Should National Security "Bow to Reality?"

The old adage “don’t shoot the messenger” is nowhere more applicable than in the debate over the Bush-Kennedy amnesty for illegal aliens bill currently before Congress. Those who oppose President Bush’s “path to citizenship” (amnesty) for an estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens are branded as racists by Latino groups, as nativists lacking compassion, or as fear mongers by the president himself. Latino groups assume that all opposition to illegal immigration reform is directed solely at Mexicans, but that is ethnic vanity. They would like to believe the issue is all about them, but it not. Illegal immigration is illegal, whether the violator is Mexican, Canadian, German, or Tibetan. Of course, due to geographic proximity, the vast majority of illegal aliens are Mexican, but violators should not be allowed to profit from their illegal action simply because they violate in bulk.

The most effective media messenger thus far in the illegal alien immigration debate has been Ann Coulter. Of course, because Coulter is blunt and opposes the proposed “reform” legislation, she is portrayed by the liberal media as a radical hate monger. It is unfortunate that few seem capable of looking beyond Coulter’s biting sarcasm of past columns to discover the gems of logic in her most recent and quite astute assessment of the Bush-Kennedy bill.

Coulter’s column, “Importing a Slave Class,” unintentionally became a forceful rebuttal to comments made later in the day by Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. Let’s examine Chertoff’s statements, and then apply Coulter’s arguments to determine who makes a better case.

Chertoff, in an extensive interview with USA Today’s editorial board on May 23, made some comments that were extraordinary coming from the man charged with protecting homeland security. The most telling remark may have been his criticism of Bush-Kennedy bill opponents for demanding deportations that are “not going to happen.” There it was, in black and white print; Homeland Security throwing up its arms in surrender to 12-20 million lawbreakers and admitting they will not be deported, apparently regardless of whether the Bush-Kennedy bill passes. The following excerpt from USA Today’s report provides a sample of Chertoff’s embrace of amnesty:

Chertoff acknowledged that there is "a fundamental unfairness" in a bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave would be impossible, Chertoff said, "We are bowing to reality."

He dismissed the argument of Republican conservatives, such as Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., who argue that illegal immigrants will leave if strict enforcement of U.S. laws makes it impossible for them to find a job.

"You're not going to replace 12 million people who are doing the work they're currently doing," Chertoff said. "If they don't leave, then you are going to give them silent amnesty. You're either going to let them stay or you're going to be hypocritical."

Bilbray said his idea hasn't worked because "there's been a conscious strategy of not enforcing the law."

Chertoff, whose department has staged a number of recent raids that have resulted in mass roundups of illegal workers and sharp protests from religious groups, warned there will be more if the workers don't get a chance to become legal. "We're going to enforce the law," he said. "People all around the country will be seeing teary-eyed children whose parents are going to be deported."

There is a lot in that excerpt to turn one’s stomach, but I will begin with the white flag attitude that deportation is impossible. No one asked Chertoff to deport all 12-20 million illegal aliens overnight, but his response is very clear; if you can’t deport them all, why try to deport any? Remembering that Coulter wrote her column before Chertoff’s interview, here is Coulter’s rebuttal to the notion that deportation is impossible:

…The jejune fact that we "can't deport them all" is supposed to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that we must grant amnesty to illegal aliens – and fast!

I'm astounded that debate has sunk so low that I need to type the following words, but: No law is ever enforced 100 percent.

We can't catch all rapists, so why not grant amnesty to rapists? Surely no one wants thousands of rapists living in the shadows! How about discrimination laws? Insider trading laws? Do you expect Bush to round up everyone who goes over the speed limit? Of course we can't do that. We can't even catch all murderers. What we need is "comprehensive murder reform." It's not "amnesty" – we'll ask them to pay a small fine.

If it's "impossible" to deport illegal aliens, how did we come to have so much specific information about them? I keep hearing they are Catholic, pro-life, hardworking, just dying to become American citizens and will take jobs other Americans won't. Someone must have talked to them to gather all this information. Let's find that guy – he must know where they are!

…If the 12-million figure is an extrapolation based on the number of illegal immigrants in public schools or emergency rooms and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood, then shouldn't we be looking for them at schools and hospitals and well-manicured lawns in Brentwood?

There are a lot of well-manicured lawns in the Metropolitan Washington DC area too, but I am SURE that has no bearing on the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill debate.

