john mccain: Page 1
Yet another ranting idiot helps John McCain with a weak townhall question (Arizona, Syria) - 10/23/13
If you just got here from another planet, you might think John McCain is the smartest man in the world. To come to that conclusion, all you'd have to do is watch a handful of McCain's townhall appearances where he always manages to turn the tables on those who confront him with rants or weak questions.
A "Gang of Eight" senators have released the framework for a comprehensive immigration reform (aka amnesty) bill. The full text of the framework is below.
Sen. Jeff Sessions has released "Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act" (via this) about the anti-American bill that Harry Reid wants a vote on during the lame duck session. See the DREAM Act page for more, and three things you can do to block it follow Sessions' article:
BILL WOULD GIVE COLLEGE PREFERENCE TO ILLEGALS OVER CITIZENS
...In addition to immediately putting an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens (including certain criminal aliens) on a path to citizenship, the DREAM Act will give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student loans, and federal work-study programs.
Aliens granted amnesty by the DREAM Act will have the legal right to petition for entry of their family members, including their adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or sent them to the United States, once they become naturalized U.S. citizens. In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple the more than 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately distributed as a result of the DREAM Act.
Ten Things You Need To Know About S.3827, The DREAM Act
1. The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans
Proponents of the DREAM Act frequently claim the bill offers relief only to illegal alien “kids.” Incredibly, previous versions of the DREAM Act had no age limit at all, so illegal aliens of any age who satisfied the Act’s requirements—not just children—could obtain lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. In response to this criticism, S.3827 includes a requirement that aliens be under the age of 35 on the date of enactment to be eligible for LPR status. Even with this cap, many aliens would be at least 41 years old before obtaining full LPR status under the Act—hardly the “kids” the Act’s advocates keep talking about.
The DREAM Act requires that DHS/USCIS process all DREAM Act applications (applications that would require complex, multi-step adjudication) without being able to increase fees to handle processing. This mandate would require either additional Congressional appropriations, or for USCIS, a primarily fee-funded agency, to raise fees on other types of immigration benefit applications. This would unfairly spread the cost of administering the DREAM Act legalization program among applicants and petitioners who have abided by U.S. laws and force taxpayers to pay for amnesty. Taxpayers would also be on the hook for all Federal benefits the DREAM Act seeks to offer illegal aliens, including student loans and grants.
2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application
Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud in the existing system.
3. Certain Criminal Aliens Will Be Eligible For Amnesty Under The DREAM Act
Certain categories of criminal aliens will be eligible for the DREAM Act amnesty, including alien gang members and aliens with misdemeanor convictions, even DUIs. The DREAM Act allows illegal aliens guilty of the following offenses to be eligible for amnesty: alien absconders (aliens who failed to attend their removal proceedings), aliens who have engaged in voter fraud or unlawfully voted, aliens who have falsely claimed U.S. citizenship, aliens who have abused their student visas, and aliens who have committed marriage fraud. Additionally, illegal aliens who pose a public health risk, aliens who have been permanently barred from obtaining U.S. citizenship, and aliens who are likely to become a public charge are also eligible.
4. Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty. In Reality, We Have No Idea How Many Illegal Aliens Will Apply
Section 4(d) of the DREAM Act waives all numerical limitations on green cards, and prohibits any numerical limitation on the number of aliens eligible for amnesty under its provisions. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that the DREAM Act will make approximately 2.1 million illegal aliens eligible for amnesty. It is highly likely that the number of illegal aliens receiving amnesty under the DREAM Act will be much higher than the estimated 2.1 million due to fraud and our inherent inability to accurately estimate the illegal alien population. Clearly, the message sent by the DREAM Act will be that if any young person can enter the country illegally, within 5 years, they will be placed on a path to citizenship.
5. Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits
The DREAM Act will allow illegal aliens to qualify for in-state tuition, even when it is not being offered to U.S. citizens and legally present aliens living just across state lines. Section 3 of the DREAM Act repeals Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1623) which prohibits giving education benefits to an unlawfully present individual unless that same benefit is offered to all U.S. citizens.
6. The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree (Vocational, Two-Year, or Bachelor’s Degree) As A Condition of Amnesty
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that the bill is intended to benefit illegal immigrants who have graduated from high school and are on their way to earning college degrees. However, the bill is careful to ensure that illegal alien high school drop-outs will also be put on a pathway to citizenship – they simply have to get a GED and be admitted to “an institution of higher education,” defined by the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Under the Higher Education Act, an “institution of higher education” includes institutions that provide 2-year programs (community colleges) and any “school that provides not less than a 1-year program of training to prepare students for gainful employment” (a vocational school). Within 8 years of the initial grant of status, the alien must prove only that they finished 2 years of a bachelor’s degree program, not that they completed any program or earned any degree.
If the alien is unable to complete 2 years of college but can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the education requirement can be waived altogether.
7. The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service
DREAM Act supporters would have you believe that illegal aliens who don’t go to college will earn their citizenship through service in the U.S. Armed Forces. However, the bill does not require aliens to join the U.S. Armed Forces (the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard); instead it requires enlistment in the “uniformed services.” This means that aliens need only go to work for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Public Health Service for 2 years to get U.S. citizenship. If the alien is unable to complete 2 years in the “uniformed services,” and can demonstrate that their removal would result in hardship to themselves or their U.S. citizen or LPR spouse, child, or parent, the military service requirement can be waived altogether. Such claims will likely engender much litigation and place a huge burden on DHS.
