting for him, you'd better brush up on your Spanish. Between sure amnesty and no fence and no enforcemet, you'll need it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Ultimately we're both making a judgement call about the man, and there's only one way we'll know who's right.

I tell the Romney folk that I hope they're right should he win. Well let'sall hope I'm right if McCain wins.

HTML Help for Red Staters

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

McCain appears to have quite a few scores to settle with conservatives. Even now, when he has every reason to court conservatives--he says as little as possible and he still appears to get angry rather quickly.

Romney is not (yet?) a proven disappointment to conservatives, while McCain is.

Pandering? McCain? Please.

You might not like him, but pandering is not his problem. If anything, it's sticking to his positions too rigorously, even when he's wrong.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

If that's what you're implying.

I will just point out that my candidate is beating the crap out of your candidate.

You must've been distracted. His comment was clearly tongue-in-cheek.

But your statements are entirely accurate. Unfortunately, RR never used "trust, but verify" on the US Senate.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

is being sarcastic. It kind of looks to me like you're the one being the idiot. Unless I'm missing something in this long thread.

You were an idiot. :-) I had to say it.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

everyone else a hard time.

again and the rest of the upthread.

Or to be more succient...

John McCain - Not Now - Not Ever.

Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin

Your Kool-Aid drinking is outstanding.

People don't 'forget' laws. If the law is on the books, the law is on the books. It can be enforced if someone has the ability and desire to enforce it. It just turns out that it's very difficult to have either, because laws that ignore supply/demand are difficult to enforce. They are difficult to have the ability to enforce, because economics tends to find its way around laws if the demand is great (i.e. CFR), and because when there are jobs to be had, it's difficult to rally much support for deporting workers.

Reagan was too smart not to know this. He apparently thought that we already had all the immigration that there was a substantial demand for, and thus it would work. He misjudged on that point.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Oh. I guess that explains the vigorous enforcement of our existing immigration laws and the great fence that got built based on the 1988 law that Reagn got hoodwinked int signing.

Or the 700 miles of fence currently being completed based on the last round of laws.

I'm just going to assume you are being tongue in cheek too, because if you really believe this tripe you just wrote you're a fool.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Geeze, you really seem to have a problem making sense.

Not having "vigorous enforcement" and not having a law are very different things. The law wasn't enforced enough (in your opinion) because the law didn't work. That doesn't mean that Reagan was "lied to" about it or some other such nonsense. It means that laws that ignore supply and demand entirely are doomed to fail.

And there was no fence in the 1986 bill. (it wasn't '88)

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

fat western fingers on small SmartPhone keyboard.

You're wrong about the rest. Enforcement never worked because it's never been tried. If it was unworkable, nobody ever tried to fix it either.

Elect McCain and you'll have round 2 of non-enforcement.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

for it to be tried. We've never been sucessful, but that doesn't mean it hasn't been tried, though perhaps halfheartedly. I think taking a hardline on immigration restriction is pretty much a lost cause anyway. Since immigration hardliners are like 30% of the population, the best they can hope for is to stall any progress, and they have been pretty successful at that.

did work. At that point--in '87-'88, and immediately before the 2006 and 2007 shams--congressional, business and administration pressures combined to cease the enforcement. This is why the vast majority of Americans demand enforcement first and distrust politicians who refuse to provide it. Americans aren't fools, althought the same cannot be said for many of their leaders.

support some kind of path to legalization or in other words "amnesty". Americans aren't the hardliners that most of the hardline tacredoites think they are.

This isn't even close--most polls show this is the position of about 70 or more percent of the voters. The illegal immigration/open borders fanatics may not like it, but they won't be able to muscle through a faux enforcement/real status adjustment bill again. Those days are dead.

but hardliners seem to think the vast majority of Americans anti " amnesty" ( which seems to mean to the hardliners anything short of sending them home) when the truth is most Americans want a bill that secures the border and most of Americans want a bill that grants a path to legalization.

That's true.

It's also true that securing the border will be a lot easier, if not only possible when, we allow for a more sane, reasonable path to legal immigration, i.e. guest worker programs, etc.

