Another ally insulted...

It seems Mark Krikorian likes to make a big deal out of small things, and to take the most unreasonable position possible.

In this case, he's throwing a tantrum about DHS arranging visa-free entry for people from Bulgaria. Now, Bulgaria is a member of NATO - in other words, by any reasonable definition, it is an ally.

He acknowledges that, and then proceeds to minimize it.

I guess he thinks it is okay for Bulgarians to die alongside Americans in the global war on terror, but such willingness should not be taken into consideration when it comes to how we treat them should they want to visit the United States.

Krikorian lacks class.

Quick quiz...

OK, if you are the head of the Department of Homeland Security, what should be your first priority?

A. Tracking down and catching terrorists
B. Checking the paperwork of American businesses

We know where hard-liner Mark Krikorian answers that question when he goes after former POW and current Congressman Sam Johnson.

Now, why ignore the threat of terrorists and gangs like MS-13 to chase after people working the 40-hour-week just to send it on down the line?

Why would he send comparatively scare resoruces to chase businesses instead of deporting folks who had committed violent crimes?

Inquiring minds would like to know...

EDIT: And with this lack of common sense on Krikorian's part, is it any wonder that Lindsey Graham wins his primary by a 2-to-1 margin?

Graham wins by a landslide...

The commissar wing's attack fails again. Lindsey Graham, a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform, beat zampolit wing favorite Buddy Witherspoon by a 2-to-1 margin.

In other words, a silent supermajority of the GOP in a conservative stronghold was okay with a candidate who stood for comprehensive immigration reform.

It seems that the conservative alternate media (talk radio, National Review, etc.) is once again out of step with the GOP.

Why the name Jose is not a big deal, Mr. Krikorian...

Mark Krikorian pitches a fit at the Corner over the name Jose being the most popular among boys born in Texas over the last year. He is taken to task for it, but a bit more response is called for.

Shall we look at what have we seen people with the name Jose accomplish in America in the past? There are a number of All-Star baseball and football players, like Jose Hernandez (all-star shortstop in 2002) and Jose Contreras (all-star pitcher in 2006). Men named Jose are cops, firefighters, lawyers, and in just about any other honorable profession in America.

Oh, yeah, and three men named Jose have earned this country's highest military honor while defending this country: Sergeant Jose M. Lopez, Private First Class Jose F. Valdez, and Private Jose B. Nisperos.

Mr. Krikorian, it seems American has done well by men named Jose. On the other hand, you have managed to out yourself as someone who seems awfully obsessed with people who have Hispanic-sounding names.

Unpatriotic Conservatives, 2008 style...

In 2003, David Frum wrote a brilliant takedown of anti-war conservatives. It pulled very few punches, and laid out a compelling case that they were clearly .

Today, though, there is a new batch of unpatriotic conservatives who are perfectly willing to sell out our troops by sitting out 2008 - perfectly willing to let Obama win, despite the deleterious effects he will have on the country. If there are better words than unpatriotic and selfish, I'd like to hear them.

Quite frankly, they are going about immigration all wrong. We do have some problems, particularly with gangs and drugs. But how do we deal with that aspect of border security when we waste our time raiding meat-packing plants and construction sites? We don't. But it provides plenty of bloody shirts for people like Michelle Malkin to wave in the immigration debate.

But when they will, through their inaction, elect someone who is likely to surrender in the war on terror, someone who is stupid enough to meet with people like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions, and someone who will likely appoint Supreme Court justices who will be more inclined to engage in judicial putsches on issues like gay marriage, it's time to call them out.

What is truly the most important issue facing America, immigration, or the war on terror? I think most Americans would argue the latter. Holding our troops hostage over immigration is despicable, and it will not win friends.

Why the Congressional GOP is lagging McCain...

AJ-Strata has an excellent post on why the Congressional GOP is lagging McCain.