I keep hearing President Bush and others claim that this is our best chance for reform, or something similar, but Americans should not accept the “either/or” choice placed before them. Coulter’s point is valid; No one is demanding 100% deportation or overnight deportation. For that matter, everyone hopes for but few expect Homeland Security to identify and catch 100% of the terrorists in America. Americans do, however, expect a 100% effort to do so, and should demand the resignation of anyone who considers less than 100% effort to be acceptable. What Americans have wanted all along is an honest, adequately funded, and consistently applied effort to enforce the illegal immigration laws already in place. What Americans did not request was for someone in Washington to unilaterally decide that it was not in America’s best interest to actually enforce immigration laws. That decision is not Chertoff’s to make, nor is it the president’s responsibility to interfere with a law enforcement function. Does America want a Homeland Security Secretary who thinks his tasks are impossible? Should Homeland Security be in the business of “bowing to reality” or creating reality through determined application of the law?

The number has reached 12-20 million precisely because the government has not enforced existing laws. The goal of law enforcement is often as much to produce societal deterrence as it is to punish individual offenders. By granting previous amnesty (1986) and then not enforcing existing laws, no deterrent was ever applied and now officials like Chertoff are unwilling even to try enforcement. Instead of rolling up his shirtsleeves and going to work, Chertoff wants to roll up his shirtsleeves and wash his hands of that 12-20 million figure.

It has been claimed that there is not enough money to hire additional Customs, Border Patrol, or Immigration and Citizenship personnel to handle any large scale deportation effort. Yet Chertoff is convinced that he could secure additional funds and staff to handle performing 12-20 million background checks in a gradual process to legalize (amnesty) the illegals he claims it impossible to deport. Hugh Hewitt recently interviewed Chertoff and the Homeland Security Secretary made it quite clear that while he is willing to gradually legalize illegal aliens, he will not consider gradually deporting those same aliens:

HH: I know it’s a little more prosaic what I’m getting to, Mr. Secretary, which is you’ve got 12 million applications.

MC: Right.

HH: Who’s physically going to pick them up and handle them? Which department’s going to do that?

MC: We’re going to use…DHS will collect the applications, collect the fingerprints. The process of background checking then will occur in cooperation with the FBI and its databases, our databases, and all the databases that are currently kept in the terrorist screening center.

HH: And have you allocated staff time? I mean, an 11 million, if it’s on the low end, 12 million investigations, 12 million interviews, have you got an analysis of where that’s going to funnel to, and who’s actually going to do that work, because from my time in the government as deputy director of OPM running the securities investigation, it takes days to do a decent investigation, and this is all going to hit at once. I don’t know where the people are.

MC: Well, it’s not going to hit at once. It will hit over a period of time, because there will be an enrollment period. And as I know you know, Hugh, obviously, we’re not going to be doing background checks of the kind that you do for a top security clearance. What we’re going to be doing is running fingerprints and names against various databases, which is a process we currently use, for example, in screening people who get visas to come into the country for all kinds of purposes. So we already do millions of these through our existing processes. There’s no question we’re going to need money to increase the staff and the capability for these 12 million. But I want to put it in perspective by saying that we process 80 million air travelers every year coming through our airports, so we already deal with a very large volume of people that we are screening to let them come into the country legally.

It is incredible that the head of Homeland Security would ask for additional funding and staff to help streamline the legalization process but adopts a “bowing to reality” posture when it comes to enforcement of current laws. Chertoff attempted to cast the debate in compassionate terms, citing examples of federal raids that resulted in a press conference, some token arrests, and news coverage of crying children. Americans should reject this clouding of the issue. Raids and deportations are rare, not because of the negative press or crying children, but for reasons Ann Coulter captured most effectively:

The people who make arguments about "jobs Americans won't do" are never in a line of work where unskilled immigrants can compete with them. Liberals love to strike generous, humanitarian poses with other people's lives.

Something tells me the immigration debate would be different if we were importing millions of politicians or Hollywood agents. You lose your job, while I keep my job at the Endeavor agency, my Senate seat, my professorship, my editorial position or my presidency. (And I get a maid!)

The only beneficiaries of these famed hardworking immigrants – unlike you lazy Americans – are the wealthy, who want the cheap labor while making the rest of us chip in for the immigrants' schooling, food and health care.

These great lovers of the downtrodden – the downtrodden trimming their hedges – pretend to believe that their gardeners' children will be graduating from Harvard and curing cancer someday, but 1) they don't believe that; and 2) if it happened, they'd lose their gardeners.