But don't tell that to the Tancredo crowd. They'll just start chanting "Amnesty" and won't stop till you shut up.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

the American people have no idea the true cost of this issue. Another thing is most people don't really have to deal with it. If you're rich, you drive by it and you're kids don't go to the schools that are being dumbed down. There are many other areas that just don't have a problem... yet. Stacked housing, hanging out in the middle of towns, you need to be it it to understand it. In NJ this is helping to bankrupt the state. My aunt in Charlotte, NC used to laugh at me talking about this over 5 years ago, not so anymore and she is a Hillary girl. Take a good look at California, that is what the future holds for us. You cannot possibly take 20 million people who have no value for your country other than making money and expect them to ascimilate properly. This is not being heartless, it's being realistic. When I see Mexican flags flying atop American flags, it makes me sick. FORCING LEGAL immigrants to adhere to OUR laws and culture first would be a big step.

also here's my summary of the information when I last looked at it. http://www.redstate.com/blogs/populistconservative/2007/may/18/challenge...

"Would you like to see the number of illegal immigrants currently in this country increased, decreased, or remain the same?" increase 5% decrease 65%

"Would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?" Support 49% Oppose 46%

Hardly a rousing majority -- not near 80%

From what I wrote in May:
"It seems all the polls show between around 60-80% of people being in favor of a path to legalization for illegal immigrants. "
I didn't claim 80% were for a path to legalization. Just that the polls showed between 60% and 80%. Now apparently you found a poll that shows only 49% support, I don't think that the poll was there when I did my research. Its still interesting that you did not find anywhere where the majority of people are against a path to legalization. I got the feeling a lot of hardliners would consider "program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?" that to be amnesty. And I seem to recall hearing things from that crowd about 80% of people are against amesty.

Unfortunately, you've only heard part of the story.

"from what I have (heard) the vast majority of Americans support some kind of path to legalization or in other words 'amnesty'."

The key phrase there is "some kind of path." For the majority, that would include returning home and waiting there, where the line really begins, not waiting here, where the line ends. In that scenario, there wouldn't be what I'd call "amnesty." There may be room for some exceptions, maybe on a case-by-case basis. Those would indeed be granted amnesty, but they'd be tolerable if they didn't crate a class of actions by illegals that they could follow to insure they'd get to stay.

To do anything that would encourage illegal entry into the country/overstaying visas would be a mistake. If general amnesty is the right thing to do, fine. Do it. But don't call a pig a canary and then expect it to fly.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

the framing of the question. That's what got people in an uproar last year. Once they understood what was going on they didn't like it. This isn't just conservatives, hard working blue collar Dems were very against this. Heartstrings are the only thing that make people whishy washy about this.
Most people don't know that illegals are getting government money to be here. Very uninformed.

Right. See below.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

"Would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?Support 49% Oppose 46%."
Nowhere does idt say the requirements are to go back to the country of origin. I don't know what your basing your idea on but if you got any polls to back you up feel free to share it.

Read this. Slowly.

'"Would you support or oppose a program giving illegal immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here legally if they pay a fine and meet other requirements? Support 49% Oppose 46%."

Nowhere does idt say the requirements are to go back to the country of origin.'

Doesn't say they aren't, either.

Key phrase: "other requirements" My comment is that "other requirements" might mean they have to fly to Mars first, but it's not likely. It IS likely, however, that a large portion of the 49% may have had "return home, do not collect $200" among their other requirements. Didn't get a majority, either way.

And we're both making a big assumption that the poll was accurate and unbiased to begin with. I'll bet the MOE was greater than 3%.

Do you have a poll to back up your contention that I'm wrong? Has the detailed question been asked in any poll?

A final question: If I am wrong, why was up to 80% of the electorate INCENSED about the attempt to end-run an amnesty bill past us last summer? Especially considering that the proponents of this nonsense insist that the current crop of illegals will be waiting at the back of he line, being given no preference over the applicants who followed the law. Does that even make sense, if they're waiting HERE? And why do amnesty proponents insist that it "really isn't amnesty" if the majority of us favors allowing them to stay - amnesty?