The tone the right has taken on immigration has been shrill, declaring those who did not toe a hard line traitors repeatedly, as well as enemies of the Republic (Paul J. Cella is one of the more easily found ones, but you can see similar sentiments in some comments on threads at Free Republic). As I posted elsewhere, such comments have been counter-productive, to put it mildly, and arguably, destructive to the Republican coalition. Some of the comments, quite frankly, would only have been resolvable via the Code Duello.

The hard-liners on immigration have been akin to the people crying about global warming - with practically no proof for their dire predictions, and their response, is much like those of the global warming believers to critics, as described by Michael Crichton.

Some of this rhetoric borders on the fringes as well. In the age of Google, it is easy to find. It's why the "dirty pool" MacRanger describes can stick, as well, even when the specifics are false. Just glance at the immigration threads at FreeRepublic.com, or comments at Townhall (particularly those directed at supporters of President Bush on immigration, like Linda Chavez or Ruben Navarrette), and you can see just why the dirty pool works. The lies are believable.

Contrary to what Mac wants to believe, the MS-1 loss, as well as Hastert's seat, indicates that conservatives have lost touch with America in some respects. I can't speak for anyone else, but who wants to vote for someone who views them as a traitor over a disagreement - much less work with them?

Perhaps MacRanger can answer that question. Because the Congressional GOP needs to either answer that question - or they need to mend fences with the moderates they have been working so hard to alienate.

Why Malkinbots don't get it...

Right Wing News shows how Malkinbots manage to blow it.

His beef is over a young woman brought into the United States as an infant who had had several liver transplants due to a liver disorder.

Let's repeat one phrase here: As an infant. In other words, her presence here in the US is not due to any criminal action or intent of her own.

And this is what we are seeing by allowing the problem to fester for a long time, rather than solving it when we had a chance to do so with much less difficulty.

Now, what do we do about people who were brought here at young ages, who have not committed crimes, other than to grow up here? Or whose families wanted nothing more than to save their lives?

Most people don't blame kids for this stuff. And the type of stuff in the comments of Right Wing News will be found repulsive by most Americans. There is a reason that non-generic Republicans tend to do a bit better. PArt of it is the tone-deaf attitude conservatives seem to be showing.

Tancredo/Dobbs vs. the Pope

The Wall Street Journal has a very good editorial on the recent rants from Tom Tancredo and Lou Dobbs against Pope Benedict XVI.

And people expect me to believe that there is no bigotry involved?

Do they think I'm stupid?

The impossible debate...

On Saturday, I mentioned the case of border security blowback, and pointed to a debate.

Well, the debate kind of went how I expected it to. Eventually, some of the usual people with an irrational obsession about Mexico came in, and AJ-Strata, myself, and SJ Reidhead found ourselves on the receiving end of abuse, ranging from implications that we must have been under the influence of marijuana to at least two insinuations of treason.

I'm sick of the people who act like schoolyard bullies on this issue - and quite frankly, that is an accurate characterization of the people largely on Malkin's side of the debate. The abusive venom aimed at people like Linda Chavez (just look at the comments about her columns at Townhall.com) and others cannot be described as anything else.

Until conservative leaders are willing to rein in the venom, debate will be impossible.

Border Blowback...

Read this from Strategypage, and weep:

April 2, 2008: As it gets more difficult to illegally cross the U.S. border, it costs more to pay a professional smuggler ("coyote") to assist. But those higher smuggling fees have attracted the drug smuggling gangs, who are now taking over the business. As subsidiaries of drug cartels, this new breed of "coyote" is heavily armed and vicious. The violence is often directed at the clients (the people paying to get smuggled into the U.S.) This is bringing the Mexican border war into the United States.

Weren't the fence, and the hard-line border-security measures that Michelle Malkin and Tom Tancredo wanted supposed to keep this sort of thing from happening? Instead, what do we have? We have folks who are an even bigger threat to Border Patrol agents getting involved.

I suppose, somehow, Michelle Malkin will find some way to blame it on President Bush, when it is the policies she demanded that seem to be causing this.

AJ-Strata has more on immigration, and refers us to a debate over at Right Voices.

