(Washington Times) Fighting to curry favor with Florida’s large pool of Hispanic voters, Newt Gingrich on Wednesday called for a guest-worker program for most illegal immigrants, but his campaign could not say whether those people would be on a path to citizenship – the key question in the immigration debate.

Under close questioning by Univision’s political host, Jorge Ramos, Mr. Gingrich said he would grant quick citizenship rights to illegal immigrants who join the military or to those who have been in the U.S. between 20 and 25 years. He said the rest of the estimated 11 million should be given access to a guest-worker program.

“With most of them? I would urge them to get a guest-worker permit,” he said, calling for a substantial rewrite of immigration laws that would cancel existing penalties and instead let illegal immigrants stay.

But his campaign said it was unclear whether at the end of that guest-worker period the immigrants would be allowed to stay and gain citizenship, essentially jumping the legal immigration line, or whether they would be required to return home.

On one hand, Gingrich is correct in that he previously said that it is unrealistic to deport every illegal, nor stop them fully from coming, and, yes, we could show some compassion to those who came to this country and attempted to be a part of America and do things like joining the military. It’s not like people didn’t just come to America in the past, without any sort of immigration programs and such. If someone is putting their life on the line to join the military to protect America, perhaps some accommodations could be made.

On the other hand, why pander to Hispanics who can’t vote because they are here illegally? Why pander to Hispanics who are here legally, but still can’t vote because they aren’t citizens? And a good chunk of Hispanics who are legal citizens tend to get a little ticked off when politicians want to give illegals who did it wrong a pathway to citizenship when they themselves followed the onerous and burdensome rules.

Do we want guest workers? Yes, we do. But it is a bad idea to suddenly give people who came to this country illegally guest worker visas after doing the illegal thing with no penalties. Let them leave the country and apply for a worker program that should be expanded. What Gingrich is doing is telling people who are thinking of coming to America illegally to just come on in, no problem, we’ll take care of you. He might want to rethink this line of thought.

(Washington Times) Mitt Romney collected the endorsements Wednesday of the architect of Arizona’s immigration-crackdown law, marking the final step on a journey that has taken him from lukewarm support of legalization to the Republican presidential field’s most ardent opponent of amnesty.

And with Mr. Romney inching closer to wrapping up the GOP’s nomination, it sets up what would be the strongest contrast ever between the two major parties’ candidates on immigration.

“Romney stands head and shoulders above the crowd,” Kris W. Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state and the architect of the Arizona law, told The Washington Times, praising Mr. Romney for treading where other Republican candidates have refused to go. “Immigration is one of those issues that will appear to be a hot button — some elected officials who are afraid of offending anyone will avoid taking tough stands on immigration, and he took a tough stand.”

With all due respect, standing head and shoulders above this crowd is not saying much. They all have a mixed record on the subject.

• Newt has been decidedly squishy on deportations (though, he does make sense in the real world: is it truly feasible to deport the 11-20 million illegals, some of whom actually attempt to be a part of the American experience?)
• Ron Paul is against deportation and the border fence, was pro-amnesty prior to the mid-1990’s
• Perry has a mixed record, becomes inarticulate on the campaign trail, signed legislation allowing in-state tuition for illegals, and called people “heartless” for not wanting to give cheap education to illegals.
• Santorum has been pretty strong on immigration, and is probably one of the best left in the race.
• Jon Huntsman has had a mixed bag. He’s said the border fence “repulses him” and vetoed legislation which would end in-state tuition for illegals. He does want to secure the border with manpower, and is heavily in favor of using E-Verify.

Then there is Romney.

• Good: Pro-fence
• Good: Against amnesty
• Good: For increasing legal immigration
• Bad: not a big fan of deportations, would rather illegals apply for legal status
• Good: won’t let illegals applying for legal status jump to front of line
• Good: signed an executive order that would have allowed state police officers to make arrests for immigration violations
• Good: Opposed the 2007 shamnesty bill
• Good: opposes the DREAM Act
• Bad: didn’t shut down the sanctuary cities when he was Governor
• Good: wants States to be more involved in crafting legislation to deal with their own illegal aliens
• Good: Pro use of E-Verify
• Good: against all amnesty legislation

That’s actually a pretty decent record and policy stance. We’ll soon see if this crops up on the trail in South Carolina.

