Tomorrow, the House of Representatives is slated to take up a $93.5 billion spending bill that includes $33 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that the Senate passed late last month. The war supplemental has divided the Democratic caucus, with many Democrats uneasy about spending billions more on the war in Afghanistan while they are unable to scrap together the votes to extend unemployment insurance due to a backlash from conservative members claiming it would be too expensive.

In order to allay the concerns of Democrats who feel like they are paying for a war with no end in sight, Rep. Jim McGovern (MA) has authored an amendment, along with Rep. David Obey (D-MI), that would require the President to submit a timeline for the orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Earlier today, Think Progress joined McGovern on a conference call and asked him why his more conservative colleagues see extending unemployment insurance as too expensive but raise no issue with the cost of the war. McGovern said that the unemployed have no lobby in Washington and suggested that if Americans paid more attention to the war, legislators would be less likely to vote for blank checks for the conflict:

TP: I have two questions. One, how much support do you think you’ll have from your caucus and also from the leadership tomorrow for the vote tomorrow on requiring the President to supply a timeline for the drawdown, the second question is why do you think your colleagues are able to easily dismiss additional aid for the unemployed or Medicaid expansions, or extensions rather, and yet are unable to continually vote for funding for the war?

MCGOVERN: We haven’t done the whip count, so we don’t know, we’re hoping for a very strong vote, we’re going to work it like we want to win it. [...] The question about unemployment insurance, the reality is the jobless, those who are unemployed, don’t have a lobby up here. [...] On the war quite frankly, it’s kinda moved to the background. [...] We’re not asked to pay for the war, there’s no war tax, there’s no draft, we’re all just weeding about our business, and even in our newspapers with the exception of the recent General McChrystal flap, the war has moved off the front page. So people just kinda go along to get along and we just keep on going along and not feel the pressure to change anything. Well, part of the reason we want this debate tomorrow and part of the reason we’re doing this call is because we want to increase the pressure on our colleagues is and get people across the country to understand this is a big deal, people are dying over there, we are going bankrupt as a result of this war, we don’t have a clearly defined mission on what we’re doing over there. [...] I think to the extent we can focus the attention on what’s happening over there, the more and more we’ll see people say we need to change this policy.

Listen to it:

Last month, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced a similar amendment to the Senate’s war funding bill that would’ve required the President to submit a timeline for withdrawal to the Congress. It failed 18-80. While President Obama has identified July 2011 as the date when he plans to start bringing troops home from Afghanistan, the administration has sent mixed signals about how many soldiers it will bring home and how long it will take.

Last week, Alejandro Galindo, a Mexican day laborer in Staten Island, was attacked on his way home. Galindo was punched in the face and suffered a fractured eye socket and brain trauma. A couple hours later, an 18-year-old Puerto Rican man was brutally beaten, leaving him in a coma with head trauma and a fractured jaw. Police classified the first incident as a hate crime, but have yet to connect Galindo’s attack to the one that followed. The father of the Puerto Rican victim, who did not want to disclose his name for fear of retribution, is convinced that the attack was racially motivated. If he is right, it will be part of a string of anti-Latino hate crime to occur in the North Shore region of Staten Island in the past couple months.

“A lot of people in Port Richmond, New Brighton, West Brighton, everywhere, it’s Latinos getting hit,” said the father of the latest victim. In early April, 26-year-old Mexican immigrant, Rodolfo Olmedo, was assaulted by four men who beat him with a baseball bat, wooden planks and a metal chain, and yelled anti-Mexican slurs at him. “You’re a f—— Mexican,” the suspects allegedly told Olmedo. “We’re gonna beat you up.” The next Sunday, another Mexican man was attacked with a bat. A third assault in April left a Latino man with a broken arm, and stitches across his forehead. Meanwhile, this past Tuesday, a Staten Island man was arrested for making threatening phone calls to the Rev. Al Sharpton over his opposition to Arizona’s immigration law.

Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY) has condemned the attacks, stating, “[t]his attack is just the latest in a string of disgraceful violence against members of our community whose only crime is having a different background. It is very upsetting to me that such hateful crimes could occur on the streets of Staten Island.” So far, it appears his opponents in the upcoming election have remained silent on the attacks, but they have chosen to fan the flames of the related immigration debate. Fellow candidate Candidate Michael Allegretti (R) recently said that Arizona is “under siege by illegal aliens.” “We cannot allow people to be a drain on our resources, our schools, our hospitals, and our tax dollars,” stated Allegretti. Congressional candidate Michael Grimm (R) has stated he supports an immigration law that requires “all those detained or questioned by local law enforcement personnel for a specific suspicion of violating local or state laws to be required to produce appropriate identification.” Staten Island Borough President Jim Molinaro, who is not running in the race, slammed Mexican Felipe Calderon’s opposition to the Arizona law, stating “[t]he man should’ve been given a one-way ticket out of the country back to the banana republic where he came from.”

It might seem that the race for New York’s 13th Congressional District has little to do with the string of attacks against Latinos that is plaguing Staten Island, however, several reports over the past few years have indicated that the heated immigration debate has led to a nationwide increase in anti-Latino heat crimes. A report released by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) directly attributed a disturbing environment of “racial intolerance and anti-immigrant hatred” in nearby Suffolk County, NY in part to the fiery anti-immigrant rhetoric of local politicians and law enforcement. Allegretti and Molinaro’s comments probably didn’t motivate the Staten Island attackers, but they do contribute to an environment of fear and hate towards immigrants. Meanwhile, if Grimm’s policy were to go into effect, chances are crimes like these would never be reported in the first place.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced that it will hear Chamber of Commerce v.Candelaria, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce’s legal challenge to the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) — an Arizona law that punishes companies by suspending or revoking their business licenses if they are found to be knowingly hiring undocumented immigrants. Despite its opposition to LAWA, the Chamber has had little to say about about the controversial immigration bill which Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) recently signed into law, SB-1070. Not only is the Chamber curiously remaining silent about a related immigration measure that reinforces LAWA, it has now endorsed Brewer in her race for governor.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce described its decision process in a press release announcing its endorsement of Brewer: “incumbent candidates were evaluated based on their record in office as it relates to the Chamber policy agenda and their commitment to promoting a pro-business agenda.” If that’s the case, the Chamber may want to take another look at how Brewer’s immigration position stands up to their own.