The Bush administration is busy casting verbal stones at those who oppose the current immigration “reform” bill, but there should be no surprise that Americans are angered by the proposed legislation. The federal government has proven unwilling to enforce existing laws for decades, but now a new bill with new laws will magically be enforced and seal up our borders? Rather than granting amnesty, government should work to earn our trust by securing America’s borders, not just the one with Mexico, and then enforcing laws already in place. “Sanctuary cities” became sanctuaries because local law enforcement encountered illegal aliens, reported them to INS-CBP-ICE, and then waited eternally for a response or sign of interest in taking custody of the alien. When those agencies demonstrated no effort to take immigration status seriously, local governments adopted the same stance.

Illegal immigration, like Iraq, is a difficult national security situation. The president refuses to “cut and run” in Iraq, but amnesty would be to illegal immigration what surrender in defeat would be to Iraq. America can afford neither.

Ann Coulter's CPAC Remark: Room in Politics for "Loving the Sinner, but not the Sin?"

Is it possible in today’s instant-media politics to “love the sinner but not the sin?” At what point does a person’s worth become synonymous with his/her actions or words, especially if those actions or words become a political liability for anyone considered a friend or supporter? In today’s politics it seems that members of both political parties routinely rush to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater whenever someone speaks frankly but perhaps with little tact. Influential organizations, with media complicity, demand that politicians not only distance themselves from “inflammatory” or “intolerant” statements made by others, but they are further urged to personally condemn or malign the person who made the comments. In effect, political correctness today demands nothing less than a complete shunning of anyone whose friendship or support could be viewed as political baggage. Ambition trumps friendship, and popularity eschews loyalty.

Recent examples of this phenomenon illustrate the political danger presidential candidates face when someone they know and have publicly associated with does or says something controversial. Their perceived risk of being associated with a controversial figure or policy position almost immediately results in the candidates’ lemming-like dash to jump into the abyss of political correctness to preserve their popularity and appeal.

Unfortunately Ann Coulter placed several 2008 Republican presidential candidates in an awkward position with her controversial remarks at the 34th annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Friday. The candidates’ political views and personalities were overshadowed by the media focus on one sentence uttered by Coulter and the efforts of top Republican 2008 presidential contenders Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and Senator John McCain to distance themselves from her remark. If you missed it, during her speech to CPAC Coulter made the following comment:

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, but it turns out you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I — so kind of an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards.

Clearly, Ann Coulter has a low opinion of Senator John Edwards, but the number of Republicans (and many Democrats as well) who hold similarly low opinions of Senator Edwards is legion. Coulter expressed her sentiment in a forceful manner, leaving no doubt about her disdain for Senator Edwards as a politician and as a person. One could reasonably question her judgment in using a term that has been ascribed only one possible meaning in today’s politically correct climate. It can also be reasonably assumed that she intentionally used the term on such an austere occasion to gain publicity, as the analysis by Right Wing News convincingly argues in the post titled, “Ann Coulter's Juvenile Comment at CPAC.”

Coulter, in manner ironically similar to John Kerry after his derogatory comments toward the intelligence of U.S. Military personnel, explained that her remark was an attempt at humor, or in Kerry’s words, “a botched joke.” When asked about criticism of her comment, Coulter stated, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”

Traditional liberal media outlets, including the Washington Post, who defended Senator Kerry by immediately labeling his insult to U.S. troops in Iraq as nothing more than a botched joke, did not offer similar protective coverage to Ann Coulter in this incident. There were no headlines in the Post softening Coulter’s image with blind acceptance of her Kerry-esque “it was a joke” explanation. On the contrary, she was universally condemned by the liberal media, and also by the leading Republican 2008 presidential candidates.

The following are the reactions of each candidate to Coulter’s remark as reported by the New York Times and Fox News, respectively:

Rudy Giuliani- “The comments were completely inappropriate and there should be no place for such name-calling in political debate.”

Mitt Romney- (via a spokesperson) “It was an offensive remark. Governor Romney believes all people should be treated with dignity and respect.”

Senator McCain- “Wildly inappropriate.”

The larger question raised by the Coulter flap is: what is the appropriate long-term response when someone who supports you does or says something controversial? Should Mitt Romney follow the advice of the liberal critics who demand that he refuse Coulter’s campaign support? The difficulty with this situation is that Coulter, though acerbic in delivery, happens to wield the most sarcastic pen in political punditry, and often provides valuable insight and political analysis couched in phrases no candidate or current office holder would dare to utter. Her remark about Edwards was inappropriate, particularly in a forum of candidates carrying the banner of the Republican Party. Yet as ill-advised as her attempt at humor was, it does not necessarily invalidate all of her past and future political analyses.