Furthermore, under current law (10 USC § 504), the Secretary of Defense can authorize the enlistment of illegal aliens. Once enlisted in the U.S. Armed Forces, under 8 USC § 1440, these illegal aliens can become naturalized citizens through expedited processing, often obtaining U.S. citizenship in six months.
8. Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration
Under current federal law, U.S. citizens have the right to immigrate their “immediate relatives” to the U.S. without regard to numerical caps. Similarly, lawful permanent residents can immigrate their spouses and children to the U.S. as long as they retain their status. This means illegal aliens who receive amnesty under the DREAM Act will have the right to immigrate their family members—including the parents who sent for or brought them to the U.S. illegally in the first place—in unlimited numbers as soon as they become U.S. citizens (6 to 8 years after enactment) and are 21 years of age.
Additionally, amnestied aliens who become U.S. citizens will be able to petition for their adult siblings living abroad to immigrate to the U.S., further incentivizing chain migration and potentially illegal entry into the United States (for those who don’t want to wait for the petition process overseas). When an adult brother or sister receives a green card, the family (spouse and children) of the adult sibling receive green cards as well.
9. Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid
Section 10 of the DREAM Act allows illegal aliens amnestied under the bill’s provisions to qualify for federal student assistance under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) in the form of federal student loans (Stafford Loans, Perkins Loans, Federal Direct Stafford/Ford Loans), federal work-study programs, and other federal education services such as tutoring and counseling.
10. DHS Is Prohibited From Using the Information Provided By Illegal Aliens Whose DREAM Act Amnesty Applications Are Denied To Initiate Their Removal Proceedings or Investigate or Prosecute Fraud in the Application Process
When an illegal alien’s DREAM Act amnesty application is denied, the bill states that the alien will revert to their “previous immigration status,” which is likely illegal or deportable. The bill, however, prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc) to initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application process. Thus, it will be extremely hard for DHS to remove aliens who they now know are illegally present in the U.S., because illegal aliens will be able to claim that the legal action is a product of the amnesty application, and DHS will have the nearly impossible task of proving a negative.
There are many things you can do if you want to block the Reid's bill, but here are three:
1. Contact your representatives and tell them you oppose the bill. You can concentrate on the fence-sitters (per this): Olympia Snowe (202-224-5344; 207-874-0883), Susan Collins (202-224-2523; 207-945-0417), Lisa Murkowski (202-224-6665; 907-271-3735), Sam Brownback (202-224-6521; 785-233-2503), and, of course, John McCain (202-224-2235; 480-897-6289).
2. This one is seemingly impossible, but if people could recruit an experienced trial attorney to really press a politician on the question on the DREAM Act page and video of that were uploaded to Youtube, it would greatly reduce the chances that the bill would pass.
3. Find those who support the bill on Twitter and who have at least a few hundred followers and who are persuadable or at least could be embarrassed. Then, try to do one or both. For instance, here's one from me:
@BrookeJarvis: you've got 5 kids & 4 chairs; what happens when you stop the music? This: http://24ahead.com/n/10042 #DREAMAct #p2 #tlot #sgp
That tweet isn't the best, but enough better tweets than that might reduce the possibilities of "top liberals on twitter" from helping log-roll the bill.
Koch family, U.S. Chamber, businesses met to plan strategy (+Glenn Beck, tea parties, "mobilize citizens for November") - 10/20/10
Twice each year, the Koch family conducts strategy meetings with corporate and thought leaders to plan how to advance their "free market" ideology. ThinkProgress has the guest list and program for their June 2010 meeting (in Aspen), and, while immigration isn't mentioned, many of the known attendees are on the wrong side.
I don't normally recommend anything at ThinkProgress, but in this case I'll suggest taking a look at their post and downloading the PDF.
The participants in Aspen dined under the stars at the top of the gondola run on Aspen Mountain, and listened to Glenn Beck of Fox News in a session titled, “Is America on the Road to Serfdom?” (The title refers to a classic of Austrian economic thought that informs libertarian ideology, popularized by Mr. Beck on his show.)The participants included some of the nation’s wealthiest families and biggest names in finance: private equity and hedge fund executives like John Childs, Cliff Asness, Steve Schwarzman and Ken Griffin; Phil Anschutz, the entertainment and media mogul ranked by Forbes as the 34th-richest person in the country; Rich DeVos, the co-founder of Amway; Steve Bechtel of the giant construction firm; and Kenneth Langone of Home Depot... The group also included longtime Republican donors and officials, including Foster Friess, Fred Malek and former Attorney General Edwin Meese III... Participants listened to presentations from the (US Chamber of Commerce), as well as people who played leading roles in John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008, like Nancy Pfotenhauer and Annie Dickerson, who also runs a foundation for Paul Singer, a hedge fund executive who like the Kochs is active in promoting libertarian causes.
Malek currently raises funds for Karl Rove.
There's also a tea parties link: one of the June sessions was called "Mobilizing Citizens for November" ("Is there a chance this fall to elect leaders who are more strongly committed to liberty and prosperity? This session will further assess the landscape and offer a strategic plan to educate voters on the importance of economic freedom.") The hosts were Sean Noble (@snoble37), Karl Crow of Themis, Mark Mix of National Right to Work, and Tim Phillips of Americans for Prosperity. AFP has been a very active "facilitator" of the teaparty movement.