One of the main arguments against LAWA as well as SB 1070 is that the laws are federally pre-empted, or that immigration is under the jurisdiction of the federal government. “Employers are being overwhelmed by a tidal wave of conflicting state and local immigration laws,” said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center, in reference to LAWA. Not only did Brewer sign off on a law that goes a lot further than LAWA, the actual effects of SB-1070′s implementation will likely hit business even harder. While LAWA’s scope was limited to employment practices, SB-1070′s focus is on making life miserable for undocumented immigrants. If the law succeeds in its goal of ridding the state of them, it’s estimated that Arizona will lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs. The Arizona Republic reported today that some business have already been hurt by their departure.

Conrad also stated that “[t]he Chamber supports comprehensive immigration reform.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce specifically supports an earned path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. However, Brewer believes the phrase “comprehensive immigration reform” is “code” for “amnesty” and refuses to have anything to do with it. According to Brewer, any talk of immigration reform is off the table until the government secures the border and closes the “gateway to America for drug trafficking, extortion, kidnapping and crime.” Considering the fact that statistics show that the border is safer than it’s been in years, it could be a while before Brewer’s perception catches up with reality.

The Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce has called on Brewer to veto SB-1070, stating it will cause “businesses to move out of Arizona, other organizations to stop doing business with or visit the state and result in job losses.” Meanwhile, in its press release, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce praises Brewer, stating “[n]o governor has done more to lessen the regulations and red tape facing business.” Candidates must receive the support of 60 percent of the Board of Directors to receive an endorsement.

Yesterday, the Center for American Progress hosted “In Search of Secure Borders,” an event assessing the federal government’s effort to control illegal migration. One of the panelists, state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) — an outspoken critic of Arizona’s new immigration law — sat down with Wonk Room to discuss some of Gov. Jan Brewer’s (R-AZ) recent statements indicating that she believes that the majority of undocumented immigrants who cross into the U.S. are drug mules “doing drop houses and they’re extorting people and they’re terrorizing the families.”

Sinema joined a growing chorus of voices, which includes Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and T.J. Bonner of the National Border Patrol Council, who have affirmed that Brewer’s remarks are false:

SINEMA: Well it’s just not true. And while some might find it politically expedient in the short-term to be loose with the facts or make allegations that aren’t based in fact, I think that’s unfortunate. In the political process I think it’s healthy for us to have a variety of opinions. And we certainly should have a robust debate about the ideas. But we’re not entitled to our own facts. And the bottom line is the facts she uses not only this week, but in previous weeks, are just not true. [...]

WONK ROOM: Why do you feel you can say that and Jan Brewer can’t say it? What’s the difference between you and Jan Brewer?

SINEMA: Well, I believe in facts.

Watch it:

Sinema also told Wonk Room that not only is it not true that the majority of undocumented immigrants act as drug mules, it’s also not true that the majority of people in our jails are undocumented persons. “That doesn’t mean that border crime and interior crime isn’t a serious problem,” stated Sinema. “But I believe that problem is serious enough without making up facts.”

Brewer has also defended her decision to sign off on SB-1070 by stating that Arizona is “under siege” by Mexican drug cartels and undocumented immigrants and has repeatedly slammed the federal government for not securing the border. However, SB-1070 only deals with people who have already crossed the border into Arizona and does nothing to stop the flow of undocumented immigrants and drug cartels alike. Meanwhile, recent reports reveal that the border has only become safer in recent years.

In the past, Brewer has also claimed that her father “died fighting” the Nazis — despite the fact his death came 10 years after World War II had ended.

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) admitted to Meet the Press anchor, David Gregory, that Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) was wrong when she stated that most undocumented immigrants “are coming here and they’re bringing drugs” during a primary election debate. CNN is now reporting that T.J. Bonner of the National Border Patrol Council has also affirmed that Brewer’s statements are simply not true:

T.J. Bonner of the National Border Patrol Council told CNN that Brewer’s claims were “clearly not the case.” Bonner said that some undocumented immigrants caught by border patrol agents have drugs on them, and that they sometimes blame pressure from the drug cartels. But, he said, those claims have little credibility because drug smugglers are typically transporting much larger quantities of drugs. And besides, he said, if what Brewer said were true, there would be many more prosecutions for drug smuggling. Brewer’s comments, Bonner said, don’t “comport with reality — that’s the nicest way to put it.”

Bonner isn’t exactly a pro-immigrant activist either. Most recently, he defended the shooting of a teenager who was accused of throwing rocks at a border patrol agent saying that the use of “deadly force” was a justified response. Bonner has spoken at “Mothers Against Illegal Aliens” events and praised the border vigilante Minutemen Project.

Despite criticism, Brewer is sticking to her guns. When pressed, Brewer told CNN that undocumented immigrants might be motivated to come to the U.S. just to work, however, they get “snared” into the drug cartels, She later issued a press release defending her remarks. “The simple truth is that the majority of human smuggling in our state is under the direction of the drug cartels, which are by definition smuggling drugs,” stated Brewer.

As Wonk Room has repeatedly pointed out, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and their presence is more likely to be correlated with safer cities and neighborhoods. Despite the flow of illegal immigration, violent crime along the U.S. side of the border has been declining.

Watch Brewer’s interview with CNN:

Marc Lynch has a tremendous — and tremendously important — essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs examining the rise of political Islam in the West, confronting some misconceptions about it, and rigorously framing some of the genuine challenges that Islamism poses to democratic pluralism.

Among other treats, Lynch does an excellent job of dismantling liberal hawk Paul Berman’s crude and tendentious treatment of Islamism’s relationship with fascism (which Hussein Ibish also dealt with here) and demonstrating how Berman and others who accuse moderate Islamists like Tariq Ramadan of engaging in “stealth jihad” have utterly missed the significance of Ramadan’s work in blunting the appeal of Salafist fundamentalism among Muslim publics.