With screw-ups like this... no wonder people don't respect the law

It seems that the folks who decide on legal immigration have bollixed things up once again. This time, they are refusing to grant a visa to an interpreter who helped our troops in Iraq, even though he and his family are clearly facing death or physical harm from terrorists.

The bureaucrats at INS would not even take note of the letters in the file from Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter and General David Petraeus. One would think any reasonable person would take note of said letters, the medal awarded, and the fact that this guy is facing the very real risk of physical harm.

This is not the only situation. I became aware, via a second-hand account, of a Colombian family who faced a somewhat similar dilemma. They didn't translate for the US, but they had heard of a FARC "recruiting campaign" that was to take place at the school where one of their sons attended. They tried to get here legally, but ultimately, when faced with the likelihood of their son being kidnapped and used as cannon fodder by a terrorist group, they came here on tourist visas and overstayed.

We don't know why the INS decided not to approve this, and to even label him a terrorist. And that is the problem with that bureaucracy. With screw-ups like these, it is no wonder a lot of otherwise good people are deciding that the law is fouled up.

This is why I reject the whole Malkin/Tancredo approach on immigration. Ultimately, we are dealing with people. It's not numbers, it's not about culture, it's people - individual persons who deserve to get equal treatment under the law.

The Marine Corps would be perfectly justified in bringing this translator and his family home, providing them with support, looking after them, and daring ICE to come after them. This man had more than earned American citizenship for himself and his family by coming to our aid in helping liberate Iraq. They should also assign their top JAGs to this and similar cases where the fouled up immigration system is causing problems for them. Other services should do the same. The Army, for instance, had an illegal immigrant who took part in the liberation of Iraq - doing the defense of our country that the likes of Reverend Wright have vehemently opted out of (yes, I know Wright served in the Marine Corps - but that service does NOT cancel out "God Damn America").

But this calls for a total revamping of immigration law in this country. It also means that we pass common-sense reforms that will deal with the real problems. Big Lizards has made a number of good posts on this issue, and the discussion should start there. There needs to be some penalty for breaking the law. But contrary to the assertions we hear from the right, it is not a choice between deportation and nothing. There are ways to ensure that those who broke the law pay a price for their actions. If they are fined, and agree to a form of probation, they have not received amnesty, contrary to the assertions from Michelle Malkin.

It is hard to respect laws when they are applied very poorly. Scrap the system, and start over.

Arrogance on the right...

Let's get this straight... Kevin James thinks that after the results of the 2008 Republican primaries, he can dictate terms to John McCain on immigration?

Mr. James, it is very simple, the candidates who backed your position (particularly Hunter and Tancredo) lost, and were barely asterisks in the polling data. Even Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (in the most disingenuous flip-flop of 2008) couldn't ride it to victory.

You are not in a position to dictate terms to John McCain. The voters in Republican primary elections from across the country have chosen him.

And if I were John McCain, I'd be pissed off, and would probably tell you where you could go.

Foolishness on the right...

It seems the GOP wants to remain the stupid party.

Never mind the fact that John McCain, a very vocal supporter of comprehensive immigration reform who has utterly rejected the Malkin-Tancredo hard line, has clinched the nomination. It seems that some conservatives will be pushing a hard line.

It has not won elections, it cannot even reliably win Republican primaries (only winning when there are multiple candidates supporting the approach favored by the majority of Republican primary voters in a given race).

Yet they insist on it. Conservatives are clearly out of touch with the GOP on this issue.

Illegal immigration issue a loser on the campaign trail...

From the Weekly Standard's CampaignStandard:

Lots of talk in the media about McCain vs. The Mighty Wombats of Talk Radio. Ask President Tancredo about that one. The talkers can raise an issue to prominence, they can entertain, but they do not really deliver actual votes. Sorry Rush.

Defeated Senate schemer Rick Santorum now campaigning for Mitt with a way-over-the-top robocall calling McCain nuts. A cheap shot from a prickly guy; a lot of people in GOP politics miss Santorum's voting record in DC, but very few miss him.