Those who spoke at the June meeting include Peter Schiff (bad on immigration), Stephen Moore (ditto}, and Michael Barone (ditto). Others are: Ramesh Ponnuru; Phil Kerpen and Jeff Crank of AFP; Peter Wallison and Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute, Russ Roberts and Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center (associated with George Mason University; see the link); Gretchen Hamel; Charles Krauthammer; and Tim Carney of the Washington Examiner.
Those listed as attending past meetings include Haley Barbour (bad on immigration), John Stossel (ditto), Mike Pence (ditto), Bobby Jindal, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Jim DeMint, Tom Coburn, Paul Ryan, and Tom Price.
Obviously, there's nothing wrong or that sinister about the Kochs holding meetings like these. And, George Soros and associates no doubt hold similar meetings with those on their side. However, just as Soros' loose borders policies no doubt "informs" the immigration policies that those who receive his money offer, the same is probably true of the Kochs' loose borders policies. Aside from DeMint, there are few above who might be considered "border hawks", and some of those listed are quite bad on that issue.
And, of course, this provides yet more evidence of how those in the supposedly grassroots tea parties movement are doing the bidding of the very rich, even if the teapartiers have been bamboozled into thinking otherwise.
McCain trounces JD Hayworth in GOP primary; who's to blame (tea parties, Palin, Scott Brown...) - 08/25/10
In last night's GOP Senate primary in Arizona, John McCain trounced JD Hayworth with 59% versus 29% for Hayworth (and 11% for Jim Deakin). To a certain extent, McCain's win was due to him spending around $20 million on advertising and him pretending to be tough on immigration matters. Defeating McCain would have sent a strong message to the Beltway establishment, the mainstream media, and other amnesty supporters. Instead, those who should have opposed him either didn't oppose him, didn't take a position, or engaged in useless or counter-productive activities.
Who shares the blame?
1. Hayworth isn't exactly a prize catch, no matter ones political affiliation. So, he bears part of the blame.
2. The four major Arizona tea parties groups that decided not to endorse McCain, Hayworth, or Deakin also shares some of the blame.  The "Arizona Tea Party" - which might be an umbrella group including some of those listed at  did support Hayworth, at least in twitter dot com/azteaparty. However, the Tucson Tea Party has a post explaining that they don't endorse candidates; the reason given differs from that in their press release.
3. The one other teaparty group that decided to hold a border event - instead of doing things in smarter ways - shares part of the blame.
4. Sarah Palin, Grover Norquist, Scott Brown and perhaps tea parties chief leader Dick Armey all supported McCain, thus sharing part of the blame.
5. And, starting over four and a half years ago, I've been trying to get people to go to McCain's events and ask him tough questions. Video of McCain being put on the spot could get hundreds of thousands of views on Youtube and might have prevented him from being the GOP's 2008 nominee and might have prevented him winning yesterday's primary.
There are plenty of videos of people asking McCain questions, the problem is that the questions and the questioners are invariably weak. McCain is able to bowl them over and launch into stock speeches; some members of the mainstream media have asked him tougher questions than regular citizens at his public events. See the question authority page for an action plan and more information.
Those sites that get more traffic than me and that have (except in one or two brief cases) completely refused to encourage their readers to follow that plan bear a good share of the blame.
One lesson to learn from the above is not to put trust in those who don't know how to do things in the right way, or who can't figure out the best outcome, or who are only interested in feathering their own nests.
 From a press release (link):
The organizers of the four largest Arizona Tea Party organizations – including the Tucson Tea Party, Greater Phoenix Tea Party, Flagstaff Tea Party, and Mohave County Tea Party – issued a joint press release regarding their unified decision to decline endorsing a candidate in the Arizona Senate primary race between John McCain, J.D. Hayworth, and Jim Deakin.
“The Tea Party is a non-partisan, grassroots movement that stands for limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility. Both McCain and Hayworth’s records during their many years in Washington leave much to be desired on these issues,” said Robert Mayer, co-founder of the Tucson Tea Party. “It is their job to hold themselves up to these values and fight for our votes.”
The reason that the Tucson Tea Party (TTP) does not endorse any one candidate in the primaries is because we are made up of a diverse group, which include constitutional, fiscal, and social conservatives, we also have many that are simply free market thinkers... So, if the Tucson Tea Party were to pick one candidate over another, or over many others, we would simply be creating a situation of conservative bloodletting and infighting that would serve no purpose for conservatives in general or the Tea Party specifically.
GOP leaders want hearings on birthright citizenship; bogus political ploy? (McCain, Graham) - 08/03/10
* Lindsey Graham - someone frequently known as "Grahamnesty" due to his support for comprehensive immigration reform - recently said he might introduce a constitutional amendment to revoke the practice of birthright citizenship (for the children of illegal aliens; see UPDATE 3) .
* Just today, John McCain - previously the top Republican Senator supporting amnesty - also called for hearings on the matter.
* Mitch McConnell - someone who supported amnesty in 2007 and who's involved with the "National Council for a New America" - said "I think we ought to take a look at it - hold hearings, listen to the experts on it."
From the above, you might reasonably suspect that such calls are just a political ploy. Perhaps they're trying to appeal to the GOP base, or perhaps they're trying to arrange bargaining chips to use when helping the Democrats push amnesty. Mark Krikorian says they're making a mountain out of a molehill (link), although others disagree (link).
Whatever their actual motivations, such a push gives more ammunition to the far-left and at the same time it does ignore things that are easier to accomplish such as increased workplace enforcement. It would be extremely difficult to push through a constitutional amendment, especially since those above and their supporters aren't really prepared to deal with the backlash that would result. The other side would use them as a pinata and there's little they could do about it because their supporters don't know how to do things correctly.