“The most helpful strategic victory in the struggle against Islamist radicalism,” Lynch write, “would be to undermine the narrative that the West is at war with Islam.”

There should be no tolerance for Islamist extremists who threaten writers, intimidate women, or support al Qaeda’s terrorism. But defending [anti-Islam activist Ayaan] Hirsi Ali from death threats should not necessarily mean embracing her diagnosis of Islam. Berman’s culture war would marginalize the pragmatists and empower the extremists. Muslim communities are more likely to reject such extremists when they do not feel that their faith is being attacked as fascist or that they can only be accepted if they embrace Israel and the policy preferences of American conservatives.

This is a hugely important point. It’s common enough to hear American foreign policy writers recognize that what’s going on is not a “war between the West and Islam,” but rather a struggle within Islam over what it means to be a Muslim in the modern world. And yet, when presented with an actual Muslim intellectual who is engaged in this struggle on the side of moderation, far too many of those writers complain that those Muslims aren’t engaging in the struggle in precisely the right way, or in a way that’s perfectly consonant with modern Western liberalism.

The implications of this for our debates over how best to confront Islamic extremism are significant. There’s no question that Islamism, even moderate Islamism, poses some difficult challenges to liberalism. But to focus exclusively on areas of disagreement is to deny ourselves needed allies in a struggle against violent, ultra-conservative extremism. Paul Berman may be less of a conspiracy-theorist than Frank Gaffney, less of a Bond villain than Daniel Pipes, and less of a clownish bigot than Andrew McCarthy, but he’s engaged in essentially the same program: The maintenance of a sort of Catch-22 wherein Islamists can only ever demonstrate their true peaceful intentions by categorically rejecting Islamism. Not only is this intellectually irresponsible, it’s a perfect strategy for helping the extremists win the debate within Muslim communities.

This week, in announcing his choice of Gen. David Petraeus to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal to lead the U.S. war in Afghanistan, President Obama emphasized, “this is a change in personnel but it is not a change in policy.” A key tenet of this policy, as Obama has reiterated frequently, is to “disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda.”

The U.S. has committed nearly 100,000 troops to the mission in Afghanistan. ABC This Week host Jake Tapper asked CIA Director Leon Panetta how big is the al Qaeda threat that the soldiers are combating:

TAPPER: How many Al Qaeda, do you think, are in Afghanistan?

PANETTA: I think the estimate on the number of Al Qaeda is actually relatively small. I think at most, we’re looking at 50 to 100, maybe less. It’s in that vicinity. There’s no question that the main location of Al Qaeda is in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

The 100,000 U.S. forces that have been tasked to dismantle the 100 or so al Qaeda members — a ratio of 1000:1 — is complicated by the fact that we are also engaged in operations going after the Taliban leadership. Panetta said the Taliban insurgency is “engaged in greater violence right now” than when Obama took office. “They’re doing more on IED’s. They’re going after our troops. There’s no question about that. In some ways, they are stronger, but in some ways, they are weaker as well.”

Addressing whether the U.S. is pursuing the right strategy, CIA Director Leon Panetta meekly responded, “We think so.” Panetta added that the U.S. is making progress in Afghanistan. “It’s harder, it’s slower than I think anyone anticipated.”

“Winning in Afghanistan is having a country that is stable enough to ensure that there is no safehaven for al Qaeda or for a militant Taliban that welcomes al Qaeda,” Panetta told Tapper. “That’s really the measure of success for the United States.” Watch it:

The Cable’s Josh Rogin reports on the passage — by overwhelming majorities — of a new Iran sanctions bill, which includes measures targeting Iran’s importation of refined petroleum. Rogin notes that “the administration has said little in public about when it expects the sanctions to show results, but time is a critical factor in the White House’s calculations”:

Iran watchers speak of three “clocks” driving U.S. policy: the speed at which Iranian nuclear technology is maturing; the time it takes for the sanctions to bite, bringing Iran to the table; and the patience of regional actors.

Yes, the patience of regional “actors.” That’s one of the most judicious uses of the letter “s” that I’ve ever seen. Interestingly, absent among the clocks mentioned by the Iran watchers Rogin spoke to is one that was, until somewhat recently, mentioned frequently: The democracy clock.

In the wake of the Green movement’s failure to turn out huge demonstrations on the anniversary of the Iranian revolution, a lot of people seem to have decided that the movement is simply no longer a factor. One of those is Fareed Zakaria, whose writing and analysis I usually a like a lot.

Responding Monday to a speech by Sen. John McCain in the New Republic — in which McCain, as usual, confuses blustery, onanistic grandstanding with having good ideas about foreign policy — Zakaria ably dismantles the latest neocon talking point that the Iranians were so close to overthrowing their regime if only President Obama had made more speeches!

I think Zakaria steps wrong, though, when attacking “The comparison of Iran’s Green Revolution to the velvet revolutions of Eastern Europe”:

In 1989 dissidents had three forces on their side: nationalism (because communism had been imposed by force by a foreign power), religion (because communism repressed the church) and democracy. The Green Movement has only one: democracy. The regime has always used the religiosity of the people to its advantage, but it has also become skilled at manipulating nationalism.

Religion and nationalism both play an enormous part in the Green movement’s rhetoric, which I saw as primarily aimed at contesting the legacy of the revolution, not overthrowing it. And, as I noted at the time, one of the most significant aspects of the movement’s protests and rhetoric was the the significant extent to which a long extant Islamic critique of velayet-e faqih (rule of the clerics) seemed to have finally found a vehicle in the Greens, who continue to be supported by a number of dissident clerics.

TNR editor Leon Wieseltier also notes these aspects in his otherwise petulant response to Zakaria, in which he accuses Zakaria of having “prettified and extenuated the Iranian regime” by offering an analysis of Iran’s power structure that is more nuanced than Wieseltier apparently feels is appropriate. But the bottom line here is that we shouldn’t count Iran’s democrats out. Political change of this sort is difficult and takes time, and Iran’s Greens know that. And Mr. Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Bomb Iran should know that his support is probably the last thing they need.