Which leads to the illegal immigration issue. From an election results perspective it appears hanging out with the anti-immigrant Bund seems to be a kiss of death. Tancredo: fizzled. Fred Thompson, endorsed by Iowa nativist Steve King; Kaput. Now Romney; on the ropes. I've never seen an issue with so much perceived heat, yet such short legs on Election Day.

Gee, why could that be?

Perhaps the Republican primary electorate has different views than the conservative intelligentsia?

Not an endorsement I wanted to see...

Tom Tancredo's endorsement of Mitt Romney is not a good thing for Mitt.

In essence, it means no real solution to the very real problems we have on the southern border. Instead, we get the usual BS that we have seen - we'll get a fence that will ultimately be as effective as the Maginot Line, we'll raid a bunch of fast-food joints and landscaping companies, and we will delude ourselves into thinking our borders will be secure.

Meanwhile, what it will really take will be ignored in the name of ideological purity.

The special elections and thoughts on immigration...

The only thing remarkable about the special elections is how much like a normal election they were.

Virginia's 1st District saw the GOP candidate outperformed by Bush's performance in 2004 by less than a percentage point. In Ohio's 5th district, Bob Latta's margin was not much different from the ones racked up in 2004 and 2006 by Bush and Paul Gillmor. It was a rounding error at most.

And here, the right claims a mandate for a hard-line immigration policy. I don't buy it. These results hold little, if any, difference from what you would have had in a normal election. so what really changed? Nothing - two strongly Republican districts sent Republicans to fill out vacancies left by Republicans who died in office. No mandate here. Not even a shift in the numbers that would have indicated something was up.

Which brings me to immigration in general, and why the GOP is making a mistake. When I see rhetoric claiming that those who sought comprehensive immigration reform were pursuing the dispossession of America, I have to wonder what is with the right. Do they really believe America can be dispossessed by gardeners, cleaning ladies, restaurant workers, and nannies, among others? That speaks of either a lack of faith in America or a raging paranoia. Either alternative is not something I want holding some of the highest offices in the land.

It does not help the cause of those at Redstate when they also imply that their opponents are motivated by sedition (and this is mild when compared to Cella's pronouncements of treason in earlier posts). To claim such is simply not true in many cases, and certainly it speaks little for their desire to compromise as well.

In essence, on immigration, we have an impasse. We cannot deport all the illegal immigrants in this country, not without major changes. There is talk of a new national ID card, and requiring proof of citizenship - in essence, we would go to an America where we could be asked, "Your papers, please."

Is that the America we want? My answer is no. In essence, we would be creating the kind of internal controls that Hillary would love for her purposes - and she would not be using them to control illegal immigration. We also see what John Edwards is willing to impose on people as well.

And looking at people like Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo, I get the sense that some on the right will be pursuing the same thing. And gladly so. They have their ideas of what America should be, and they strike me as being very willing to use the government to enforce it.

Perhaps this is why some were right - the government needs to stay out of a lot of issues. I really do not think it should be involved in whether restaurants are smoking or non-smoking, how people decide to breed dogs, whether they want to go online to put some money on a baseball or football game, or things like that. Watching the GOP Congress in late 2005 and most of 2006 was, in so many ways, embarrassing.

The House GOP took their ball and went home when they didn't get their way on the immigration issue. Then they passed a lot of bills on small issues that really didn't matter while our troops dealt with airlifters that had cracks in their wings and the housing crisis crept up on us. They then had to pile on with the left rather than point out blatant incompetence by the likes of Kathleen Blanco, who made Frank Jack Fletcher and George McClellan look like decisive leaders in a crisis.

Priorities and common sense matter. And the right cannot seem to figure that out yet.

Giuliani's common sense...

If you want to see the type of common sense that has rarely been on display from the right on immigration, see Rudy Giuliani's comments in the Examiner today.