Look elsewhere for my definition of "amnesty."

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

This is from the CIS Crosstabs report linked by RE Finch below.

"IMMIGRATION STUDY
Prepared on 25 SEP 2006
TABLE 161
16. Which immigration policy would you prefer: (ROTATE) A large scale effort to round up and deport illegal immigrants OR a policy that strictly enforces immigration laws and
causes illegal immigrants to go home over time OR one that allows illegal immigrants to stay and earn their way to permanent residence and citizenship.
"

Round up and deport = 20%

Enforce the laws = 44%

Let them stay = 31%

Different polls, different results.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Define "major". There were some guys out there, none holding office.

John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

Does he really wonder why we don't trust politicians, especially him?

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

"All that need be done for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

You missed all my questions, but that's ok.

What did this poll say in June? July? August? I don't remember the timing of events, but when was it that McCain was written off by all of us nut cases?

Again, even I could support some amnesty, but even the question you just quoted is vague, as in "already living in the United States for a number of years...." "Number" is left up to each respondent to answer. If the number is set high enough, I could say "yes," too.

If there weren't a substantial majority unhappy with the McCain-Kennedy bill, why did it get scrubbed so fast, so decisively, and so often, even with all the big guns behind it? I don't think it was all just because it needed to have its two parts separated.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

"Do you have a poll to back up your contention that I'm wrong? Has the detailed question been asked in any poll?"

Well the poll I gave was more specific, but once again I suppose there's no poll out there that has every single specific, unless it was to address a certain bill.

Translation: No.

"I don't know where you getting your 80% figure from. As far as whether the proposal makes sense I don't know all the details."

From news reports at the time and common sense. A bill favored by the President and the leadership of both parties in both houses of Congress doesn't go down to inglorious defeat unless the public is SOLIDLY, OVERWHELMINGLY, against it.

And you don't have to know the details of the bill to figure out the obvious answer to my question. Their claims DON'T make sense.

"I would be in favor of loosening up the laws on legal immigration"

Maybe I would, too, but that wasn't part of the question. I think a retooling of those laws is part of the solution, though. But it's separate from the treatment of current illegal aliens in the US.

I agree about the word "amnesty," but its supporters don't have to use the word. They can say what they intend to do and let the public figure out if they agree or not. Then we could find out if the public supports letting them stay even though some dare call it "amnesty."

Here's one for you: What if everybody DOES support amnesty, yet it's bad for the country as we know it if it becomes the law of the land? Then what should be done?

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

of people oppose something. Common sense isn't a substitute for a scientific poll. 80% is a specific number and for it to be thrown around on the basis of common sense doesn't make sense. It's possible congress caved into a silent minority. Actually I seem to remember one of the polls showed the opponents of the bill at about 50% with supporters at about far behind, I'm thinking maybe 20% or something. So the opposition had a clear plurality or a slim minority, but not 80% overwhelming majority. But if you have polling data to the contrary feel free to share it. Clearly the bill roused up stronger feelings in the opposition than in the support.
Allowing for more legal immigration does pertain to the topic, because if more legals are allowed in, they are not waiting in line as long, and therefore, the illlegals aren't given nearly as much of an advantage over the legals.
As to the word amnesty I just think it has been too politicized to be used as much more than a rallying cry.

"Here's one for you: What if everybody DOES support amnesty, yet it's bad for the country as we know it if it becomes the law of the land? Then what should be done?"
I don't know. I tend to think some form of legalization ( a realistic form - not lets deport all of them and have them come back) would be good for the country. If the country agrees with me and we do that and it turns out to be a mistake - well I Guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

Now that the snow and ice is off the driveway, I feel better.

"Okay common sense doesn't tell you 80%"

I said "up to 80%," so I guess I could go into politics myself. Maybe Finch's link will support me. Looks like it. The "common sense" part is in the sentence that followed up the point.

"It's possible congress caved into a silent minority. "

Whether a minority or majority, they were far from silent. But get real--it was a huge majority, including both Dem's and Rep's.