Earlier this week, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) appeared on Fox News’ On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. During the interview McCain and Kyl argued that the Congress is not at a place where it can enact comprehensive immigration reform and spoke at length about the need to secure the border. However, not long ago, McCain and Kyl stood on the other side of the argument. In 2006, McCain worked with the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on a comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed the Senate, but never made it to committee. In 2007, Kyl followed-up the legislation by sponsoring a more conservative immigration reform bill that failed to make it through cloture. At the time, Kyl and McCain faced many of the same arguments against immigration reform that they are now bringing up themselves today. The thoughtful responses they provided to criticisms just a few years ago not only evidence the hypocrisy that the two have displayed on the issue, they also serve as a rebuttal to the rhetoric and excuses that the two Senators have been using in 2010.

Watch a video of McCain and Kyl’s contradicting statements:

Here is some more documentation of where they stand now versus where they stood then:

NOW: “The border is not secure. It can be made secure without comprehensive immigration reform.”

THEN: McCain once insisted that a border crackdown would do nothing to solve the nation’s immigration problem. In the past, Kyl has pointed out that the immigration system itself has to be fixed in order to enforce the law: “The answer is of course if you don’t have a good law to enforce, you can’t work that strategy. The law has got to be changed.” The country’s visa system is outdated by more than 20 years and no matter how much money is poured into “border security,” it doesn’t change the fact that the lack of green cards and work permits will continue to propel illegal immigration. Beefing up the border also won’t address the fact that almost half of undocumented immigrants legally enter the U.S. with tourist visas that they overstay.

NOW: “Until it [the border] is secure, I don’t think the political conditions are there [to tackle immigration reform].”

THEN: Kyl and McCain once shunned the idea of using border security as a pre-requisite for immigration reform. McCain called an “enforcement-first” strategy an “ineffective and ill-advised approach.” “Congress cannot take a piecemeal approach to a national security crisis. I believe the only way to truly secure our border and protect our Nation is through the enactment of comprehensive immigration reform. As long as there is a need for workers in the United States and people are willing to cross the desert to make a better life for their families, our border will never be secure,” said McCain. In response to critics of the immigration bill Kyl sponsored who complained that the border was not secure, Kyl replied, “If you are unhappy with the status quo, if you don’t like the way that things are today, then why would you oppose a change that at least offers the prospect that the new law will be enforced when we know that the old law is not being adequately enforced?” Both senators slammed lawmakers for taking the easy way out by “sitting on the sidelines” and saying “no” to everything that came their way.

NOW: “We have a ten point plan…surveillance people, and the fencing completed or replaced where it needs to be.”

THEN: For a long time, McCain was a staunch critic of building a border fence. In a 2007 Vanity Fair article, McCain is quoted as saying, “I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.” During the GOP presidential primary debate, McCain proclaimed, “America is still the land of opportunity, and it is a beacon of hope and liberty and, as Ronald Reagan said, a shining city on the hill…And we’re not going to erect barriers and fences.” McCain has also cited the futility of building a fence:”No wall, no barrier, no sensor, no barbed wire will ever stop people from trying to do what is a basic yearning of human beings all over the world, and that is to have better lives for themselves and their families.”

NOW: “Murderous, barbaric behavior…this violence…has really increased, raised the stakes rather dramatically in our requirement to get the border secure.”

THEN: Rather than engaging in fear-mongering, McCain once referred to undocumented immigrants as “God’s children.” McCain used to remind people that “the overwhelming majority of people who come to this country are honest, god-fearing, hard-working people.” In 2008, McCain even conceded that the “the tenor of the [immigration] debate has harmed our image among Hispanics” — a point that was affirmed by the 2008 election results.

One of the most widely repeated claims against enacting immigration reform is the argument that immigrants take jobs from American workers. Today, in response, the United Farm Workers (UFW) launched a new “Take Our Jobs” campaign. The UFW is inviting American citizens and legal residents to fill the farm jobs that are mostly occupied by undocumented labor:

In a letter to U.S. lawmakers, UFW offers farm workers who are “ready to train citizens and legal residents who wish to replace immigrants in the fields,” and encourages Members of Congress to refer their constituents to vacant farm worker positions. UFW has locations across the country where Members of Congress can direct their constituents willing to do work on large-scale farms. Employers will be on hand at each site to answer questions, meet prospective employees and assist in the application process. All who are interested or unemployed and are legal residents or U.S. citizens are encouraged to apply.

In reality, the UFW knows that response to the program will likely be low. Agriculture is ranked amongst the three most hazardous occupations in the nation. For every 100,000 agricultural workers in the U.S. in 2007, there were 25.7 occupational deaths. That’s because farm workers are exposed to toxic pesticides, work under the hot sun for 10-12 hours a day, handle hazardous tools and machinery, and live in crowded condition with poor sanitation. In return, most farm workers earn approximately $28,040 a year.

Contrary to what the anti-immigrant right might suggest, despite a major recession, most farmers and ranchers are still struggling to find the workers they need. “Comprehensive immigration reform is needed, so that America’s farmers and ranchers can continue to produce an abundant supply of safe, healthy food, as well as renewable fuels and fiber for our nation,” writes Ron Gaskill, director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation. The truth is if the U.S. doesn’t find a way to legalize immigrant agricultural workers, businesses will move their operations to other countries where they can find laborers. U.S. direct investment in Mexican agriculture has already increased sevenfold between 2000 and 2008.

Ultimately, the solution is two fold: fixing the immigration system and improving wages and working conditions in the agricultural sector. However, until farm workers feel that they can report abuses and fight for their rights without fear of deportation or retaliation, agricultural work will continue to be a dangerous, thankless job that most Americans don’t want to do.

Speaking from the White House Rose Garden this afternoon, President Obama announced that he has accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal resignation as head of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, following the four-star general’s unprofessional remarks in a Rolling Stone interview. Obama said McChrystal’s remarks did not “meet the standard that should be set by a commanding general” and eroded trust among his national security team. McChrystal had reportedly acknowledged, “I’ve compromised the mission.”