UPDATE: As could be expected, buffoonish illegal immigration supporter Luis Gutierrez gets up on his high horse (link). He says there should be hearings, because he thinks they'd break his way. And, he's probably right, and that's a combination of those listed above not really supporting (at least fully) what they pretend to support combined with the fact that those who control the debate - the Democrats and more generally the establishment - would pull out all the stops to make those on the other side look bad. And, there's little that the anti-birthright citizenship side could do because, as stated above, their supporters don't know how to do things correctly. These are the same people who barely said a word about Sonia Sotomayor having been a member of the National Council of La Raza, and now they're expected to get a constitutional amendment passed?
UPDATE 2: As also could be expected, it becomes clear that Graham is doing this for political reasons. From the interview here:
I think it’s fair to say that I need to go home to South Carolina and say: listen, I know we’re all upset that we have 12-14 million people illegally. I’m going to have to be practical. We’re not going to deport or jail 12-14 million people. A practical solution is not awarding this citizenship on day one, but to allow them to stay here on our terms, learn our language, pay a fine, hold a job, and apply for citizenship through the legal process by getting in the back of the legal line.
That to me is a practical solution. But, I have to be able to say, as part of doing that, we looked at all the incentives that led to the 12-13 million coming, and we changed them. That we did secure our border, unlike any other time in the past, that we now have laws that make it possible to verify employment; we now have a temporary worker program that will allow people to come here and work on our terms temporarily, and help our employers with labor when they can’t find American labor. I have to be able to say that, because I think most Americans are willing to clean this mess up. They’re not willing to perpetuate it.
In the first paragraph he promotes comprehensive immigration reform and uses two bogus talking points: deportations false choice and immigration line. If he were serious he'd explore much less difficult options, such as making sure that the Obama administration is enforcing the law to the greatest extent possible. Instead, this amounts to little more than a show.
UPDATE 3: This post uses the phrase "birthright citizenship" just to mean the practice of giving citizenship to the children of illegal aliens; the debate is just about that.
Obama wants $500 million to send National Guard to secure the border (prelude to amnesty) - 05/25/10
"[The troops will] provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border... [the funding will be used to] enhance technology at the border, share information and support with state, local, and tribal law enforcement, and increase DoJ and DHS presence and law enforcement activities at the border, to include increased agents, investigators, and prosecutors, as part of a multi-layered effort to target illicit networks trafficking in people, drugs, illegal weapons, and money."
It's very important to bear the context in mind. Securing the border is vitally important, and this is great news from that standpoint. However, it's also important not to be snookered: the Obama administration might declare the border secure after a few months and then use that to push comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. And, since most political leaders that discuss immigration matters from the "tough" standpoint harp only on securing the border, this might be seen as Obama playing a political game in order to "give them what they want", in order to get what he wants.
And, it's important to bear in mind that this follows Obama welcoming Mexico's president to the White House with open arms, with the Democrats in Congress going as far as giving Calderon a standing ovation for opposing a law supported by 60% to 70% of Americans.
And, it's important to keep recent history in mind. Recall that just over four years ago, Karl Rove supported putting the National Guard on the border, just as then-Arizona governor Janet Napolitano had requested. That "Operation Jump Start" made for a wonderful photo op with George W Bush, but the goal was clear: look like they were doing something in order to get amnesty.
Then as now this is a good move, although it's very important to make sure it's not a prelude to something else.
UPDATE: In case all of the above wasn't clear, the Mexican government has now weighed in (portal.sre.gob.mx/usa/
Regarding the Administration’s decision to send 1,200 National Guard servicemen to the US Southern border, the Government of Mexico trusts that this decision will help to channel additional US resources to enhance efforts to prevent the illegal flows of weapons and bulk cash into Mexico, which provide organized crime with its firepower and its ability to corrupt.
Additionally, the Government of Mexico expects that National Guard personnel will strengthen US operations in the fight against transnational organized crime that operates on both sides of our common border and that it will not, in accordance to its legal obligations, conduct activities directly linked to the enforcement of immigration laws.
It'd be interesting to know exactly what "legal obligations" they're referring to; obviously they have no right to tell us how or where we do immigration enforcement inside the U.S. That said, there's a good chance that Obama has already agreed to the Mexico's demands and this current move is one result of an agreement made on Calderon's recent visit.
President Barack Obama on Tuesday authorized the deployment of up to 1,200 additional troops to border areas but State Department spokesman Philip Crowley told reporters, "It's not about immigration."
He said the move was "fully consistent with our efforts to do our part to stem, you know, violence, to interdict the flow of dangerous people and dangerous goods -- drugs, guns, people."
..."We have explained the president's announcement to the government of Mexico, and they fully understand the rationale behind it," Crowley said.
Crowley was formerly with the Center for American Progress.
And, from this:
President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Senate have repelled a move by presidential rival John McCain to send an additional 6,000 National Guard troops to the U.S-Mexico border... The Arizona Republican says the security situation along the order has deteriorated so badly that 3,000 guard troops are needed just to help protect his state. But McCain failed to muster the required 60 votes for his plan as the Senate continued debate on an a war funding bill.
