Politics Blog

In an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Mark Steyn expresses the sentiments of legal immigrants like me:

MS: Well, you know, I think there is a big problem with immigration. I’m personally always reluctant to speak about it, because I belong to that very, very tiny, tiny, tiny demographic of documented immigrants. And judging from that parade in Los Angeles the other day, there’s far fewer of us than there are of the other kind.

HH: Yes, that’s true.

MS: And if you talk to legal immigrants, they’re the ones who are the most resentful of this whole illegal business, because we’re the ones, we pay the huge fees to immigration lawyers, we filled in all the paperwork. I’ve stood in line at these dreary government offices to get these stupid cards and these stupid government numbers, to go through the whole process officially. And everyone whose done that is resentful to the idea that somehow if you just make it across the border, and you get here, you can stay here, and half the state governments in this country will do what they can to make your situation as painless as possible, and the public schools…I’ll give you a small example of schools. If you’re a legal immigrant, and you enroll your children in a local grade school, they want to know whether they’ve had all the shots, you know, for this and that.

HH: Sure. Vaccinations.

MS: If you’re a legal immigrant, you have to then, you’re faced with then getting the documentation out of whatever country you happen to have come from. And sometimes, that can be difficult, because they give them different things at different times, and the school nurse will give you a lot of harrassment. If you actually just say okay, scrub that, they’re not legal immigrants, I want them redesignated as illegal immigrants, then you won’t be asked for any paperwork. It’s a lot easier. The problem at the moment is that it’s a rational decision, coming into this country, to be an illegal immigrant. And that is the problem.

“Ethics charges heat up N.J. Senate race”

or not:

“San Francisco leaders assail youth rally“

A Christian youth rally that drew more than 25,000 people to AT&T Park last weekend met resistance from city leaders and some residents over its conservative agenda….

* * *
Last week, the city’s Board of Supervisors passed a resolution condemning the ‘act of provocation’ by an ‘anti-gay, anti-choice’ organization that aimed to ‘negatively influence the politics of America’s most tolerant and progressive city.’

Yep.

Sometimes the jokes about liberal hypocrisy tell themselves.

“Freedom of speech and association for me; but *not* for thee.”

Isn’t that true, Chomsky?

* * *

BTW, what exactly do you suppose was the “act of provocation” by those young Christians?

Yeah, you guessed it:

A rock concert by Christian bands.

Go figure.

Polipundit, the gracious host of this site who magnanimously allows Lorie Byrd, Alexander K. McClure, Jayson Javitz and that garrulous typing chimp DJ Drummond to present their opinions on his site, has claimed that President George W. Bush is engaged in an “unholy crusade to sell US sovereignty to Mexico”. This undeserved insult is not far from sentiments of other conservatives, but to my mind it does nothing to advance the cause of Immigration Reform, while it does damage our most effective weapon in the fight.

Hugh Hewitt hit the nail again yesterday, repeating what every sane voter or blogger should recite out loud before making a decision:

“Whatever the answer is, it is not the Democrats”

I am not saying do not criticize a bone-head decision. I am not saying don’t speak your mind. But I do worry that most of the nation is not paying a lot of attention to details and reasons, but focuses on mood and expressed emotion. So it was that when the DP World ports deal came up, a lot of people heard criticism of the President and instead of considering what was being said, simply turned against the President. If you pay close attention, you will note that the poll numbers for Dub’s Job Approval have damn little to do with what he actually says or supports – W is very constant on that measure – but rises and falls on whether his “core” support is having a hissy fit at the moment. When the “core” Republicans get wobbly on supporting their most effective leader, it’s small wonder that the regular Joe decides to deny supporting him. The exact numbers depend on the moment and the methodology used to track, but somewhere between one in four to one in three registered voters consider themselves Democrats, and roughly the same consider themselves Republicans. That leaves somewhere between one in three to one in two who can be swayed one direction of the other, and all too often they simply decide who looks like the bigger ass and head the other way. In 2004, we could count on John Kerry being that ass, but in 2006 it’s not so clear in a number of Mid-Term races, and more than a few complete jerks could end up getting elected if Republicans don’t remember their focus and learn how to phrase their policy discussions.

Propose what needs to be done. Make clear your stance. But unless you want to make your victories pyrrhic, you’d damn well better make clear you know the difference between being unhappy on one important issue with an otherwise outstanding President, and trashing the only people likely to work towards your most important ideals. Pay attention to the difference between public stances made while tending behind the scenes to crucial negotiations, and the showboating from fakers and con men. And work to build a consensus for the work which needs to be done, instead of shooting at your allies.

Following up on the news that Maricopa County, Arizona added more people from 2000 to 2005 than any other county in the nation, here are some population-related stats concerning Arizona politics:

5 - Electoral Votes in 1968.
10 - Electoral Votes in 2004.

9/10 - elections carried by GOP Prez nominees since 1968, inclusive.