Obama emphasized that McChrystal had served “faithfully,” that he was “grateful” for his service, and that the replacement is not a “personal insult.” In McChrystal’s place, Obama has nominated CentCom Commander David Petraeus, the general who oversaw the Iraq surge, to take charge of the upcoming Afghanistan surge. “I welcome debate among my team, but I won’t tolerate division,” Obama said. “It is a change in personnel, but it is not a change in policy,” he added, noting that Petraeus helped “design the policy that we have in place.”

Conservatives are likely to cheer Obama’s decision. Yesterday, The Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol advised Obama to “ask Gen. David Petraeus to give up his CENTCOM post and take command of the war in Afghanistan.”

Watch video of Obama’s remarks:

[/update]

Last week, the Department of Labor (DOL) released an advertisement featuring DOL Secretary Hilda Solis informing viewers that “every worker in America has a right to be paid fully whether documented or not.” The video is meant to promote a government hotline which any worker can call to report wage theft. However, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) believes the ad is an “explicit invitation for illegal immigrants to bring the resources and power of the Department of Labor to bear against American employers.” In a damning press release, King accuses the DOL of engaging in a campaign to protect “illegal aliens” via its anti-wage theft campaign:

“Whether they are using the Department of Labor to support illegal immigrants’ allegations against America’s employers, or the Department of Justice to invalidate Arizona’s illegal immigration enforcement law, this Administration continues to use the limited resources of the American taxpayer on behalf of illegal aliens,” said King. “It is shameful that Secretary Solis has to be reminded that her primary duty is owed to the American people, and not to those who have illegally entered our country. The Obama Administration needs to realize that the American people have a right to have their immigration laws enforced.”

King fails to note that, technically, the DOL is simply following the laws on the book. The National Employment Law Project (NELP) points out that, “[f]ederal courts and state and federal agencies have consistently held that core labor standards, including the right to organize, to a minimum wage, and to protection from discrimination, cover all workers, regardless of immigration status.” In other words, it’s not the DOL’s job to enforce the nation’s immigration laws — that’s under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security.

The reasoning behind the separation of responsibilities isn’t just a bureaucratic division of power, it actually protects American workers. Shortchanging unauthorized workers hurts everyone who is employed in the given industry where the exploitation is taking place. Unscrupulous employers who hire and abuse undocumented labor drive down wages and working conditions for all the Americans who work alongside them. They also put honest businesses who want to abide by immigration and labor laws in a position in which they are forced to compete on an uneven playing field. And if DOL were required to enforce immigration laws, many — if not most — of those abuses would go unreported.

If anything, by defending abusive employers, King is encouraging more illegal immigration. Mark Krikorian, who is no fan of legal or illegal immigration, has rightly pointed out in the past that “[t]he more it costs to hire illegal aliens, the more employers might turn to legal workers.” Conversely, when businesses think they can get away with saving a buck by shortchanging undocumented workers, they’re more likely to do so. Jennifer Gordon of Fordham Law School has asserted that “millions of undocumented immigrants accept whatever wage is offered. They don’t protest out of fear of being fired or deported.” By letting immigrants know that they won’t be deported simply for reporting abuse, the DOL is going a lot further in combating illegal immigration than it would by simply turning a blind eye to labor violations. Which begs the question of whether King is more interested in defending American employers than in protecting American workers.

Watch the DOL ad:

Yesterday, voters in Fremont, NE approved a measure which imposes a ban on hiring or renting property to undocumented immigrants. Renters will be required to apply for a license from the city and businesses will have to use the controversial E-Verify database to verify the immigration status of employees. Unlike Arizona’s unprecedented immigration law, SB-1070, that was recently passed, other localities have experimented with Fremont’s approach. And, for the most part, similar efforts haven’t just been costly and impractical, they’ve also been considered unconstitutional.

One of the first towns to enact the measures that were recently adopted by Fremont was Hazleton, PA. However, Hazleton didn’t get very far. In less than a year, a U.S. District judge dismissed the law and ruled that “immigration law is the province of the federal government alone.” However, a lot of the damage was already done. As many as 5,000 Latinos left town as shopkeepers reported that their business dropped by 20%. In 2009, Hazleton was forced to ask a federal judge to reconsider a ruling made in favor of the city’s insurance carrier that would hold the city responsible for paying $2.4 million in attorney fees incurred from the lawsuit.

The town of Riverside, NJ passed an almost identical law — but it didn’t wait for a judge to decide it was unconstitutional before rescinding it in 2007. At that point the town of 8,000 had spent $82,000 in legal fees defending its ordinance. Hundreds, “if not thousands” of residents abandoned the city, as “hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet.” A case in nearby Plainfield, NJ, hinted at how Riverside’s lawsuit would’ve likely ended had the town continued to pursue it. In reference to a lawsuit attempting to use anti-organized-crime laws to prevent a landlord from renting to undocumented immigrants in Plainfield, a federal judge ruled that “[r]enting an apartment to an alien does not amount to harboring.”

Currently, both Farmers Branch, TX and the state of Arizona are engaged in their own costly legal battles. Farmers Branch, a small town of 30,000 people, has spent $3.2 million to repeal a federal district judge decision which deemed the town’s rental ban ordinance unconstitutional and may have to spend an additional $623,000 this year. Arizona has taken its E-verify and employer sanctions law all the way to the Supreme Court. In an amicus brief filed last month, the Solicitor General wrote that the Arizona law “disrupt[s] a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country.”

While proponents of these measures argue that illegal immigration is costing local taxpayers a lot of money, chances are the questionable legality of laws like the one approved in Fremont, NE will cost them a lot more. The ACLU has already promised to take Fremont’s ordinance to court. Unfortunately the only winners of any legal battle are going to be the lawyers at the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) — legal advocates who get paid to write laws that challenge the constitution and then make an even bigger profit when their work is tested in court.

General Stanley McChrystal has been summoned to Washington after giving an interview to Rolling Stone Magazine where he attacks the White House, the President, and almost every senior national security official. This is straight insubordination and is reminiscent of Bush’s firing of Admiral Fallon as CENTCOM commander and more famously Truman’s firing of General Douglas MacArthur. But this isn’t just a case of a general making a mistake talking to a reporter on the record, this is about a general trying to save his rep by desperately shifting blame to others.