Reason #73218 why you can't trust Steve Benen, Alex Pareene, John Aravosis, HuffPost, and GottaLaff (McCain on illegal aliens "intentionally causing accidents") - 04/21/10
Yesterday in an appearance on the Bill O'Reilly show, John McCain said among other, more important things, that he supports Arizona's tough new immigration bill (not yet a law) because "the people whose homes and property are being violated. It's the drive-by that -- the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway." You can watch it here: peekURL.com/vztpe5h
John McCain backs (but not endorses) Arizona's tough new immigration bill (from Russell Pearce); border security plan - 04/19/10
[See the UPDATE:; McCain backed away from endorsing it.]
"I think it’s a very important step forward... I can fully understand why the legislature would want to act."
Needless to say, this isn't in line with his previous positions; Arizona state senator Russell Pearce is the sponsor of the bill in question, and he's usually directly opposite the more "pro-business" GOP types on this issue.
McCain’s comments to reporters came as he and fellow Republican Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl unveiled a 10 step plan to secure Arizona’s border with Mexico. McCain and Kyl want to send 3,000 National Guard troops to help an overstretched border patrol curtail increasingly violent incidents along the border, among other measures.
[McCain said:] "The lesson is clear: First we have to secure the border... If you want to enact some other reforms, how can that be effective when you have a porous border? ...So we have to secure the border first."
UPDATE: Per this, "U.S. Sen. John McCain on Monday called the bill a "tool that I think needs to be used." His office later said that wasn't an endorsement."
Sarah Palin has some good qualities, but also bad qualities. And, some of the many latter involves her knowing nothing about immigration, Palin supporting McCain's position on immigration during the campaign, and her just today supporting McCain's worthless posturing on immigration.
JD Hayworth recently accepted the endorsement of the anti-illegal immigration group ALIPAC. The John McCain campaign responded as they often do, by supporting the far-left against those who want to enforce our immigration laws. McCain campaign Communications Director Brian Rogers had this to say:
"J.D. Hayworth's lavish praise for the social theories of noted anti-Semite and xenophobe Henry Ford sparked a major controversy during his losing 2006 campaign, causing many Arizonans to question Mr. Hayworth's judgment. It is astounding that Mr. Hayworth would today accept the endorsement of a group that the Anti-Defamation League reports is backed by white supremacists, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites. Mr. Hayworth should immediately disavow this group's support."
1. The Anti Defamation League just can't be trusted; see the link for the details. In this case, the page that Brian Rogers is referencing is adl.org/main_Extremism/White+Supremacists+Promote+ALIPAC.htm, which is simply one big logical fallacy: Guilt by Association. Another of their pages about ALIPAC includes adl.org/civil_rights/anti_immigrant/alipac.asp, which is full of logical errors.
2. Unfortunately, ALIPAC - like many others - doesn't fully understand how to do things; if they did I'd be able to find detailed articles at their site that would discredit both of those articles. Doing that myself would take me about an easy half hour, but I'll leave defending themselves in a logical and effective way up to them. There's a starting point here.
3. Instead, the response that ALIPAC does provide is something that isn't even a tu quoque (link). They point out that McCain was endorsed by a series of racist groups, but the difference is that McCain didn't accept those endorsements. That's comparable to ALIPAC not accepting the endorsements of those like David Duke, but some people won't get that and might think that ALIPAC is comparing themselves to the groups that endorsed McCain.
4. And, of course, McCain is doing again what he's done in the past: side with the Democrats and the far-left against the GOP base. Instead of pointing out that the ADL is fact-challenged and engages in logical fallacies, he treats them like a credible source.
5. If you'd like to do something effective, find an experienced questioner to go to McCain's appearances and call him on this and then upload video of the confrontation to video sharing sites. However, it has to be done in the correct way. If you're in the area and you can arrange that, leave comments on the entries here until I notice you and I'll provide you with some tough questions he'll have trouble with. I know - based on three years' experience - that that's never going to happen, but just in case.
"Throughout his congressional career, Sen. McCain has been a consistent champion for our state and country’s entrepreneurial spirit and for policies that encourage job creation and free enterprise... In this past year alone, Sen. McCain has stood strong against job killing legislation like card check and has injected the debate over health care with much-needed real world perspective. The Arizona Chamber is proud to make this much-deserved endorsement."
McCain's strong support for massive and illegal immigration and guest workers was almost assuredly a large factor in their decision. JD Hayworth's immigration plans would be more likely to cut into the profits of companies that want to use or profit from illegal labor.
Of course, there are probably other reasons too (link):
State chamber members include Phoenix-based beer distributor Hensley & Co. McCain’s wife, Cindy Hensley McCain, is the company’s chairwoman, and Hensley Vice President Doug Yonko is a vice chairman of the chamber.
Romney, a 2012 presidential aspirant, famously tangled with McCain on the campaign trail in 2008, and has some indirect ties to Hayworth -- Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, one of Hayworth's biggest boosters, served as honorary chair of Romney's Arizona campaign team in 2008, while Jason Rose, an advisor to Hayworth's Senate run, was Romney's state director.
On Tuesday, however, Romney had nothing but effusive praise for McCain, saying "I'm proud to call him my friend."
Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, Scott Brown support John McCain; what J.D. Hayworth supporters can do - 02/15/10
Sarah Palin, Dick Armey of Freedomworks (see the update), Grover Norquist, and newly-elected senator Scott Brown are all supporting John McCain in his Senate re-election bid. Meanwhile, Chris Simcox dropped out of the GOP nomination earlier today, and has endorsed McCain's strongest rival, JD Hayworth. The last is running as the True Conservative against the RINO McCain.
