Finally, the great pro-America conservative Sarah Palin speaks—on immigration!

In an interview on Univision, the Spanish language TV station, Gov. Palin sticks—loyally and incoherently—to the McCain line on amnesty. So loyally that she implicitly echoes McCain’s damaging lie that the only alternative to deporting 12 million illegal aliens is to legalize all of them, or, she makes clear, almost all of them:

Governor, let me ask you about immigration. How many undocumented immigrants are there in Alaska?

I don’t know, I don’t know. That’s a good question.

As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?

There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant—there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants—not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?

No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. [Emphasis added.] You know, people have got to follow the rules. They’ve got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

So, people who have illegally entered and illegally remained in this country should be legalized and made citizens. Why? Because we sympathize with their desire to get the nice things they want to get here. Palin thus makes people’s feelings and desires—and not just any people’s feelings and desires, but the feelings and desires of illegal aliens—her highest guide in determining what America’s immigration and naturalization policy ought to be. She is, in short, a liberal.

From Shatter-the-Glass-Ceiling Sarah, to Take-Care-of-an Infant-Baby-while-Running-for-and-Serving-as-Vice-President-of-the-United-States Sarah, to Take-Your-Unmarried-Pregnant-Teen-age-Daughter-on-Your Vice-Presidential-Campaign-and-Display her-on-Stage-with-You-in-Every-State-of-the-Union Sarah, to Spread-Democracy-to-the-Whole-World Sarah, to Legalize-(Almost)-All-Illegal-Aliens-Because-it-Will-Make-Them-Feel-Good Sarah, it all seems to be of a piece, doesn’t it?

But none of this matters to the conservatives. All of this is just great with the conservatives—because (drum roll) Sarah is pro-America.

- end of initial entry -

Gintas writes:

Oh my, it’s that bad. Tomorrow we’ll find out that the moose she hunted was the Minuteman Moose.

QR writes:

Obama is so appalling that my resolve to vote Libertarian this time was wavering.

Not anymore. We’re Screwed ‘08 indeed.

Stephen T. writes:

Well any last reason to support McCain just went out the window. A big X-factor, Palin’s never-revealed views on amnesty, which many believed/hoped might follow some tough-minded, American culture-preserving line of thought, have just come out in an interview she did on the Hispanic network Univision tonight.

October 23

Terry Morris writes:

I honestly do not understand why anyone would be surprised by Palin’s view of immigration and amnesty. Personally I would have been shocked had she expressed an opposing view.

LA replies:

I don’t think anyone is surprised that she takes the same position as McCain; she’s his running mate, of course she takes the same position. But to see the way this tough, militaristic, aggressively “pro-America” gal expressed that position, the way she justified it, with no awareness of the issue other than “we have to let people in because they want to be here,” with no rhetorical space between her and McCain at all, with no nod to enforcement, with no mention of the possibility of attrition as an alternative to the deadly choice of “deportation or amnesty,” thus showing a total lack of prior thought by her on the subject (where was she during the national battles on comprehensive immigration reform in ‘06 and ‘07?), that was surprising and very significant. She was being interviewed by a Spanish language station; she had to know that immigration would come up and that her answers would be distributed nationally. Yet her replies did not contain the slightest hint to conservatives that she understands their concerns. Which suggests either that in her own thought process she really is 100 percent in agreement with McCain on the subject, with no space between her and him at all; or that she’s a mindless idiot with no awareness or knowledge of this huge national controversy, even after the great battle of ‘07.

Bill Carpenter writes:

This just illustrates the most appalling consequence of the 1965 Immigration Act. In our political community, everyone over 17 has the right to vote for president. Every vote can decide the direction of the federal government for the next for years. When we invited the world in 1965, we also invited it to join our political community and direct our government. If a few Mexican-American votes can be gained without losing European-American votes, the positioning pays off. What Inner Party Republicans never seem to grasp is how few Mexican-American votes are really there for the taking, and how many European-American votes are there to be lost by betraying principles of sovereignty and national culture.

Anne A. writes:

If anyone doubts the deficits of Sarah Palin, they are encapsulated in this example.You are giving me nightmares, since this team is the only realistic alternative to Obama-Biden. I cannot remember an election where so many are asking “how did this team happen”?

Elizabeth S. writes:

I think you’re reading too much into Palin’s answers. They are quite guarded; she didn’t say she opposes attrition through enforcement. She just stated the obvious that 12 million people can’t be whisked out of the country overnight. [LA replies: She was clearly implying, and more than implying, the standard false knee-jerk argument that’s been made a million times by amnesty supporters, that we can’t “deport” them all, and therefore we must legalize them.] She did talk about following the law. [LA replies: Boilerplate by which everyone on the amnesty side covers himself.] I think it’s compassionate to require families to reunify by applying for entry legally along with everyone else, or rejoin their families in whichever nation the families are living. She didn’t make any promises that humane treatment means they stay here. [LA replies: She clearly stated that there should be a “path to citizenship” (a misnomer, since the issue is not citizenship but permanent legal residency, that’s the Eldorado, not citizenship) for “not all” (i.e. almost all) illegals. What more do you need to understand that she was simply restating the basic McCain amnesty position?]

P.S.—This doesn’t mean I’m promoting McCain for Pres.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 22, 2008 11:07 PM | Send