The significance of this food fight is not in what was said, but in what it says about where the United States is in Afghanistan. It is becoming increasingly clear that General McChrystal has failed to achieve the unrealistic expectations he set for Afghanistan. What has become apparent is that Afghanistan is not Iraq and the mythic status now given to the surge in Iraq led to a significant degree of over-confidence on the part of McChrystal and others about their ability to turn the Afghan war around after it had utterly deteriorated year after year under the neglectful watch of the Bush administration. The much balleyhooed offensive on Marja has bogged down and was not the transformative event that was anticipated. The next offensive on Kandahar has been delayed due to lack of local buy-in. As Colin Cookman and Caroline Wadhams document in a recent report, the Afghan governance situation is a total disaster. The result is a situation in which McChrystal himself admits that “nobody is winning” and in which the U.S. is pursuing a strategy that lacks clear objectives and direction.

The struggles of McChrystal’s Afghan strategy have now led to a growing rift within the Obama administration over how to interpret the July 2011 deadline set by the President. In other words, was the surge part of an exit strategy as the President seemed to outline and the Vice President insisted, or is it just one more milestone – such as the many that were present during the first five years of the war in Iraq – that has little meaning? On the Sunday shows this weekend, a growing rift was present when Secretary Gates refused to endorse Vice President’s view that a large number of troops would be coming home in July 2011. And McChrystal’s latest interview can be seen as part of a larger effort by some in the military to box in the White House in order to push it to acquiesce to giving McChrystal more time.

But McChrystal overreached and his Rolling Stone interview, where his staff makes homophobic remarks, refers to Vice President Biden as “bite me,” and attacks anyone and everyone, seems like a desperate cry for help from a frustrated and failing General. McChrystal’s comments about US Ambassador to Afghanistan, and retired General, Karl Eikenberry, are the most instructive. Eikenberry had warned in a leaked memo that he had serious concerns over the trustworthiness of the Afghan government, yet McChrystal saw the criticism as merely historical posturing, stating about Eikenberry: “here’s one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, ‘I told you so.’” This remark demonstrates that McChrystal is already fretting over how he his viewed at the end of the operation and he is no doubt worried about the blame for Afghanistan falling on his shoulders.

But in the end, this incident is much more than just about whether Stanley McChrystal still has a job. This incident tells us a lot about the current state of the Afghan operation – and the picture is not pretty. It also provides a moment that should deliver some clarity over whether the President will reaffirm that the strategy outlined last year is actually part of an exit strategy that will see our troops pulling out by July 2011 or whether this Afghan strategy – like the numerous Iraq strategies unveiled under President Bush – has simply become a strategy for endless war.

At a recent town hall meeting in Tempe, Arizona, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) announced that President Obama is “holding border security hostage” to immigration reform. Kyl claims that Obama suggested in private that Democrats won’t secure the border because, if they do, Republicans will have no reason to support immigration reform:

I met with the President in the Oval Office, just the two of us. I kicked the rest of the people out. [...] Here’s what the President said: “The problem is, …if we secure the border, then you all won’t have any reason to support ‘comprehensive immigration reform.” In other words, they’re holding it hostage. They don’t want to secure the border unless and until it’s combined with comprehensive immigration reform. I explained, you and I, Mr. President, have an obligation to secure the border.

And it also has potentially positive benefits. You don’t have to have comprehensive reform to secure the border.

Watch it:

Perhaps Obama failed to mention it to Kyl, or maybe Kyl conveniently omitted any remarks that explained to him that there’s a much better reason to hold off on throwing billions of dollars at the border other than the crude political calculations that Kyl accuses Democrats of: the border is reportedly safer than it’s ever been. The mistaken premise behind the Republicans’ call for border security before immigration reform is based on the premise that there has been a rabid increase in violence at the border since Kyl’s immigration reform bill failed in 2007. In other words, it gives Republicans reason to oppose legislation that they went as far as sponsoring just a couple years ago. It would be a good excuse if it were true. However, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics, violent crime at the border has been steadily declining.

While the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has made great strides over the past year, one type of crime is up at the border: property crime. That’s because no matter how much money is poured into “border security,” it doesn’t change the fact that the lack of green cards and work permits means that immigrants enter the U.S. via the backyards of border residents. The country’s visa system is outdated by more than 20 years and, regardless of economic conditions in the U.S., immigrants who are desperate to work here are offered almost no legal avenues to make that possible. Kyl’s own ten point border security plan would do almost nothing to solve that or address the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already in the U.S. By creating a flexible visa lottery that responds to U.S economic needs and putting undocumented immigrants on a path to legalization, immigration reform would do that and more.

The problem with the approach taken by Kyl and Republicans is that it conflates illegal immigration with dangerous criminality. There’s even a psychological term that was recently used to describe the chronic misperception experienced by Republicans: self-serving perception bias. Overall, immigrants are less likely to commit crimes and immigration reform could go a long way in freeing up more resources that DHS can direct away from chasing undocumented workers through the desert and towards pursuing threats to our national security. In the end, Republicans are holding immigration reform hostage to border security and blocking a comprehensive solution to our nation’s immigration problem to score cheap political points.

Back in April, Cleveland Indians coach Sandy Alomar Jr. stated “[c]ertainly I am against profiling any race and having sterotypes, but at the same time my feeling is what does baseball have to do with politics? Let the politicians stay in politics and the baseball players play baseball.” Apparently, the immigration issue has a bigger impact on the Cleveland Indians than Alomar thought. The Associated Press reported today that, in light of its training in Goodyear, AZ, the Cleveland Indians are taking “extra precautions”:

The Cleveland Indians have taken extra precautions to be sure their young Latin players aren’t caught unaware and unprepared.

“We held a seminar under the direction of our cultural development director, Lino Diaz,” said Ross Atkins, the Indians’ player development director. “We brought in a local police officer to explain the situation and issued each player an ID card so they don’t have to rely on carrying around their visas and paperwork with them.”