1. This is yet another example of how the tea parties types are useful idiots; all four of those first listed above are associated with that movement: Armey helped organize the major Washington DC protest, Norquist has helped organize other protests, Palin recently spoke at their convention, and Brown was elected in part due to their efforts. Yet, they're supporting a RINO whose loose border policies will lead to more spending and less power for those in the tea party base.
2. McCain is - as always - very vulnerable on the immigration issue. The problem is that few want to challenge him to his face and show how he's wrong, and those who do ask bad questions. If you'd like to reduce McCain's chances, follow the question authority plan and find a smart, experienced questioner who's familiar with immigration to really press him on immigration, then upload videos of the exchanges to video sharing sites. You have to follow the plan to the letter: the person who asks the questions has to be smart, experienced with "cross-examining" people, familiar with immigration matters, and has to ask the right questions.
For starting points, see our immigration questions for Republicans and our coverage of his former (?) advisor Juan Hernandez. I'm willing to help craft questions specific for McCain if anyone is willing to follow the plan above. If you are, leave comments here and on the front page until I notice you; I don't review every comment on this site so you'll need to leave a few.
UPDATE: In comments, Steve points out that Armey has released the following statement (freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/dick-armey-did-not-endorse-john-mccain):
The New York Times reported recently that FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey has endorsed Sen. John McCain in the GOP primary in Arizona. This is not the case, although this story has been picked up and repeated by countless media personalities and reporters around the country.
This seems to be a good case study in how false information can make its way around the internet and the airwaves before it can be corrected. But we wanted to post a quick statement for all of you who have asked us about this.
A clarification of his position would be appreciated; if he's not endorsing McCain does he still support him, or will he support the pro-borders Hayworth, or will not support anyone?
McCain still supports amnesty, says probably won't pass; Western Growers wants subsidized labor - 01/22/10
John McCain spoke to Western Growers on the 14th, at a meeting that he initiated (link). He still (of course) supports comprehensive immigration reform but he says it's not likely in 2010 due to it being an election year. He also said that passing AgJOBS is impossible to pass in 2010 as a standalone bill but only as a part of a CIR bill. And:
(Tom Nassif) said the Western Growers provided McCain with policy papers on the group’s concerns, including health care costs for seasonal workers and undocumented workers. Western Growers would prefer that part-time seasonal workers be exempt from insurance requirements... Currently, a majority of farm workers are not covered, he said... "How do you impose those costs on companies where they don’t have the financial wherewithal to do so?" Nassif said.
Part-time seasonal farm workers don't have the wherewithal to pay for their own healthcare at anything approaching the market rate, which means that Western Growers in effect wants subsidized labor in which some state entity would pick up their healthcare costs (in addition, of course, to all the other costs such as education).
This passage is from the new book Game Change by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann. Bear in mind that a John McCain spokeswoman denies that McCain ever said such a thing, and Lindsey Graham didn't repond to Ben Smith's request for comment :
[McCain aides John] Weaver and [Mark] Salter begged McCain to ease up. He was already the face of the Iraq surge. Now he was becoming the face of what opponents called “amnesty.” Just tone down the rhetoric, his advisers pleaded.
McCain refused. He was disgusted by republicans in Congress and talk radio gasbags such as rush Limbaugh who bashed immigrants. “They’re going to destroy the fucking party,” he would say.
As McCain’s town hall meetings devolved into shouting matches over immigration, the candidate let his frustration show through. He called Lindsey Graham in despair. Listen to these people, McCain said. Why would I want to be the leader of a party of such a**holes?
William Kristol has some advice for Sarah Palin here, and it's not only hilariously bad but it doesn't serve the national interest. Discussing the fact that John McCain is currently just barely beating JD Hayworth in the 2010 primary, he says:
Still, who could help McCain beat back a populist conservative challenger? Sarah Palin. I predict that Palin will come to Arizona next summer to campaign for McCain, will make an impassioned case for him, and will help him win. She will thereby repay McCain for his confidence in picking her last year, help keep McCain as a crucial voice in the Senate for a strong foreign policy, and get credit for being a different kind of populist conservative - a Reaganite, not a Buchananite, populist - than the immigration-obsessed, voter-alienating (he was ousted in 2006 in a Republican district) Hayworth.
1. McCain's fundamental concepts - mostly those involving immigration - would do harm to the U.S., and the GOP base knows it as can be seen by the fact that he's losing out to J.D. Hayworth. While Palin should be nice to him, going out of her way for him would make her look bad to the GOP base.
2. The idea that Hayworth losing indicated support for amnesty is a myth that Kristol and Fred Barnes - both of the Weekly Standard - were pushing back in 2006. That publication later seemed to backtrack. Kristol and those like him will basically say anything to support amnesty, even if it changes from time to time.
3. The idea that Palin should ignore immigration or be McCain-like is even worse than the rest. That and trade are the issues that separate the elite from those they rule, and by taking pro-American positions on both Palin - if she slightly moderated her fiscal positions - could gain broad support from Independents and even Democrats. And, by taking those pro-American positions she could help to some extent clean up DC. She would have to do it the right way, and - frankly - whether she's capable of doing that is a bit doubtful. Part of her effort would have to involve showing how the other side is wrong and doing it in a way that discredits the other side. That isn't that difficult, people just need to think things through and do the actual work.
Carly Fiorina supports massive skilled immigration ("There is no job that is America’s God-given right anymore") - 11/06/09
Former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina recently announced her candidacy as a Republican for senator from California; she's trying to unseat Barbara Boxer. While the latter is a highly worthy goal, she appears to be a globalist, profits-at-any-cost supporter of massive immigration at least of the skilled variety.
