We don’t have to discuss what McCain plans to do on immigration—we already know

A reader writes

McCain is really telling us he’s for amnesty.

The reader references an item by Kathryn Jean Lopez, who quotes McCain speaking at something called NALEO. (Lopez doesn’t say what NALEO means, but a Google search reveals it means the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. I eagerly look forward to McCain’s upcoming address to NAWEO, the National Association of White Elected and Appointed Officials.)

McCain told the assembled Hispanics:

I and many other colleagues twice attempted to pass comprehensive immigration legislation to fix our broken borders; ensure respect for the laws of this country; recognize the important economic necessity of immigrant laborers; apprehend those who came here illegally to commit crimes; and deal practically and humanely with those who came here, as my distant ancestors did, to build a better, safer life for their families, without excusing the fact they came here illegally or granting them privileges before those who did. Many Americans, with good cause, did not believe us when we said we would secure our borders, and so we failed in our efforts. We must prove to them that we can and will secure our borders first, while respecting the dignity and rights of citizens and legal residents of the United States. But we must not make the mistake of thinking that our responsibility to meet this challenge will end with that accomplishment. We have economic and humanitarian responsibilities as well, and they require no less dedication from us in meeting them.

“[W]e have … humanitarian responsibilities [that] require no less dedication [than securing the border].” This seems a rather vague and ambiguous way of letting on that he’s devoted to immediate amnesty: So why should we even bother noticing the quote, given that McCain has previously made a much clearer and stronger statement of his commitment to immediate amnesty? Addressing a business roundtable in California last month, he said:

I believe we have to secure our borders, and I think most Americans agree with that, because it’s a matter of national security. But we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.

For clarity’s sake, let’s repeat the key passage without the intermediate phrases:

[W]e must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item … as of January 2009.

Meaning he will be push for comprehensive reform including amnesty the moment he takes office. For him to say this, after having resuscitated his presidential campaign and won the GOP nomination on the basis of his repeated solemn statement—made throughout the primary season in speeches and broadcast ads in many primary states—that he had given up his previous hard-line demand for immediate comprehensive reform and would instead secure the borders before seeking comprehensive reform, makes him the biggest liar ever in American presidential politics, with the possible exception of Barack Obama.

Notice also McCain’s braggadocio about his “straight talk.” But if his renewed commitment to putting amnesty at the top of his agenda is “straight talk,” then what he was repeatedly and solemnly declaring for the previous ten months was not.

Since McCain has shown with absolute clarity that his “security first” pledge was a lie, why should we bother talking about less clear indications by him that it was a lie?

Even today, various pundits keep asking whether McCain will keep his security-first promise. By treating the matter as unsettled, they are concealing from the public the truth that McCain has already broken it.

Our job is not to wonder what the open-borders Napoleon will do. Our job (assuming he is elected) is to stop him.

- end of initial entry -

Robert in Nashville writes:

After reading your post about McCain, I came across Sunday’s story in the Nashville Tennessean. Last year, after the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill went down in defeat, he said, “OK, we’ll build the damn fence—first.” Now that he has the nomination locked up, that’s all history. Sunday’s paper noted his response to the question whether “comprehensive immigration reform, not just enforcement, would be a top priority in his first 100 days in office?”

At last free to resume saying what he felt, he announced, “It will be my top priority yesterday, today and tomorrow…we must understand that twelve million people are here and they are here illegally, and they are God’s children.”

I don’ t think this is just pandering, its much worse, he deeply believes it.

How can a candidate even be allowed to run for office when he announces that if elected, he will refuse to honor his duty to protect the nation against invasion and instead, announces that he will open up the borders to third world inundation and colonization? Truly, McCain not only does not want to preserve our nation- a land and a people, he is dedicated to its dissolution—yesterday, today and tomorrow.

God help us all.

Gary Moe writes:

The “money quote” here is “we have economic and humanitarian responsibilities as well.” Holy cow. What McCain is suggesting is that we have some kind of open-ended obligation to take people into our country based on their unfortunate circumstances, not whether it benefits our own citizens. Given that the majority of the world’s people are poor, I wonder how many McCain would have us take in?

I was talking with my wife about this subject the other day, and explained how I see our country’s approach to immigration as follows. When we were in high school (many years ago), there was always one exceptionally beautiful girl who would sleep with any guy that would give her the time of day. And people would talk about it, asking themselves and each other, “What is wrong with her? Why is she doing that? She must have a screw loose.” We are like that good-looking young woman, who doesn’t get it that she can and should be more picky about the company she keeps, and while she’s at it keep her knees together. The fact that we don’t, demonstrates to me that our elected leaders are a bunch of neurotics with some very self-destructive tendencies.

LA replies:

In one of Gurdjieff’s books (I think it was Beelzebub’s Tales to his Grandson, which I haven’t looked at since I was in my early 20s), he has a discussion on the mentality of Europeans as compared to Easterners. He says that Europeans are not developed in their emotional center, but are excessively centered in their intellectual center, and as a result they are incomplete, neurotic, and unsure of themselves. I think he even compared them to a dog that has been starved for affection. As a result, they respond overly eagerly to the slightest sign of kindness from others, are too eager to please others, and so on. The spectacular over-eagerness of modern white Westerners to court the favor of nonwhites would seem to be an extreme example of the neurosis Gurdjieff was describing

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 29, 2008 03:56 PM | Send