By nature politics is a controversial business. One cannot take a position without being excoriated by those holding opposing ideas, even if those opponents are in one’s own party. Should all Republican candidates shun Coulter for one sentence in one speech? The Clintons were wise to remain loyal to James Carville and others within their party who spoke bluntly and controversially in much the same fashion as Coulter. Much of the Clintons’ electoral success can be directly attributed to Carville’s strategies, demonstrating that even “flame throwers” have value beyond their publicity stunts.

Politics as a profession leaves little room for repentance, rehabilitation, or forgiveness, and the media appears determined to punish any candidate who gives any appearance of friendship with Coulter. Attempts by the media to link the candidates personally to Coulter began almost immediately, as the New York Times placed the following sentence directly beneath Coulter’s sarcastic explanation of her intended joke: “At the conference, she said she was likely to support Mr. Romney.”

Apparently the liberal media took notice that Romney won the CPAC straw poll and may be emerging as the preferred candidate among conservative Republicans. Liberal bloggers adopted the strategy of creating the impression that since Coulter officially endorsed Romney, he should be smeared with the stain of her allegedly anti-gay comment. The most egregious misrepresentation of Romney’s Coulter connection can be found on the highly popular liberal blog The Daily Kos in the post titled “Coulter and the Candidates.” Daily Kos contributor MissLaura portrayed the incident as follows:

One of the conservatives whose support Romney drew, of course, was Ann Coulter. The two spent some quality time together before she went onstage to call John Edwards a "faggot."

Can we therefore expect him to refuse to be further associated with someone like Ann Coulter, whose entire career as a prominent conservative is based on the notion that people who disagree with her should be treated with contempt, disrespect, and vituperation?

I'll be looking for him to refuse her support of his candidacy just any minute now.

Thus, according to “tolerant” liberals and Republicans infected with political correctness, if one makes a controversial comment, regardless of intent, that person should be jettisoned permanently. The comments submitted to this Daily Kos post were likewise illustrative of the true nature of liberal tolerance. Readers were outraged by the above photo of Romney backstage PRIOR to Coulter’s speech. Romney was vilified by one reader for “flashing his most cordial smile” at Coulter, as if civility and personal kindness should never be directed toward those with whom one disagrees.

To the right you will see a photo of Nancy Pelosi “flashing her most cordial smile” at President Bush despite having said this of him in 2004: “Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader. He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.” Hillary Clinton, in another flashed a very cordial smile to Vice President Cheney prior to taking her oath of office in the U.S. Senate, all while the very friendly Bill Clinton had his hand on the Vice President’s shoulder. These types of photos indicate nothing about the beliefs and policy views of the persons in the photos, they merely demonstrate that snubbing people and burning bridges win few friends and minimal influence in politics. I suppose the tolerant liberal approach to standing next to someone backstage in a green room must consist of glares, the silent treatment, or refusals to stand next to someone with differing views. Romney was obviously being gracious with a well known media figure, and there is nothing substantive to indicate any more or less than this, especially from one photograph.

For liberals, tolerance appears to be a precious commodity only extended to those who agree with them. The comparison between the media treatment of John Kerry and Ann Coulter does not excuse or defend Coulter’s remark, which was truly juvenile, but it does expand on what Hugh Hewitt wrote about this incident. Hugh rightly pointed out that both the Democratic and Republican parties have individuals who embarrass them and Republicans should use caution in using past liberal behavior to justify present conservative missteps like Coulter’s. Hugh stops there, but the difference is that Republicans tend to shun or officially censure those within their ranks who embarrass the party through their behavior or words, as Coulter did at CPAC. Democrats, as in the case of John Kerry’s repeated insults to troops recently and in 1971, or Speaker Pelosi’s personal attacks of the President’s intellect and competence, seem to reward controversial behavior with high office and unwavering support. Hugh Hewitt makes an excellent point by reminding Republicans that they should seek to rise above the standard set by the other party and expect more dignity from its members.

The Republican reaction to Coulter should be sincere and hopefully will send a message that John Edwards’ political views provide sufficient fodder for reasoned, analytical refutation without resorting to personal attacks. While Republican candidates should make it clear that epithets are discouraged, they should likewise not close the door completely on Coulter’s other, more civilized contributions to political discourse. If every public figure, whether in politics, entertainment, sports, or the media, were to be permanently shunned for one lapse of judgment or poor choice of words, few in these fields today would survive the scrutiny. Forgiveness is perhaps the rarest of all human gifts, but is the one commodity that should be meted out, no pun intended, liberally.