Barack Obama will be giving a healthcare speech on September 9, 2009 and either we'll be covering it live, or you will by leaving comments. If you'll be watching the speech, please leave a comment pointing out the things he's lied or misled about or the things he doesn't mention. A transcript of the speech will be posted here as soon as it's available.
UPDATE: You can watch this online at whitehouse.gov/live
I'm going to leave watching it up to you, please leave a comment.
"On the issue of the Hispanic voter, we have to do a lot more. We Republicans have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office... And I don't mean just because they're Hispanics, but they represent a big part of the growing population in America. And we have a lot of work to do there. And I am of the belief that unless we reverse the trend of Hispanic voter registration, we have a very, very deep hole that we've got to come out of."
The third sentence makes no sense: he wants them to be elected simply due to their race and in the hopes that undecideds will "vote their race". Which is exactly how the Democratic Party operates, except they're actually competent. Which means that - as pointed out many, many times here before - the Dems will always be able to undercut the GOP if they go further down the "vote your race" road. The Dem will always be more racially echt; the GOP will select someone who the Democrats will call a "Tio Taco"/"Uncle Tom". And, of course, by supporting massive immigration and race-based power, the GOP is digging their hole even deeper.
One way to deal with bad advice such as that offered by McCain is to help discredit the incompetent GOP consultant types who come up with such ideas, such as Mike Murphy.
John McCain not invited to Obama immigration "reform" confab on June 17; Obama not serious about "reform"? - 06/04/09
The White House has kept the guest list private, but invitees include, Sen. Chuck Schumer, who may introduce an immigration reform bill by the end of this year, as well as Reps. Xavier Becerra, the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, and John Conyers, the House Judiciary Committee chairman. Not invited: Sen. John McCain, who introduced an immigration bill with Sen. Edward Kennedy and played a central role in the debate in recent years...
[One senior GOP aide, whose boss had been involved in recent immigration debates] suggested the White House might be using the meeting as a "smokescreen to cover Obama’s campaign promise," giving proponents of immigration reform a symbolic victory, but not necessarily making a good-faith push to pass legislation.
"This is a show," the aide continued. “There’s neither the time nor the inclination to deal with immigration later this year and going into next year. It’s a political football. Why not highlight the perceived divide between Hispanics and Republicans? What better wedge issue than immigration?"
On Thursday, a group of putatively moderate Republicans will announce a new effort called "National Council for a New America". While they claim that they're non-partisan, it's clearly a GOP effort. And, the list of those involved that CNN has obtained (link) includes several supporters of comprehensive immigration reform.
John McCain calls for closing the Mexican border over swine flu, but only "if it would prevent further transmission" - 04/29/09
When even John McCain calls to close the Mexican border over the potential swine flu pandemic, you know it's serious. Except, he left himself an out indicating that he might just be blowing smoke (link):
"At the same time, many questions still remain, including the question of why the cases of the H1N1 influenza in Mexico appear to be more severe and deadly than the cases seen in the U.S. I continue to believe that all available options to end this crisis must remain under consideration, including closing the border if it would prevent further transmission of this deadly virus."
"Well, some of the 9-11 hijackers did come through Canada, as you know."
The Canadian ambassador corrected him as he had done with Napolitano:
"As the 9-11 Commission reported in July 2004, all of the 9-11 terrorists arrived in the U.S. from outside North America. They flew to major U.S. airports. They entered the U.S. with documents issued to them by the U.S. government. No 9-11 terrorists came from Canada."
"The current plan being developed by the administration and organized labor calls for immigration reform that does not adequately address either securing the border or a legal temporary worker program and is a plan I cannot support... We need to act on the pressing issue of border security now, and then seek comprehensive immigration legislation that includes a temporary worker program... Any legislation that does not address these two key components is not real reform."
Various union officials are quoted as strongly behind the plan, but the article also quotes an unnamed Democratic congressional aide:
"There will be some back and forth, to say the least, on the commission idea."
That commission would set future immigration levels; obviously, the Democratic Party's leaders want as many future voters as possible.
McCain lashes out over leading on immigration "reform" and not getting "Hispanic vote"; not a moment of clarity - 04/03/09
John McCain sounds angry and frustrated that, despite the risks he took in pushing immigration reform, Hispanic voters flocked to Democrat Barack Obama in last year's presidential contest. McCain's raw emotions burst forth recently as he heatedly told Hispanic business leaders that they should now look to Obama, not him, to take the lead on immigration.
What follows is he said, she said hearsay. Whatever he said and however he said it, don't worry: the GOP will be back to pandering in no time without realizing that no matter how much they pander, the Democrats can always undercut them simply by pandering more. The GOP leadership clearly doesn't have the brainpower to be able to figure that out.
UPDATE: Matt Corley of ThinkProgress offers "Report: ‘Angry’ McCain Referred To Hispanics As ‘You People’ During Outreach Meeting" (thinkprogress.org/2009/04/03/mccain-hispanics-you-people). He only concentrates on the low-hanging fruit: the contention that McCain was angry and his supposed use of "you people", which Corley implies is a racial insult despite that being beyond a stretch. That post also contains several racist comments, such as "Old White Man, it’s long past time to step aside, get on that golf cart with Pappa Bush and ride away... PEACE".