“Why don’t you throw out the people who are drug dealers, that are coming out of jail? And before they hit the streets, we can turn them over,” Giuliani recalled telling the INS. “We couldn’t work that out with them. They wouldn’t do it for us.

“They wouldn’t do it for us because they had, you know, some professor with a visa first, and they had two restaurant workers, and three gardeners. Now it may or may not be right for them to be here, but they’re not threatening anybody. These drug dealers are threatening people. I couldn’t get them to do that, so I had to handle the thing myself. And I handled it.”

I do not think it is unreasonable to insist that ICE have a proper sense of priorities. Drug dealers, gangsters, and terrorists must come first in trying to deport illegal immigrants (and we should be double-checking the legal immigrants to make sure that we did not get any terrorists, gang members, or drug dealers there, either.

Any detention that involves a professor, a restaurant worker, a cleaning lady, a gardener, or some kid in high school that never even knew he was here illegally until ICE took him into custody is a detention that is leaving a dangerous criminal in the United States to commit more crimes.

Who in their right mind would want that?

Rudy doesn't. I certainly believe that Mitt Romney would also be able to set priorities as well. That's why they got my donations - and why one of them will get my vote come February 5. Which is somewhat up in the air. Romney looks better all-around, but Giuliani would be a sure winner in the general election.

It's the kindof tough choice I like to have.

Witherspoon's baggage...

It seems that the Tancredobots have found their challenger to Lindsey Graham: Sitting RNC member Buddy Witherspoon. Pink Flamingo did some digging, and found out some stuff that people ought to know.

Read it - and keep it in mind the next time Michelle Malkin complains about "race-baiting" or "misrepresentation" - when someone's tied with the Council of Conservative Citizens, he's with some very shady company. Malkin seems willing to look the other way.

I doubt that South Carolina voters will.

Conservative strategic incompetence, revisted

Well, another election in Virginia is over. The Republicans have once again suffered losses when all the votes were counted.

For the third straight year.

In each of these three years, they took a hard line on immigration. And let's see what it got them:

The governorship? Nope, an avowed liberal who opposes the death penalty is currently in the governor's mansion.

The Senate seat held by George Allen? Nope, it's now held by a Democrat who has been determined to coddle Iran.

The state senate, which had been Republican for eight years? Nope. That is now gone.

Ever since conservatives staged their revolt against President Bush, citing his failure to adhere to principles, the GOP has been losing ground in the state of Virginia. This is not one election, this is three elections.

This is not a matter of explaining ourselves better - I could buy that argument if it had been one election or maybe two. But losses in three straight elections? No, I cannot buy that argument. I can only conclude that people are not buying our explanations.

Certain people have promised that holding to principle on this issue (in essence, maintaining a hard line) would be a cornerstone of victory. Well, if there have been victories, I have not seen them here, or across the country for that matter (the GOP had more of a mixed bag across the country).

It is time to hold them accountable. I ask that my readers begin to do so by contributing to Republicans who supported President Bush's approach to immigration. I also encourage them to donate to groups like the Republican Main Street Partnership and the Republican Leadership Council.

And for conservatives who wish to complain, I can only quote Ernst Stavro Blofeld in You Only Live Twice:
"This is the price of failure[.]"

Conservative Strategic Incompetence... Example One

I have often been critical of the strategic incomptence on the right. For a recent example, look at Tom Tancredo's demands that attendees at a press conference to make the case for the DREAM ACT be arrested.

Does he want to guarantee its pasage due to the backlash that having these arrests would generate? That's what would happen. People don't like gangs, drug dealers and terrorists. But students and kids are a very different matter. The DREAM Act merely applies the same sort of principle that our juvenile justice system is based on to immigration law - in essence, it reflects the diminished capacity to form mens rea juveniles have. They do pay a price for their actions. It simply is not the price that vindictive people like Michelle Malkin and Tom Tancredo would have them pay.

Which means, of course, that we can expect the usual nonsense about "Congress passing an amnesty" to be spewed forth by the usual suspects.