The article explains that SB-1070 requires police officers, while carrying out their responsibility to enforce the laws, to verify an individual’s immigration status if they have “reasonable suspicion” that the person is illegally present in the U.S. Since the law provides no criteria for “reasonable suspicion,” the Associated Press points out that “a young Latin player who speaks no English might fit that description.” Given the fact that a large number of Latin Americans playing on major and minor baseball leagues, baseball managers want to avoid running into any problems.

Shortly following the passage of SB-1070, the Major League Baseball players’ union issued a statement condemning the law.

You want to lose the war against Al Qaeda? Then listen to National Review’s Andrew McCarthy:

WILL CAIN: Right here, at the top, “Chapter Two: Islamism.”  The question for the house is what should we call the challenge that confronts the West? And your candid answer is, Islam.  Is that what our battle is? Is this a war on terror, or is that kind of need to be backed up? Do we have a bigger fight in front of us, a fight with Islam?

ANDY MCCARTHY: Well, I ultimately come out and say that we should call it Islamism, but I face up to the idea that it may very well be that Islam is the problem. And I do think that we have to face the fact that all the terrorism that we’ve been dealing with in the past number of decades now, plus this wider civilizational threat to the West, is inextricably linked to an interpretation of Islam that is unquestionably legitimate and based on Islamic doctrine.

CAIN: Yeah, is that interpretation — you’re suggesting that that interpretation is legitimate, so does that suggest that Islam is an inherently violent religion?

MCCARTHY: Yeah, I think, well, it certainly — if there is a legitimate of it that’s drawn from the scriptures, I don’t see how you could say it’s not. Now you could say it doesn’t have to be violent, but the roots of the violence are in the doctrine. They’re not, you know, no one pulled those out of the sky, those are in the Koran.

Watch it:

It’s hard to really do justice to the utter absence of intellectual rigor on either end of this conversation. While the mainstream consensus over the last few years has more or less recognized that “war on terror” is too broad a description for the challenge the U.S. faces from violent extremism, here you’ve got two conservatives wondering whether it simply isn’t broad enough, and whether Islam itself is the problem. It’s like looking through a time portal into 2002.

It feels silly to even have to explain this, but there are very few religious texts that could not be, have not been, (and in many cases still are) interpreted as justification for violence.

Here’s Exodus, Chapter 34, verses 11-14:

Observe thou that which I am commanding thee this day; behold, I am driving out before thee the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite. Take heed to thyself, lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land whither thou goest, lest they be for a snare in the midst of thee. But ye shall break down their altars, and dash in pieces their pillars, and ye shall cut down their Asherim [idols]. For thou shalt bow down to no other god; for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God;

Many extremist Jewish settlers in the West Bank take these and other verses as license for violence against Palestinians and destruction of their property. And there are Jewish scholars who back them up on this. By McCarthy’s reasoning, that makes Judaism an inherently violent religion.

Anti-choice terrorist Scott Roeder justified his murder of abortion provider George Tiller through reference to Genesis Chapter 9, verse 6: “Whosoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God has God made man.” By McCarthy’s reasoning, that makes Christianity an inherently violent religion.

I think reasonable people understand that religious interpretation is something that is constantly contested, and meanings change over time. In the 11th Century, the Christian Bible was interpreted in such a way to justify sending thousands of European Christian knights into the Holy Land to slaughter thousands of Muslims and Jews. It’s interpreted differently now. Religions aren’t static things.

But the more insidious aspect of McCarthy’s argument is that, by simply granting the religious legitimacy of Al Qaeda’s call to terrorist violence, McCarthy basically proposes to cede the ideological battlefield to bin Laden. Worse than that, by positing a “wider civilizational” war with Islamic extremism, he effectively affirms bin Laden’s propaganda about the nature and extent of this war, letting bin Laden define us and our aims in a way that helps bin Laden, rather than the other way around. I’m not sure whether this is more a function of McCarthy’s own laziness about exploring the actual debates ongoing among Islamic scholars regarding the just use of violence, or if it’s just plain bigotry, or a mixture of both, but whatever the case it’s outrageous that National Review is promoting this conspiracy theory-spouting clown as someone worth listening to on these issues.

Today, the Arizona Republic reported that the last month’s shooting of Juan Varela has been deemed a hate crime by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. Arizona resident Gary Thomas Kelley has also been charged with second-degree murder in association with Varela’s death. According to witnesses, Kelley called Varela a “wetback” and shouted, “hurry up and go back to Mexico or you’re gonna die” before shooting Varela in the neck. Ironically, Varela was a third-generation, native-born U.S. citizen. Yet, what’s even more troubling is the timing of the murder. Varela was shot just a little over a week after Arizona’s controversial immigration bill, SB-1070, was signed into law.

Initially, the Phoenix Police Department spokesman, Officer Luis Samudio, insisted that the shooting was not a hate crime. The Phoenix Police Union has also been a vocal supporter of SB-1070. Robert Shutts, homicide bureau chief for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, wouldn’t comment on whether SB-1070 was a factor in the case. However, Varela’s family has believed all along that the shooting was a hate crime and that SB-1070 is at least partly to blame.

A week after the murder, Varela’s family called on Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) to “take responsibility for this hostile atmosphere they have created.” Following the announcement of the new hate crime charge, the family’s spokesperson told an Arizona local news station, “these pundits have really escalated this…to this point. Somebody has to do something to tone this down. It’s really out of control.”

Watch the Varela family’s reaction:

At this point, it’s difficult to verify what role, if any, SB-1070 played in Varela’s death. However, chances are the law has made an already toxic atmosphere worse. A growing number of Latinos are already the targets of discrimination and hate crimes in the U.S. SB-1070 has only exploited the public’s frustration with federal government inaction and played to their worst instincts. It’s brought neo-Nazis out. It was followed by the passage of a law banning ethnic studies and proposed legislation that seeks to overturn the 14th Amendment.