John Amato of Crooks and Liars concentrates on the same childish aspects and also makes this absurd claim: "[McCain] did push the Bush immigration deal, but you know it was just response to the anger many Latinos felt over Sensenbrenner's HOUSE bill." That refers to HR4473, and it's completely wrong: McCain is part true believer, part corrupt hack who does the bidding of corrupt businesses; what he supported wasn't a response to anything other than that.
Both posts are from lightweights in both knowledge of this issue and influence, but they do illustrate how the Dems will always be able to undercut Republicans on this issue, no matter how hard the GOP panders. The only way to beat the Dems at that game would be to be more Dem than the Dems, but someone wouldn't be a Republican if they went that far. The GOP needs to play a different game using a different set of rules, a set designed to undercut the Dems. Unfortunately, the GOP is too dumb and corrupt to do that.
UPDATE 2: Dianna Parker of Media Matters for America uses the article to continue their tradition of misleading about McCain's position on immigration, saying (mediamatters.org/items/200904060003):
Yet, despite repeatedly referring to how McCain "buck[ed] his party on immigration" prior to 2008, at no point did the article address McCain's flip-flop on immigration reform during the 2008 presidential campaign. As a candidate, McCain said he would vote against his own comprehensive immigration bill if it came to the Senate floor, arguing that border security must be addressed before any other reforms.
McCain's supposed flip-flop was just a sleazy tactic he was using to get "reform". The idea that he was turning his back on "reform" is absurd. Prior to the election, saying things like the above could have been a completely disingenuous tactic to get McCain to hurt himself with the GOP base even more by trying to force him to come out again and say that he did eventually want "reform". Now it's just completely disingenuous. And, like the rest, it shows that the GOP just can't win as Dem Lite on this issue.
* The drop in support among Latinos for Republicans between 2004 and 2008 was part of a broad-based electoral movement away from the GOP, and was hardly specific to that demographic group. McCain received only 57 percent of the white male vote, compared with 62 percent for Bush in 2004, and McCain’s 55 percent of regular churchgoers was significantly lower than Bush's 61 percent.
* Credible surveys indicate that the major policy concerns of Latinos were no different than the concerns of non-Latinos: The economy and jobs topped the list.
* There is little evidence that immigration policy was an influential factor in Latinos' choice between the two candidates once basic party predispositions are taken into account.
* McCain's consistent history of advocating a legalization program for illegal immigrants made no impression on Latino voters.
UPDATE: From the other side, the Immigration Policy Center has responded with some polling data linked from here:
The surveys they point to were performed by Frank Sharry's America's Voice, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, and others and may have been designed to show what those groups wanted them to show. The IPC fact sheet also doesn't address general election trends.
UPDATE 2: The CIS author responds to his critics here.
Juan Hernandez - former Mexican cabinet-level official who later worked with the John McCain campaign doing outreach to (U.S.) Hispanics - was interviewed by the Al Dia (owned by the Dallas Morning News) and said he'll be staying in Washington DC to lobby the Barack Obama campaign to pass comprehensive immigration reform, aka an amnesty. Hernandez is still a Senior Fellow of the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform Initiative" at the McCain-linked Reform Institute (reforminstitute.org/about/AboutHernandez.aspx), but it's not clear whether he'll be doing his lobbying through them or another group.
Hernandez... will reside in Washington during the next months trying to lobby for immigration reform during the administration of Barack Obama... "Obama has been very quiet regarding reform. When he is asked which are his priorities, he forgets to say immigration reform. And we are not going to let him forget", he said.
While I'm sure Obama would offer a very sympathetic ear, the question is what specifically Hernandez would bring to the table for Obama; the only thing would be more rightward leaning Hispanics and perhaps that might be enough. Note, of course, that there are dozens of leftwingers who believe in the same thing as Hernandez, such as administration member Cecilia Munoz.
The rest of the interview is just a longer version of his previous remarks; he adds in a bit more this time about the reason that McCain didn't push Hernandez' agenda harder having to do with mid-level staffers:
"McCain wanted [more pandering, more support for CIR]. Rick Davis wanted it. But when you arrived at the medium level of the campaign, the ones that operated the campaign, froze (the message)",
At the all-day, private GOP meeting at the Library of Congress, McCain told colleagues their poor image among Hispanics, which he attributed to bitter intra-party squabbles over immigration reform, dealt his campaign a devastating blow.Regarding the last, what I wrote about Mark McKinnon applies in this case also.
"He talked about his own race and the devastating loss of Hispanic voters and how that arose on the rhetoric on immigration," said a Senate Republican who attended the meeting.
A Republican senator who attended the meeting said that McCain emphasized the importance of healing the rift with Hispanics by talking about immigration reform in a "positive" way. McCain also discussed the importance of expanding the size of the party's tent by appealing to young voters.
"So we're not just the party of graying white men," said the lawmaker.
Regarding the rest, McCain was the candidate, not the rest of the GOP. He did his absolute best to pander, and no matter what he did, Barack Obama was able to undercut him. McCain spoke to the National Council of La Raza and pandered, but when Obama spoke to them he pandered even more. McCain vacillated between supporting comprehensive immigration reform and supporting "securing the borders first" and then pushing for "reform", with the latter as a slight sop to those who support our laws. Sources like Media Matters for America lied about that, pretending that he didn't support "reform".
No matter how bad McCain got, the Dems came back and were worse. One of the real lessons to be learned is that the GOP plan to import millions of future Democrats isn't such a bright idea after all. Another is not to give any position of power to a fool like McCain.