"Allowing for more legal immigration does pertain to the topic"

It would, if it had been part of the discussion, part of the "comprehensive" bill. But it wasn't. I agree with the rest of your statement.

"I don't know. I tend to think some form of legalization ( a realistic form - not lets deport all of them and have them come back) would be good for the country. If the country agrees with me and we do that and it turns out to be a mistake - well I Guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there."

It's already been tried and proven to be a mistake by the similar legislation of the '80s. Every time amnesty is granted (amnesty: if you get to keep what you obtained illegally, it's amnesty) it shows the next class of interlopers that we don't intend to enforce our immigration laws. That is outright encouragement to do the same thing. Is the bridge we should cross (again) the one "to the 21st century" or the one "to nowhere?"

"not lets deport all of them and have them come back"

Which is exactly why the secure border fence has to be in place first. None of us trusts the weasels in DC to keep their word about anything, but a physical barrier would have to be torn down to quit working.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

We said

"Allowing for more legal immigration does pertain to the topic"

It would, if it had been part of the discussion, part of the "comprehensive" bill. But it wasn't. I agree with the rest of your statement.

I was wrong. I agree with you on this. It does pertain.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.

Later you get more specific and speak of allowing for more legal immigration. I respect that you are at least upfront about it. This method of solving illegal immigration by increasing legal immigration to the point where most would-be illegals are allowed in legally is clearly the method favored by President Bush, John McCain, and almost all prominent Democrats, I just wish they would be honest enough to say it, and to tell us how much of an enormous increase in permanent legal immigration such a solution would require.

Its not a conservative position, and it's definitely not a populist conservative position. It's interesting in light of the earlier dispute over polling data, because the data on this is quite clear. When Americans are asked if they want to increase legal immigration, they always reply in the negative. In fact, support for reducing legal immigration usually enjoyes majority or plurality status, though it sometimes battles it out with 'maintain current levels' for the top spot. One thing is very consistent, however, and that is that support for increasing legal immigration rarely cracks 20%. And this is in light of what I would guess is a high amount of ignorance about how much immigration we do already admit. I believe if everyone knew we admit about one million legal immigrants per year, then the support for decreasing it would be even higher, while support for increasing would be even lower.

But the main question I would like to pose to all conservatives who support increasing legal immigration is this; why do you not first call for a reshuffling of the current mix and the current levels? Why must it always be more? Generally, conservatives who support unending mass immigration do so on economic grounds. While I disagree that we need mass immigration for a strong economy, I will for the sake of argument go along as say that we do. But how do you know that current levels of about one million legal immigrants per year cannot meet your needs? If its all (or mostly) about workers, then why not abolish Ted Kennedy's Diversity Visa Lottery and end extended family chain migration? Why not get more strict on asylum/refugee claims to weed out fraud and to stop the resettlement here of people better suited elsewhere? Do you even know how many visas that would free up each year for work-based green cards instead?

I'll admit that I don't know the answer to that question (though abolishing the Diversity Visas would free up 50,000 slots per year by itself), but why not find out first? Get rid of those future Democrat-creating programs and replace them with merit and employment based programs instead?

Again, why must it always be more? Why are you so intent on hastening the demographic destruction of the GOP/conservative movement.

Back in September of 2006, the Center for Immigration Studies commissioned a poll that documents your points very well. The link is to a page that has both the summary document and the full crosstabs.

Rather than just release a summary, CIS had the audacity to actually release the entire crosstabs. If you go through it, you'll see that the pollsters went to extraordinary lengths to avoid biasing the results: They avoided charged language and gave an honest appraisal of the various options we have for dealing with this issue.

Based on these numbers, you're right on the money. I have not seen any similar poll done since in which the crosstabs were made available.

Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke

Blog: TMYN

That is outstanding work. I note that on Word page 137 of the Crosstabs report it shows that 64% prefer a policy that would result in illegals returning home either by enforcement or attrition. Only 31% prefer a policy that would allow them to stay in the US.

I thought it was also interesting that on question after question the one group that was most out-of-step with the other groups and the overall results was not the Hispanic group, but the Liberals.

The "Third Worst Person in the World" and aiming higher.