51% - Bush in 2000.
55% - Bush in 2004.

U.S. House delegation: 6-2, GOP.

And the *closest* margin of victory in 2004 for a GOP House candidate in Arizona was 20 percentage points: Rep. Franks over Randy Camacho, 59-39-2.

* * *

What are your predictions about the ways in which Arizona’s Electoral College votes and U.S. House Districts will stack up in another 20 years time against those of a state such as, oh, let’s say, Massachusetts? And how about the year 2026 partisan breakdowns of those respective states?

John Podhoretz gets it half-correct:

The immigration issue has risen in importance not because of real-world conditions but because of a relentless campaign to place it at the center of the national consciousness - a campaign waged primarily by intellectuals (many of them, ironically, immigrants themselves). Their hostility to open immigration is rooted in many different arguments.

There’s the cultural argument - the idea that immigrants from Mexico neither wish to be nor are compelled by policy or principle to seek to become fully American. There’s the economic argument - the idea that certain American industries are addicted to overly cheap immigrant labor by hand when they would do better in the global marketplace to innovate and use machinery.

And there’s the national-security argument - the idea that we need to restrict immigration to defend the country against an unconventional terrorist attack staged by individuals coming across the border illegally. And there are others as well.

All these arguments are sound, and they raise issues that must be addressed. What is distressing about them, however, is how weirdly defeatist they are. Immigration foes are convinced that the American national fabric is frayed, tattered and in danger of disintegration - that America cannot survive in its present form if current immigration trends continue.

They fear the kind of social disorder now on display in Europe, where disgruntled Muslim immigrants are increasingly testing the limits of democratic civil society.

That’s not the America I see, or the America I live in. I see a vibrant, dynamic, extraordinarily strong and extraordinarily stable country that has dealt successfully with far more pressing domestic problems without losing a beat.

Brilliant men and women brought immigration to the forefront with the strength and passion of their ideas. But brilliant people can be very wrong sometimes.

The Anchoress is always smart and relevant. So I ought to have read this article before today. She says what I have been saying, but with better moral force and eloquence. Especially this section:

“We have to think long and hard about what it means - and what it will FEEL like - to gather people together at gunpoint and put them on trains to send them to a place they do not want to go. Our intentions could be the purest and most noble in the world…that scenario still still smacks of history we don’t want associated with us. It sets a precedent we dare not embrace. I don’t want to see such pictures in our history books. That is not America. That cannot be America, if she is to survive.”

Read the whole thing. Then read it again. There is a secure solution, that protects the nation’s security while keeping alive the ideal of America. Let’s work for both goals.

Well, it looks like DJ and I are going to have a bit of a debate, a la NRO’s Corner.

DJ quotes the Anchoress below, and seems to be saying that the only way to deport the 12 million criminals who have illegallyinvaded America is “to gather people together at gunpoint and put them on trains to send them to a place they do not want to go.”

But for more than 2 years now, I’ve been proposing a simple, humane, cost-effective, two-step solution that would make every one of these criminals “deport” themselves the same way they came in. No need for trains or gunpoints.

This plan was passed by the US House of representatives in December 2005. All it needs now is approval by the Senate and the president.

Given that we have a plan that does not involve trains or gunpoints, why not implement it?

David Frum:

Today, almost one-fifth of all living Mexican-born people now make their homes in the United States. You have to go back to the Irish potato famine to find a parallel. But Mexico is not suffering famine: It is suffering from a comprehensive failure of political and economic leadership.

Mexico’s problems are also America’s problems, no getting around that. But an American president cannot agree that Mexico’s problems should be made only America’s problems.

In the context of an immigration reform in the American interest - meaning a restrictive immigration reform - the US should of course help Mexico find substitutes for any reductions in remittance income. One good place to start would be the energy industry, which could contribute much more to Mexican wealth if Mexico abandoned its 75-year-old protectionist policies. Of course, Mexicans will say that such changes are politically impossible for them. Then they turn around and ask George Bush to lay waste to Republican political prospects to save them from a fate from which they will not save themselves.

It’s frustrating. It’s even frightening. But in the end, an American president must remember who he is ultimately working for.

You can really tell it was a slow news day.

How?

The liberal wire services are blasting this headline:

“John Dean Blasts Warantless Eavesdropping“

Oh, man.

What’s next? The media/Democrats will run an entire national general election campaign on the basis of who did what during the Vietnam War???

* * *

Anyways, here’s an item that probably will get lost in the shuffle in connection with this weekend’s network and cable “news” programs:

“Iran State Media: Iran Test-Fires Missile Able to Duck Radar“

Normally I place very little stock in the saber rattling of state-run media outlets of rancid thug-o-cracies.

Having said that, however, if that report is within the *penumbra* of being accurate, well, Jimmy Carter, I only have eight words to say:

Memo to the U.S. Air Force:

Bombs away!