“He has held the line 100 percent on this amnesty stuff,” said Roy Beck, executive director of NumbersUSA, which grades the candidates on the issue.

Well, not that much. NumbersUSA grades Mitt a C+. Everyone else gets some form of a D, and Ron Paul gets an F, one step up from Obama’s F-.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(CBS’s Sharyl Attkisson)ATF officials didn’t intend to publicly disclose their own role in letting Mexican cartels obtain the weapons, but emails show they discussed using the sales, including sales encouraged by ATF, to justify a new gun regulation called “Demand Letter 3?. That would require some U.S. gun shops to report the sale of multiple rifles or “long guns.” Demand Letter 3 was so named because it would be the third ATF program demanding gun dealers report tracing information.

On July 14, 2010 after ATF headquarters in Washington D.C. received an update on Fast and Furious, ATF Field Ops Assistant Director Mark Chait emailed Bill Newell, ATF’s Phoenix Special Agent in Charge of Fast and Furious:

“Bill – can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same (licensed gun dealer) and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks.”

On Jan. 4, 2011, as ATF prepared a press conference to announce arrests in Fast and Furious, Newell saw it as “(A)nother time to address Multiple Sale on Long Guns issue.” And a day after the press conference, Chait emailed Newell: “Bill–well done yesterday… (I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.”

One thing to note, the gun control being pushed here was not about the typical Liberal bugaboos, assault rifles (which are any rifle that looks scary) and handguns. That said, this is really the first confirmation that Los Federales wanted to use the operation to enact some controls on long gun sales because they and the other federal agencies were forcing gun shop owners to sell them multiple long guns which they then let walk across the Mexican border without alerting the Mexican government, and then said guns were used to kill lots of people, including a US Border Agent, Brian Terry.

Every day we seem to get more revelations about Fast and Furious and Operation Gunwalker. Eric Holder gets to talk to Congress again today. Just think back to the Bush years: the Democrats and their MSM supporters would be calling for Bush’s impeachment by this point.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

(Washington Times) House Republicans are moving to subpoena a list of all immigrants whom the Obama administration has flagged under its secure communities program but failed to arrest for deportation, after the Homeland Security Department missed a congressionally imposed deadline to produce the information this week.

The Obama administration failing to be transparent and provide the requested information? Shocking!

Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, said he wants the data so he can see who is among the 300,000 people the administration has deemed too low a priority to detain under new deportation guidelines. He has scheduled a meeting for Wednesday for the immigration subcommittee to vote to authorize the subpoena.

“Why would DHS want to keep this information from the committee?” Mr. Smith will say at the meeting, according to an advance copy of his statement. “If there is nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they provide Congress with these documents? Are administration officials concerned that the requested information will show that illegal and criminal immigrants intentionally released by ICE have gone on to commit more crimes?”

The very fact that an Executive Office department is failing to deport people who are in the United States against the law should, really, be enough to remove those in charge, which, yes, includes Mr. Obama. They are charged with upholding the Constitution and laws of the USA. The oath of office does not give them latitude to pick and choose which laws they will uphold.

While the Homeland Security Department has set records for total deportations, it has shifted its emphasis away from rank-and-file illegal immigrants and toward those with serious criminal records or repeat immigration-law violators. Of the nearly 400,000 people deported in fiscal year 2011, 216,000 had criminal records.

As a result of the shift, though, illegal immigrants who are working or going to school in the U.S. and not running afoul of other criminal laws are under less of a threat of deportation.

You do, in fact, have to give Obama credit for increasing the deportation rates, and, yes, going after the companies that hire them. All very quietly done, so as not to annoy his open borders base. But, illegal is illegal: if Los Federales know where an illegal is, that person should be deported, criminal record or no criminal record. They broke the law.

When is a national park not a national park? When it is “themed” toward one small segment of the population by a government infected with PCism. That is what U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar did when he advocated recently for “Latino” themed national parks and historical landmarks.

One might ask if Salazar is Interior Secretary of the right country with such a suggestion?

To carry through with his penchant for identity politics, Salazar has also pushed the National Parks Service to forget about those evil dead white guys and try to find more places for our historic landmarks that are associated with women and minorities.

Less than 3 percent of all the national landmarks that we have the highest designation you can receive as a historic landmark are designated for women, Latinos, African Americans or other members of minority groups, Salazar said in a meeting with reporters last week. That tells you that the score is not even.

The timing for this story is, of course, suspect. Just when Obama is launching a new campaign for president, here comes his Interior Secretary pandering to Hispanics and minorities.

Imagine that.

So, what is one of the first new minority themed areas Salazar is ballyhooing? A paean to unions with a Cesar Chavez historic landmark.

To continue the left’s efforts to Balkanize the United States, Salazar will preside over the construction of a National Museum of the American Latino. Reports are that the project would cost $600 million. But you know darn well that the final tally will be double that — at least — due to the common waste, cost overruns, union skullduggery, and government failures.

This is just one more example of the left’s desire to separate Americans one from another and to make us hate our collective history and set us against each other.

Tougher than Arizona’s, Alabama’s new immigration law is a perfect example of the best way to put limits on illegal immigration. Sadly these are laws being forced upon the states to implement instead of coming from the federal government, but regardless they are effective in limiting illegals.

The Mobile Press-Register has a story sort of crying that Mexican oriented businesses in Alabama are suffering under the state’s new laws. These businesses have lost half — or perhaps as much as 75% in some estimations — of their customer base. Where have they gone? These customers are either moving back to Mexico or to other states and are doing so to avoid the tougher laws holding them to account in Alabama for their criminal trespass upon this country.

The Press-Register provides the stories of several businesses started in Alabama by Mexicans catering to Mexican immigrants. The businesses are on the verge of collapse because their illegal immigrant clientele have left the area.

Local illegals are fleeing in greater numbers lately, too, because last week a federal judge upheld Alabama’s new laws.

The story also highlighted a major cultural problem. Not a Mexican cultural problem, but an American one. It seems that some of these flailing businesses are expecting Obama to help them out.

Margarita Iniguez, who speaks little English, asked through her daughter whether the federal government would help businesses like hers.

Notice the problem, here? It is assumed that Obama is willing to help illegals that don’t speak English instead of Americans.

But the success here is that the tougher laws are causing these illegals to flee. Some went back to Mexico — a good thing — but others just moved to a state with more lax laws — something that should be rectified. The lesson here is, make the laws tougher and the illegals will leave. If immigration laws in every state and the federal government went this direction, we’d have a far less troublesome situation with illegal immigration.

If our laws were duly enforced, only those seriously interested in becoming real Americans would come here and brave the laws.

Now, am I gleeful to see businesses go under? Not at all. However, if these people are good businessmen they will thrive by changing their focus.

Let’s face it, government has no role in making sure businesses survive a changing clientele or an evolving market. If these businesses lose their illegal customer base, then it’s adapt or die off. And that is how it should be. Government has no role to make sure these increasingly unnecessary businesses stay in business. It’s the way the market works.

It’s that well known concept of “creative destruction” in the flesh in Alabama. On top of that, it’s a perfect example of how to put the breaks on illegal immigration. What’s not to like?

(Fox News) After suing Arizona and Alabama over their strict immigration laws, the Obama administration is seriously weighing whether to legally challenge similar measures in four other states.

“To the extent we find state laws that interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration law, we are prepared to bring suit,” said Justice Department spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa. “The department is currently reviewing immigration-related laws that were passed in Utah, Indiana, Georgia and South Carolina.”

“In reviewing these, the department is proceeding consistently with the process followed and the legal principles established in United States v. Arizona,” she said. “Based on that review and applying those principles, the United States will decide whether and when to bring suit challenging particular state laws.”

Wonderful. People are sick and tired of the federal government failing to enforce the laws of the land in respect to illegal aliens, which includes those who have overstayed their visas, not just sneaking into the country from nations all over the world, yet, Team Obama plans to bring more suits. This may play well with his unhinged base (which doesn’t realize that the illegals are taking their jobs), but their is not data showing that this increases the likelyhood that US citizens of Hispanic descent will vote Democrat

Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees federal immigration policy, criticized the administration’s move.

“The administration should be working with states, not against them, to enforce our immigration laws,” he said. “This latest attempt to challenge a state’s efforts to enforce the rule of law, while turning a blind eye to cities and states that knowingly harbor illegal immigrants through sanctuary policies, is undermining the very same rule of law that our country was built on.”

Yeah, but in Democrat World, the Law is politics, and can be ignored for potential votes.

Washington (CNSNews.com) — Cecilia Munoz, the White House director of intergovernmental affairs, compared the federal crime of being in the country illegally to jaywalking.

“If you were running the police department of any urban area in this country, you would spend more resources going after serious criminals than after jaywalkers. DHS (the Department of Homeland Security) is doing the immigration equivalent of the same thing,” Munoz told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) conference on Monday.

Munoz was referring to the administration’s new policy of “prosecutorial discretion,” outlined in a June memo from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which falls under DHS.

Under the new policy, immigration officials will prioritize deportation orders, acting only on those involving people convicted of serious crimes or those who pose a national security or public safety threat.

The memo also directs ICE agents to consider how long an individual has been in the U.S., whether that person has a spouse or children who are U.S. citizens, and whether that person has a serious criminal record. Crimes victims, witnesses to crimes, or people who are charged with minor traffic violations, would avoid deportation under the ICE guidance.

Interestingly, the Obama administration had been, quietly, doing a pretty good job in deporting illegals (as well as going after the companies that hire them, which is the best way to stop illegals. No jobs, they won’t come). But, there is a tough election coming up, and Obama is losing support, including among Hispanics, so, he and his team decided that they would pander by ignoring a large section of people who have broken America’s laws, and are taking American jobs, using American services that they didn’t pay for, and causing problems for Americans. They’re all lawbreakers, and, shockingly, jaywalking is actually a crime which people can be ticketed for. A minor crime, but, still a crime. Is using a fake ID a minor crime? Sure. Until real American’s have their lives ruined because an illegal is running around pretending to be that American.

Sure, sure, they aren’t all bad people. There are surely lots more like Antonio Diaz Chacon, who saved a 6 year old girl from a would be kidnapper. But, that’s not the point. If they want to be in the United States, they need to do it legally. Oh, and stop demanding that the US change in order to accommodate them.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

This weekend, we’re coming together, as one nation, to mark the 10th anniversary of the September 11th attacks. We’re remembering the lives we lost—nearly 3,000 innocent men, women and children. We’re reaffirming our commitment to always keep faith with their families.

We’re honoring the heroism of first responders who risked their lives—and gave their lives—to save others. And we’re giving thanks to all who serve on our behalf, especially our troops and military families—our extraordinary 9/11 Generation.

At the same time, even as we reflect on a difficult decade, we must look forward, to the future we will build together. That includes staying strong and confident in the face of any threat. And thanks to the tireless efforts of our military personnel and our intelligence, law enforcement and homeland security professionals—there should be no doubt. Today, America is stronger and al Qaeda is on the path to defeat.

We’ve taken the fight to al Qaeda like never before. Over the past two and a half years, more senior al Qaeda leaders have been eliminated than at any time since 9/11. And thanks to the remarkable courage and precision of our forces, we finally delivered justice to Osama bin Laden.

We’ve strengthened the partnerships and tools we need to prevail in this war against al Qaeda—working closer with allies and partners; reforming intelligence to better detect and disrupt plots; investing in our Special Forces so terrorists have no safe haven.

We’re constantly working to improve the security of our homeland as well—at our airports, ports and borders; enhancing aviation security and screening; increasing support for our first responders; and working closer than ever with states, cities and communities.

A decade after 9/11, it’s clear for all the world to see—the terrorists who attacked us that September morning are no match for the character of our people, the resilience of our nation, or the endurance of our values.

They wanted to terrorize us, but, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Yes we face a determined foe, and make no mistake—they will keep trying to hit us again. But as we are showing again this weekend, we remain vigilant. We’re doing everything in our power to protect our people. And no matter what comes our way, as a resilient nation, we will carry on.

They wanted to draw us in to endless wars, sapping our strength and confidence as a nation. But even as we put relentless pressure on al Qaeda, we’re ending the war in Iraq and beginning to bring our troops home from Afghanistan. Because after a hard decade of war, it is time for nation building here at home.

They wanted to deprive us of the unity that defines us as a people. But we will not succumb to division or suspicion. We are Americans, and we are stronger and safer when we stay true to the values, freedoms and diversity that make us unique among nations.

And they wanted to undermine our place in the world. But a decade later, we’ve shown that America doesn’t hunker down and hide behind walls of mistrust. We’ve forged new partnerships with nations around the world to meet the global challenges that no nation can face alone. And across the Middle East and North Africa a new generation of citizens is showing that the future belongs to those that want to build, not destroy.

Ten years ago, ordinary Americans showed us the true meaning of courage when they rushed up those stairwells, into those flames, into that cockpit. In the decade since, a new generation has stepped forward to serve and keep us safe. In their memory, in their name, we will never waver. We will protect the country we love and pass it safer, stronger and more prosperous to the next generation.

Well said, Mr. President, well said.

Mitt Romney opened his town hall meeting here talking about the economy — his thoughts on growing business, getting government out of the way — just as he does nearly every other campaign event. But when he opened last week’s forum for questions, the first voter he called on didn’t seem concerned about any of that. He wanted to know the Republican presidential candidate’s stance on border security.

A similar scene played out in South Carolina a few days later, when Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) attended a town hall meeting she assumed would center on the economy, jobs and the federal deficit — only to see the assembled voters react most passionately to her comments on illegal immigration.

Polls may not suggest it, and the candidates may not be catering to it, but immigration is an issue that voters won’t let the GOP White House hopefuls escape.

Well, true. GOP voters can actually focus on and discuss more than one issue. In case the Washington Post missed it, liberals will have the same demands of Obama, as the liberal interest groups go after him along the lines of gay issues, how Obama can give them Someone Else’s money, and how Obama can legalize illegal aliens.

Republican primary voters keep bringing immigration up as the candidates campaign in back yards, opera houses and recreation halls across Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. To a sizable chunk of those who will pick the GOP’s presidential nominee, immigration is an urgent issue, even a litmus test.

“Immigration is not even close to the top issue for most Republicans today, but it is an issue that is heavy with symbolic importance to Republican voters,” said GOP pollster Jon Lerner, who advised Tim Pawlenty until he dropped out of the race last month. “If a candidate is squishy on immigration, that symbolically suggests that he’s probably unreliable on a whole host of other conservative issues.”

Well, yeah. It is very much a core issue with a lot of Republican voters, who want to know if a future POTUS is going to uphold the rule of law and not go down any sort of amnesty/legalization/comprehensive immigration reform route.

The view in the Republican Party on immigration has shifted dramatically to the right since 2006, when President George W. Bush proposed an overhaul that would have combined a legalization plan with tighter border security.

No, it has not. Most Republicans were livid that President Bush was pushing any sort of legalization program, and mad at other elected officials, like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, who were involved with pushing “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Anyhow, the article goes on to describe the positions of Perry, Romney, and Bachmann. Romney wants to secure the border before dealing with any sort of “comprehensive reform”, along with cracking down on employers. Bachmann simply wants to secure the border from illegals, drugs, and terrorists. Perry has a much longer record, which Ann Coulter thinks is a bit too much like Bush’s. Squishy.

You can’t blame Conservatives for asking about immigration stances: there’s a long way to go till we have a candidate to officially run against Barack Obama, and it can’t all be about the economy. We need to vet our candidate hopefuls on a variety of issues. Real ones, not hope and change.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.