“I happen to think immigration is a good thing,” affirmed Republican presidential candidate and former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. A few years ago, it wouldn’t have been news for a Republican candidate for major office to declare such a thing. These days, it’s hard to name a single member of the GOP who is willing to campaign on anything but a restrictionist platform of attrition through enforcement, no “amnesty,” and “build the dang fence.” Johnson, however, would like to find some way to allow undocumented immigrants to legally work in the U.S. and doesn’t believe building a border wall is going to solve any of the country’s problems:

I view immigration as a job creator, not a situation that takes away jobs. [...] Regarding the 11 million illegal immigrants who are here in this country right now. This is one of those unintended consequences of government. Government has made it impossible for individuals who want to come in to this country and work to get a work permit. So they know, that if they get across the border — even illegally — [...] they’ll get that same job. [...] There needs to be a grace period where the 11 million illegal immigrants that are in this country right now can get a legal work visa. [...]

The notion of building a fence across 2,000 miles of border, the notion of putting the national guard arm in arm across 2,000 miles of border — in my opinion — would be a whole lot of money spent with very little, if any, benefit whatsoever.

Watch it:

Most experts agree that building a costly border wall may only put a small dent in the flow of undocumented immigrants entering the country looking for a way to feed their families. It would also do little to prevent determined drug traffickers from finding new ways to sneak illicit substances into the United States.

Meanwhile, an enforcement-only policy similar to the one supported by most Republicans could cost the country billions. A guest worker program — which sounds a lot like what Johnson is proposing — would have a rather mixed effect. According to the Center for American Progress, a temporary worker program would generate an increase in U.S. GDP of 0.44 percent and amount to $792 billion of cumulative GDP over then years. However, it would also lead to a decline in wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.

In contrast, comprehensive immigration reform that establishes flexible limits on permanent and temporary immigration would generate an increase in U.S. GDP of at least 0.84 percent and amount to a cumulative $1.5 trillion increase in additional GDP. Unlike the guest worker program that Johnson seems to support, it would also boost wages for both native-born and newly legalized immigrant workers.

Although it’s refreshing to hear a Republican talk about immigration without demanding more deportations, Johnson’s line of reasoning is shaky. According to him, immigrants are not coming across the border and taking entry-level jobs from Americans because “we as Americans, we can sit at home and collect a welfare check that’s just a little less money or the same money for doing nothing.” It’s more likely that most U.S.-born workers aren’t directly competing for jobs with immigrant workers not because they’re on welfare, but because they are occupied in entirely different labor markets.

Johnson hasn’t received nearly as much media buzz as other potential GOP candidates. Yet he did surprise many critics with his third place finish in the February CPAC straw poll.

The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza has a lengthy piece out today exploring “how the Arab Spring remade Obama’s foreign policy.” The article outlines the President’s big foreign policy decisions throughout his young presidency — from the surge in Afghanistan and keeping a low profile during the Green Movement in Iran to participating in the UN mandated intervention in Libya — and ultimately ends with an interesting quote from one of Obama’s advisers:

Nonetheless, Obama may be moving toward something resembling a doctrine. One of his advisers described the President’s actions in Libya as “leading from behind.” That’s not a slogan designed for signs at the 2012 Democratic Convention, but it does accurately describe the balance that Obama now seems to be finding. It’s a different definition of leadership than America is known for, and it comes from two unspoken beliefs: that the relative power of the U.S. is declining, as rivals like China rise, and that the U.S. is reviled in many parts of the world. Pursuing our interests and spreading our ideals thus requires stealth and modesty as well as military strength. “It’s so at odds with the John Wayne expectation for what America is in the world,” the adviser said. “But it’s necessary for shepherding us through this phase.”

Predictably, the war hawks on the right picked up on this adviser’s “leading from behind” quote, and extrapolated something nefarious. War charging outfit Keep America Safe tweeted the quote and highlighted it on its website in mockery and AEI’s Danielle Pletka called it the article’s “best line.” And at Commentary, John Podhoretz claimed it damages Obama’s “chances for reelection” because it will be “thrown in his face.”

Why is the right all up in arms about this line? It’s unclear because they don’t say. Podhoretz never really says why this is bad, seemingly for him and the rest of his colleagues, perhaps it just sounds like subordination. But one of history’s most significant and important leaders thinks the idea is a good one, Nelson Mandela:

“It is better to lead from behind and to put others in front, especially when you celebrate victory when nice things occur. You take the front line when there is danger. Then people will appreciate your leadership.”

Mandela biographer and Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel quoted Mandela expounding on this view:

“He said, ‘It’s interesting because there are lessons for leadership because the way you herd cattle is you lead them from behind. You find the most able and smartest cattle and have them lead the way. You empower them.’ He said that’s a good lesson for all of us. You basically have to kind of share the wealth. You have to find people who can execute your vision and ideas. I think that’s relevant not only in politics, but again even within families.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — who is also quoted in the Lizza article — appeared to confirm this sentiment in Obama’s decision making on Libya. “[F]or those who want to see the United States always acting unilaterally, it’s not satisfying,” she said, “for the world we’re trying to build, where we have a lot of responsible actors who are willing to step up and lead, it is exactly what we should be doing.”

Clinton is probably right. For those like Pletka, Podhoretz and the other neocons at Keep America Safe, acting with the international community, instead of acting unilaterally against or without it, is not particularly satisfying. But as the Libyan case illustrates, the United States can still lead, but that doesn’t necessarily mean its allies can’t stand ahead of the pack.

Cross-posted at the Wonk Room.