Unexpected benefit for border control in absurdly early presidential race

Randall Parker at ParaPundit says that “while many U.S. senators work to get together an immigration amnesty, those running for president as Republicans are backpedaling.” He quotes Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies: “When the public opinion matters most is during elections. That’s why all the candidates tend to move toward enforcement and not talk so much about legalization.”

Right, and because of the insanely front-loaded presidential primaries in this election cycle, a schedule that, unlike in previous primary campaigns, requires candidates to raise all of their money before any primaries have even taken place, that is, by the start of 2008, the phrase “during elections” now means from the start of 2007. So a healthy concern about the people’s views is making itself felt in the current immigration debate in a way that might not have happened in the absence of 2008’s crazy primary system.

Also check out ParaPundit for the latest perspective on Iraq. The surge is not even working in Baghdad. Violence there is higher than ever. According to a news report:

In the first 11 days of this month, there have already been 234 bodies—men murdered by death squads—dumped around the capital, a dramatic rise from the 137 found in the same period of April.

About which Parker, a laconic, one-man Greek chorus to this tragedy, comments:

The U.S. would need a few hundred thousand more troops to get a handle on Iraq. That’s not going to happen.

Meanwhile the professional fantasists in the administration and in the “conservative” movement keep insisting that we can gain control over Iraq but that we cannot gain control over our own border.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 15, 2007 03:08 PM | Send