Perhaps most significantly though, it has pitted Latinos against their lighter-skinned neighbors. Regardless of what motivated Kelley to shoot Varela, the fact is that the Varelas and Latinos in general feel threatened by SB-1070. Perception alone is enough to divide Arizona in half. And in the end, if Kelley is found guilty of committing a hate crime, it will be difficult to dispute that the charged discourse surrounding the very recent passage of SB-1070 played no role in the violence committed against a Latino Arizona resident.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) in a hearing this week exposed the logic behind Senate Republican opposition to the START treaty — the Soviet Union is out to get us. DeMint during the hearing not once, but twice referred to Russia as the Soviet Union in a line of questioning about needing to protect the US against a Soviet missile attacks:

DEMINT: When the Russians speak of missile defense, they feel the START treaty is a clear limitation of the US ability to develop any strategic defense system against multiple missiles such as those that could be fired by the Soviet Union. When we speak of having flexibility with missile defense we mean it is a nominal defense system that could shoot down isolated missile that was fired by a rogue nation or one that was fired accidentally by a super power…is it your understanding that the START treaty is an agreement that the United States will not attempt to develop a missile defense system capable of shooting down multiple missiles fired by the Soviet Union.

Watch it:

DeMint’s Freudian reference to the Soviet Union, is reflective of the right’s continued Cold War outlook toward Russia that still fundamentally sees it as an enemy. Heritage Foundation in its missile defense propaganda movie, 33 minutes, in fact even depicted Russia’s leadership, along with Iran and North Korea as enemy threats.

The right’s Russia paranoia is also a fundamental driver of its opposition to the New START treaty. DeMint and the Heritage Foundation want to develop a fanciful missile shield that is technologically impossible to build for the foreseeable future and would be astronomically expensive in order to insulate the US from a potential attack from Russia, thereby eliminating the current strategic reality of mutually assured destruction. The ultimate problem with this vision is that all that would happen is the Russians would massively build up their nuclear arsenal to overwhelm any new missile defenses. Thus, a massively dangerous and expensive nuclear arms race would be instigated that would in the end still leave us with the current strategic situation of mutually assured destruction.

Yet, even if you are in favor of a new Cold War like DeMint and believe a new arms race is a price worth paying for this mythical star wars type system, it still doesn’t make any sense for the far right to oppose the START treaty.

Importantly, the right is not objecting to the limitations on nuclear warheads included within the treaty – in other words, they aren’t saying the nuclear cuts are too much. Instead, they are saying that because Obama really wants this treaty the Russians will be able to constrain our missile defense development by threatening to withdraw from the treaty. But no matter what, this administration is not going to change 20 years of US policy and go in the direction advocated by Senator DeMint where the US explicitly targets Russia.

But even if the START treaty were ratified that would not limit a future president, such as Jim DeMint for example, from being able to develop his mythical system, since there is nothing in the START treaty that would prevent such future developments. If the treaty did limit the US, it would be in the treaty, not in some non-binding unilateral statement expressed by the Russians after the treaty was signed. Yes, the Russians would probably withdraw from the treaty, as they said they would, if the US did what President DeMint wanted, but why would DeMint care – he was thinking about voting against the treaty anyway!

But it is not just that START does not inhibit missile defense, it also has strategic benefits that even a President DeMint would think are important. For instance, as a DeMint administration was preparing to push the US into a new Cold War the US would possess real tangible intelligence of Russian nuclear forces as a result START’s verification measures (something that our military finds very valuable) and, since he believes Russia is a threat, with the START treaty in place tangible limits would have been placed on Russia’s nuclear forces. Therefore, if you are a right winger and want a new Cold War with Russia, it makes sense to have the START treaty in place until DeMint can be elected President.

This is why this treaty should be so uncontroversial. It doesn’t prevent us from doing anything we could conceivably want to do.

Today, Ben Smith of Politico reported that California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (R) reminded California Latino voters of her opposition to Arizona’s controversial immigration law in an ad set to air on the Spanish-language broadcast of today’s Mexico-France World Cup game. “The ad marks a dramatic tack a way from a primary in which Whitman was at times visibly uncomfortable with her campaign’s hard line, denying at one point — mistakenly — that her campaign was airing ads with images of a boarder fence,” writes Smith. Whitman is also taking a two-faced approach that’s straight from pages of the failed McCain-Palin playbook: say one thing in English and then turn around tell Latino voters something completely different in Spanish.

Given the fact that she co-chaired the national presidential campaign for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008, Whitman should be pretty familiar with the McCain campaign’s disastrous Latino voter outreach strategy. However, her repetition of his mistakes suggests maybe she forgot. Before launching his presidential bid, McCain was highly regarded by the Latino community as a level-headed champion of comprehensive immigration reform. However, once McCain started running for President, his rhetoric changed. By January 2008, he was saying he wouldn’t even vote for his own immigration bill again if given the chance. However, once McCain got through the primaries he started saying something very different to the Spanish language media. In a Spanish-language ad released in September 2008, McCain suggested that then Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Democrats were not on the side of Latino voters and were responsible for killing immigration reform in 2007. However, besides referring to a piece of legislation that McCain had previously stated he would no longer support, the bill actually died when it failed to get key Republican votes. McCain left the door wide open for Obama to come back at him with an ad that highlighted the “two faces” of the Republican Party. In November, Latinos voted for Obama over McCain by a margin of more than two-to-one.

Whitman may find herself in a similar predicament. Before her race against her Republican opponent, Steve Poizner, got tight, Whitman supported immigration reform and a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. When Poizner began portraying Whitman as soft on immigration, Whitman toughened up and told voters that she only supports a temporary worker program and more border security. And while her new ad boasts of her opposition to California’s Proposition 187 — an Arizona type law that was ultimately deemed unconstitutional — in a radio spot just a few weeks ago, she featured one of the ballot initiatives biggest proponents: former Gov. Pete Wilson (R-CA). In the ad, Wilson affirmed that Whitman will be “as tough as nails” on immigration. The ad was such a turnaround for Whitman that the California Nurses Association launched an ad on Spanish-language radio to let Latino voters know what Whitman didn’t “want you to hear.”

As Wonk Room pointed out last week, Whitman will have a hard time winning the general election without significant Latino support. While it makes sense for her to soften her stance on immigration again, she probably should’ve thought of that during the Republican primary. Whitman may not realize it, but most Latino voters in California understand Spanish and English. In fact, 33.4 to 73.5% of California’s foreign born Latino population is proficient in English.

Watch Whitman’s Spanish Language Ad: