The UK elections are quickly approaching and while for months the odds on favorite to win was conservative David Cameron, the polls are now tightening. However, should Cameron hold on and win, Britain’s place in Europe may be in the balance – and as a result so will the “special relationship” between the UK and the United States.

Cameron has marketed himself as a new type of Tory. He says he is socially progressive, concerned about the environment, and is a man of the people – think “compassionate conservative.” But when it comes to the European Union, Cameron has increasingly gone tea-party by aligning himself with the jingoistic views of Europe held by the UK’s far right. Last Fall, Cameron made the decision to pull the UK conservatives out of the mainstream conservative block in the European Parliament, choosing to align them with a rag-tag bunch of fringe right wing parties, some with deeply anti-semetic, anti-gay, and racist views. This move essentially condemns UK conservatives to irrelevancy in the European Parliament and Europe in general. What is troubling is that this was after all the entire point of Cameron’s decision, making it a thinly disguised effort to shore up his right flank politically by demonstrating his commitment to an anti-European agenda. But even if this is just electoral politics, David Gardner of the Financial Times warns:

The decision to withdraw from the EPP, moreover, was low on substance and high on opportunism. Mr Cameron needed to secure his right flank to assure he won the party leadership, so he tossed some red meat to the Tory backwoodsmen. They will be back for more.

A Cameron victory therefore will likely mean irrelevancy in Europe not just for the Tories but for the UK. Cameron’s decision to pull out of the conservative bloc, his efforts to block the Lisbon Treaty, and his calls for the UK to renegotiate its terms of membership in Europe, were all widely rebuked by European leaders. Should Cameron win and follow through on some of his promises it would essentially make the UK a fringe player in the 27-member European club.

The problem for the United States, however, is that Cameron’s anti-European stance would only serve to make Britain less relevant to the United States. The fact is that the UK is just not as relevant to the United States if it is on the sidelines of Europe.

British debates presenting UK relationships with the US and Europe, as competing alternatives offer a false and outdated choice. In case the UK hasn’t noticed, US policy toward Europe has shifted away from the divide and rule (old vs. new Europe) approach of the first Bush term. The US now wants Europe as a whole to do more globally, not less. As IHT’s Roger Cohen explained:

Euroskeptic Tory obsession could undermine British influence in Europe at a time when the Obama administration needs an effective E.U. partner.

This shift is also not isolated to Obama. The second term of the Bush administration placed more emphasis on rebuilding ties with European leaders like French President Nikolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Now, the UK-US relationship is still immensely important to the US – the UK has thousands of troops fighting alongside the US and Prime Minister Gordon Brown played a pivotal role in the global response to the international economic crisis – but there has been a noticeable shift in Washington’s attention toward the continent. Prior to the Iraq war, Tony Blair attempted to label Britain as a “pivotal power.” What he meant was that Britain played a crucial global role in its ability to act as interlocutor between the US and Europe. Yet the damage caused to UK-European relations in the wake of the Iraq war reduced the UK’s ability to play this role, which has also led to a subtle decline in the relative importance of the “special relationship” to Washington.

The UK press may clamor about the supposedly warm personal interaction between Obama and Cameron, but while personal rapport matters on some level, it certainly doesn’t compensate for growing international irrelevance. Without its place in Europe, Britain will still be an important and close ally for the U.S. But with its military forces increasingly depleted and looming cuts in defense spending due to stark budget deficits, a Euro-skeptic Britain certainly brings an underwhelming stack of chips to the special relationship.

Speaking this morning at the 2010 policy conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the Obama administration’s support for Israel, declaring that, “for President Obama, for me, and for this entire administration, our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is rock solid.”

Secretary Clinton also briefly addressed the recent tension between the U.S. and Israel over Israel’s announcement of new Jewish housing in occupied Jerusalem:

New construction in East Jerusalem or the West Bank undermines mutual trust and endangers the proximity talks that are the first step toward the full negotiations that both sides want and need. It exposes daylight between Israel and the United States that others in the region could hope to exploit. And it undermines America’s unique ability to play a role — an essential role, I might add — in the peace process. Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don’t agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally.

Clinton’s assertion that praise and criticism of both sides is appropriately expressed in public could be taken as a direct rejoinder to the AIPAC’s new president Lee Rosenberg, who said in a speech yesterday that “allies should work out their differences privately.” This is the usual AIPAC line, and it’s never made much sense to me. Were Israel’s construction of settlements taking place in private, that would be one thing. But it’s not — the settlements, and the resentment and extremism that they help drive, are very public.

Likewise, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s stiff-arming of the Obama administration on a settlement freeze (something to which Israel had previously committed under the road map) was very out in the open, so it makes sense that any U.S. response should be too. The U.S.-Israel relationship is indeed important, but not at the cost of U.S. credibility. And when a smaller partner dictates which parts of past agreements they feel like observing, as Israel continues to do in regard to settlements, U.S. credibility suffers.

Yesterday, approximately 200,000 people gathered at the National Mall to show their support of comprehensive immigration reform. Roy Beck, director of the immigration restrictionist group, NumbersUSA, decided to add himself to the mix and report on the event via a live stream that was available on the group’s website. According to Anne Manetas of NumbersUSA, a group of female mimes threatened Beck and his bodyguards with “constant efforts at crushing physical intimidation” instigated by “blowing hateful whistles” and waving balloons.

Watch NumbersUSA’s video of the hateful mimes:

However, that doesn’t explain why Beck’s bodyguard is the one who ended up being arrested and charged with assault yesterday. Lena Graber, one of the three mimes who pressed charges against Beck’s bodyguard, talked with Wonk Room this morning. Graber explains that she and four other mimes followed Beck and his crew around for four hours in an effort to prevent Beck from picking a fight with demonstrators. According to Graber, Beck’s bodyguard pulled out a pocket knife and started popping the mimes’ balloons. Graber cannot provide details on the assault charges filed by the other two mimes, but she did provide an account of what happened to her yesterday:

They were pretty aggressive and they would sort of elbow us out of the way and say “Don’t touch me” as they were doing so. One of the bodyguards had white makeup all over his elbow and he was all upset that the mimes had gotten makeup on him…but our makeup was on our faces and I wasn’t face-bunting anyone so I felt like that was more incriminating evidence than anything else.

We each started with about 15 balloons that were on ribbons and the taller bodyguard had a pocket knife and he would grab the balloons and pop them with the knife. And at one point when I still had a lot of balloons they were tied around my upper arm…and I felt this yank on my arm where they were tied around. And I turned and he was pulling on all of the ribbons…so that was the only time I talked, I said “OW, that hurts. That’s attached to my arm, stop that.” And he didn’t stop and so I screamed as loud as I could. [...]

Listen:

Graber also stated one of Beck’s cameramen remarked, “well, I guess I’ve never been followed around by five women all day — even better they’re not talking.” Another witness who did not want to be named confirmed Graber’s account and described the mimes’ behavior as “completely whimsical in nature — never threatening.” Both Graber and the witness confirmed that the “hateful whistles” were actually just small plastic whistles in the shape of a soccer ball.

Deepak Bhargava of the Center for Community Change, one of the march’s organizers, tells Wonk Room:

“In pressing our case for immigration reform this year, one of our main efforts will be to be forcing our leaders to take sides – will they stand with hate mongers like Roy Beck or will they stand with hardworking Americans who want immigration reform. Our movement brought 200,000 people to Washington to press a message of hope and make our case peacefully and positively. The tea party brought a few hundred the day before to hurl racial epithets and slurs at Congress and the President. Roy Beck brought thugs — one of whom was arrested for assault — to a peaceful march. It’s time for our leaders to decide who they stand with.”

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, another restrictionist group, reports that Beck “filed assault charges with the Park Police against all the mimes and their SEIU handlers.” Aside from the alleged assault on behalf of Beck’s bodyguard, yesterday’s march was orderly and peaceful.

With Secretary of State Clinton in Moscow today pushing to wrap up a new START treaty, three Senators – Robert Casey, Al Franken, and Ted Kaufman – took to the floor of the Senate last night to lend support to the treaty effort. The Senators sent a clear signal that, despite some reported chatter about START being DOA, taking up the START treaty will be a major legislative priority.

But since the final text of the treaty has not been finalized, these three Senators also explained what the treaty had to include for them to support ratification. Senator Kaufman laid out his four “red lines” for supporting a new treaty, saying a treaty must include “an intrusive verification system” and allow for “modernization of our existing nuclear capabilities,” while not including “any other weapons systems, including antiballistic missile systems provide no limits on missile defense.”

What is interesting about these red lines is that they are virtually identical to the red lines offered by arms-control skeptic Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ), as well as Senators McCain (R-AZ) and Lieberman (I-CT). This means that Senate Democrats and Republicans are on the same page when it comes to whether they will or will not support a new START treaty.

Therefore, assuming the treaty meets these clearly defined standards – which by all accounts it will – there should be overwhelming bipartisan support for the treaty. Senator Casey said forcefully that past treaties of kind received overwhelming bipartisan support, “There is no reason–no reason at all–why this START agreement should be different…I am confident that at the end of the process, we will have a strong agreement that in the proud tradition of the Senate will garner bipartisan support.” Watch Casey and Kaufman:

Nevertheless, while a new START treaty will have met all of the stated red lines of Kyl, McCain, Lieberman, and others, the crucial question is whether they squirm out of their original positions and find some new argument to oppose the treaty. In other words, will Kyl and others betray the Senate’s bipartisan arms-control tradition, as there is overwhelming bipartisan support for a new START treaty and Obama’s nuclear agenda from high ranking national security officials.

However, thus far bipartisanship in the Senate has been a mirage on almost every issue, as an obstructionist GOP has sought to oppose the President and Senate Democrats at every step of the turn. In order to ratify this treaty, bipartisanship is required, since 67 votes are needed to ratify all treaties. We will therefore soon find out if the Senate GOP is capable of putting the security of the country ahead of their crass obstructionist political strategy.

Read more

In the coverage of Iraq’s recent parliamentary election, former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi and his Iraqiya bloc has been characterized as, in the words of reporter Anthony Shadid, “a default leader for Sunnis” and, in the words of fellow reporter Leila Fadel, “the candidate of choice for Sunni Arabs.” Fadel and Shadid are excellent journalists and are reflecting the reality that provinces with heavily Sunni Arab populations are voting for Iraqiya, but casting Allawi and his coalition as a “Sunni bloc” further perpetuates the false notion of an underlying sectarian and communitarian basis for Iraqi politics that has driven much of the discourse in the United States about Iraqi politics.

First, while Iraqiya includes several Sunni Arab politicians like Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi and al-Hadbaa leader Osama al-Nujaifi, it is, unlike other prominent vote-getters, an explicitly secular list. Allawi himself is a secular Iraqi of Shi’a religious background — and a former Baathist who left the party as Saddam Hussein rose to power in the late 1970s, nearly paying for it with his life.

Calling Allawi a “candidate from a Sunni electorate,” as a rival from current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s bloc did, is misleading. While it may be true that many Sunni Arabs voted for Iraqiya, it remains possible that they see their lots better off under secular, non-sectarian government than under a government run by Shi’a sectarian parties like Maliki’s Dawa, the Iranian-backed Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, or the Sadrist movement. In other words, even if Sunni Arabs strongly define themselves as such they may conclude that their interests lay with secular and not religiously-based politics.

It’s not difficult to see why Sunnis and other Iraqi religious minorities might find Allawi’s secular message appealing. As he told al-Jazeera in the days before the election, “… the trend in Iraq is moving away from sectarianism, towards secularism. And we believe very strongly that… we [must] create a real partnership in Iraq, and we respect all the sects, we respect all religions. But the way forward for Iraq is definitely secular-rooted.”

Ultimately, the main problem with writing off Allawi’s Iraqiya coalition as basically a Sunni Arab-only party is that it marginalizes an invisible secular nationalist constituency in Iraq. This constituency has been ignored, especially by policymakers in Washington, largely thanks to preconceived notions of Iraq as an uneasy confederation of three main ethno-religious sects and the superior organization of sectarian political parties. But Iraqiya’s ability to run neck-and-neck with Prime Minister Maliki’s State of Law coalition for a plurality both in overall vote totals and parliamentary seats suggests that secular nationalism still has a strong political pull for many Iraqis — not necessarily just those of Sunni Arab background.

While we should recognize that Iraqiya has tapped into a considerable secular nationalist constituency, we shouldn’t go too far and hail the end of sectarian politics in Iraq. As mentioned, Iraqiya is running strongly and Allawi could very well wind up Iraq’s next prime minister. But Iraqi politics remain extremely fragmented and sectarian parties — mainly Shi’a Islamist parties like Dawa, ISCI, and Sadrists, but also the Kurdish parties — still managed to win the majority of the vote.

What Iraqiya’s strong showing should do, however, is disabuse observers and policymakers of ideas that Iraqi politics are to be conceived of in strictly sectarian terms. Allawi has shown that a previously unexploited secular nationalist constituency exists, and DC pundits ought to adjust their analysis accordingly.

Today, the Center for American Progress (CAP) released a report estimating that a strategy aimed at deporting the nation’s population of undocumented immigrants would total approximately $285 billion over five years. According to the report, a deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for “every man, woman, and child in this country”:

The undeniable conclusion from these findings is that the federal price tag to deport all undocumented immigrants currently in the United States is prohibitive. The operational feasibility of such a massive effort is dubious at best. It would require an unprecedented deployment of resources, and the problems currently plaguing our detention system and immigration courts would be exacerbated in the extreme and would likely precipitate widespread human rights and due process violations. Moreover, a mass deportation strategy would have a crippling impact on economic growth. The exorbitant direct costs of such a strategy detailed in this report should be the final nail in the coffin of a moribund idea.

CAP breaks its numbers down to four separate categories: the cost of apprehending millions of undocumented immigrants ($153 billion), the cost of processing their deportations ($7 billion), the necessary cost of temporarily detaining undocumented immigrants before their deportations ($29 billion), and the cost of transporting undocumented immigrants to their home countries ($6 billion). CAP bases its figures on the assumption that there are 10.8 million undocumented immigrants and that 20 percent of them will self-deport before coming in contact with Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE). From there, CAP calculates that 8.64 million undocumented immigrants will require processing and detention by immigration authorities and that 6.22 million of them will require government transport.

Groups that support an enforcement-only approach to immigration insist that they do not advocate a policy of mass deportation, but rather support an “attrition through enforcement” strategy — a harsh strategy used to “wear down the will” of undocumented immigrants through increased deportations, detentions, and anti-immigrant ordinances. According to these groups, many immigrants will choose to deport themselves at minimal cost to the U.S. taxpayer. However, research has shown that ramped up enforcement doesn’t drive most immigrants back to their home countries, rather it only pushes them deeper into the shadows.

Even if the U.S. didn’t aim to deport every single undocumented immigrant, the costs associated with any large-scale deportation program like the anti-immigration groups propose are significant. CAP estimates that it costs $23,148 for each person to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and finally transported
out of the country. ICE deported 349,041 immigrants during the 2008 fiscal year ending September 30. Using CAP’s estimates, that means that the government spent approximately $8,079,601,068 last year alone.

Ultimately, anti-immigration groups couldn’t even wish undocumented immigrants away for free. In a paper released in January, UCLA professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda published research which found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce U.S. GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years. Hinojosa-Ojeda also affirmed that if undocumented immigrants were put on an earned path to legalization as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package, it would result in at least $1.5 trillion in added U.S. gross domestic product over 10 years.

Yesterday, the libertarian Cato Institute hosted a panel discussion on conservatism and the war in Afghanistan with Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN). When the conversation shifted to the war in Iraq, Rohrabacher said that “once President Bush decided to go into Iraq, I thought it was a mistake because we hadn’t finished the job in Afghanistan,” but that once Bush “decided to go in,” he “felt compelled” to “back him up.” He then added that “the decision to go in, in retrospect, almost all of us think that was a horrible mistake.”

Moderator Grover Norquist then asked Rohrabacher to provide a “guesstimate percentage of Republicans in Congress who would share that view — not that they opposed the President at the time, but today looking back.” Rohrabacher replied that “everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now”:

ROHRABACHER: Well, now that we know that it cost a trillion dollars and all of these years and all of these lives and all of this blood, uh, I don’t know many…

NORQUIST: Looking for a number. Two-thirds? One-third?

ROHRABACHER: I, I can’t. All I can say is the people, everybody I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now.

NORQUIST: That’s 100 percent.

Norquist then turned to McClintock, asking “what percentage”:

NORQUIST: Of Republicans in Congress, who would agree with the general analysis here that it was a mistake and/or we should go in.

MCCLINTOCK: I think everyone would agree Iraq was a mistake.

NORQUIST: Two hundred percents. Ok, we’re going to average these.

MCCLINTOCK: And, you know, again, I think virtually everyone would agree going into Afghanistan the way we did was a mistake. How many share my, my cynicism over this idea of a resolution of force, which I can’t find anywhere in the Constitution. And how many believe that in those rare cases where we go in, we put all of our resources behind our soldiers, I would say certainly more than half of the Republican caucus probably believe that.

Asked for a number by Norquist, Duncan refused to say, but shared an anecdote of how unpopular the war is politically in his conservative military district. Watch it:

McClintock wasn’t in Congress when the Iraq war was authorized. Duncan voted against the authorization of military force while Rohrabacher voted for it.

Earlier this week, the Houston Chronicle reported that Texas clergy members were meeting with Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that they would “have his back if he risks becoming a target of that anger by helping craft and pass comprehensive immigration reform.” Cornyn responded by punting on the issue and saying that it is up to President Obama to lead. Members of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC) responded urging its 30,000 members to flood Cornyn’s phone lines “asking Senator Cornyn to turn down Obama, Graham, Schumer and McCain’s requests for him to support comprehensive immigration reform amnesty.” Today, ALIPAC patted itself on the back and took credit for Cornyn stating “I do not and will not support amnesty” after the calls were made.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-TX) has indicated that he will not go forward with the comprehensive immigration reform bill that he is working on with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) if they cannot find another Republican co-sponsor. Given that fact, if ALIPAC did succeed in bullying Cornyn out of supporting an effort that a majority of the American people want to see, ALIPAC can also credit itself with bringing the nation another step farther away from fixing the nation’s broken immigration sytem.

Chances are it’s more complicated than that. To begin with, Schumer and Graham aren’t proposing simply pardoning 12 million unauthorized immigrants and overlooking the fact that they have broken the law by entering and most likely working in the country without proper documentation, as the term “amnesty” implies. Schumer and Graham have proposed putting undocumented immigrants on an “earned path to legalization” that would involve paying a fine, registering with the government, learning English, and undergoing a background check. It’s possible that Cornyn is against “amnesty,” but is open to the approach that Schumer and Graham have put forth.

What’s more likely is that Cornyn is simply playing politics with the White House. Cornyn has repeatedly said he is willing to work on comprehensive immigration reform, but that it’s up to President Obama to lead:

I applaud President Obama’s commitment to addressing comprehensive immigration reform this year, and stand ready to work with him to produce a product that represents the best interests of America, including respect for the rule of law, national security and economic security (4/9/2009)

“I’d like to see the president’s plan,” Cornyn went on. “That’s part of leadership, and that’s the only way this is going to get done with the president laying out for the members of Congress what his plan is and rallying people to try to deal with this very difficult and complex issue.” (4/30/2009)

“What we need is not another photo op at the White House. What we need now is a plan from the president,” said Cornyn, ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security. “The president doesn’t write legislation, but he does have the bully pulpit,” Cornyn said, adding that right now “it’s unclear how they can get it finished.” (6/23/2009)

“Immigration reform should make it easier for businesses to hire legally and for our economy to retain highly skilled workers. Obama must lead on immigration by offering specific proposals to secure our borders, upholding the rule of law and treating illegal immigrants with justice and compassion.” (1/12/2010)

“There isn’t a bill,” said Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), who met last week with Schumer to discuss immigration reform. “I told Senator Schumer I’d like to work with him and find common ground. More than a year later, it continues sliding down his priority list behind health care, climate change and adding trillions to the national debt over the next decade. If we are going to truly reform our immigration system, it’s time for President Obama to do that which the people elected him to do: lead.” (3/16/2010)

Today, the White House punted the ball back to Cornyn — and any Republican that has used Obama’s lack of leadership as an excuse to sidestep the issue of immigration reform. This afternoon the White House released a statement endorsing the Schumer-Graham plan and indicated the next steps involve crafting the legislative language and finding Republicans who are bold enough to ignore the small, but vocal minority that ALIPAC represents and get on-board with the effort to fix the nation’s immigration laws.

The New York Times’ Anthony Shadid and the Washington Post’s Leila Fadel both have good articles detailing the impressive showing by Iraq’s Sadrist movement in the recent elections, with both projecting the Sadrists to take between 35-40 seats in the Iraqi parliament.

Though the movement has certainly had its ups and downs, it’s long been clear that the Sadrists are the most deeply-rooted political movement among Iraq’s Shiites — and probably in all of Iraq. Many Western journalists, looking at Iraq through the lens of the U.S.’s war there, tended to conflate the Sadrists with the Mahdi Army, the Sadrist militia, which was a real mistake. Drawing their support from Iraq’s Shia underclass, the Sadrists’ boast a popular base that has only been growing with the central government’s inability to deliver basic services and effectively clamp down on corruption, and with the continuing problem of internally displaced persons.

It’s always a bad idea to make solid predictions about the future of Iraqi politics, but I tend to agree with Spencer Ackerman that the stronger Sadrist presence “will almost certainly constrain Maliki from any impulse he might feel to renegotiate the SOFA,” and request the U.S. to delay its military drawdown. We should remember that Maliki’s adoption of a demand for a withdrawal timetable for the SOFA (which the Iraqis call the “withdrawal agreement”) represented an effective co-optation of one of the Sadrists’ key positions. Now they’ll have the opportunity to hold him to it.

As I wrote in my review of Patrick Cockburn’s book on Muqtada al-Sadr, the Sadrists have always represented the Iraq reality that greeted and dashed the neocons’ Iraq fantasies. It’s fitting then that, even as the neocons continue to struggle in the hope of wringing out some eleventh-hour concession that will enable something resembling the substantial long term U.S. military presence they’ve always had in mind for Iraq, the Sadrists appear well-positioned to dash that fantasy, too.

California gubernatorial candidate and state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner (R-CA) thinks he’s capable of single-handedly fixing the nation’s broken immigration system. During a debate with challenger and former eBay chief executive Meg Whitman (R-CA), Poizner boldly proclaimed that, if elected, he wants to “end illegal immigration once and for all.” The San Diego News Network reports:

Repeating a point he made during the state party convention over the weekend, Poizner said California needs to “turn off the magnets” of state-funded services such as health care and education that he said draw illegal immigrants.

“We just really differ here. I want to end illegal immigration once and for all. … Meg doesn’t want to go that far,” he said. After the debate, he told reporters he’d support bringing an anti-illegal immigration initiative to voters if reforms aren’t enacted in the Legislature.

He did not specify what that initiative would say, but his remarks echoed the debate over Proposition 187 in 1994, which denied publicly funded social services to illegal immigrants. A federal court later found the law’s provisions unconstitutional.

Watch it:

Poizner has proposed deploying the California National Guard and California Highway Patrol to secure the border with Mexico if the federal government doesn’t. Poizner has adamantly argued that undocumented immigrants should be denied emergency health care and that public schools should shut their doors in the face of undocumented children.

Meanwhile, Whitman opposes outright amnesty “100%” but she has stated that she favors a “program in which people would go to the end of the line, pay a fine and do things that would allow for a path to legalization.” Whitman is against “penalizing” undocumented children and denying them a public education. Whitman has also slammed Poizner for flip flopping on the immigration issue since 2006, when he came out in support of the Bush Administration’s immigration reform proposal. Given that Prop 187 drove California’s Latinos to register as and support Democrats — who now dominate state politics largely as a result — Whitman will probably have to articulate a clearer position on the issue if and when she makes it past the primaries. Democratic gubernatorial candidate Jerry Brown has indicated that he supports comprehensive immigration reform, but is opposed to giving undocumented immigrants driver licenses.

A study by the University of Southern California found that putting California’s 1.8 million undocumented Latino immigrants on a path to legalization would generate $16 billion annually. The Perryman Group has found that California would lose $164.2 billion in expenditures, $72.9 billion in economic output, and approximately 717,000 jobs if it removed all of its undocumented immigrants.

In an interview with Middle East Progress, former Florida Congressman Robert Wexler, now the president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and Cooperation, puts the recent U.S.-Israeli tussle over Jewish settlements “in context“:

I take Prime Minister Netanyahu at his word — I think everyone should — that he was as surprised by the announcement as was the vice president. The housing policy is, however, a barometer of the policy of the government that he oversees. The problem is, while the United States is seeking to bring the parties to proximity talks, no party should be creating facts on the ground that complicate the start of negotiations or the ultimate resolution of the final status issues. And the announcement by the Israeli government was a rather striking example of an action that makes creating trust and developing the formula for an end of conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis more difficult.

There are a couple important points in here. The first is that, whatever Netanyahu did or didn’t know about these particular housing starts, the episode is indicative of how deeply the settlement enterprise is entrenched within the Israeli system, and how deeply Israeli officials and politicians of various parties are committed to it, despite repeated requests, warnings, and condemnations from both the U.S. and the international community as to their provocativeness and illegality.

The second is that, while settlements are not the only issue (no one has ever suggested they are), they are nevertheless a significant one, and Israel’s continuing refusal to recognize that indicates to many a striking lack of seriousness about reaching a final peace deal. Whatever claims Netanyahu believes that Israel has on lands occupied in 1967, the fact is that continued settlement building seriously damages the credibility of Palestinian moderates who believe that a deal with Israel is possible, and bolsters the credibility of Palestinian and other Arab hardliners who insist otherwise.

While Wexler recognizes that the Israelis have not agreed to freeze settlements in East Jerusalem, he says “either you take a process of proximity talks and negotiations seriously or you don’t“:

And you can’t effectively enter into a negotiation process with sincerity if one side or both sides are continuously going to poke the other side in the eye. It just unnecessarily complicates things and needlessly enrages sensibilities in an already combustible environment. And what’s the upside or the advantage of the Israeli government in making such an action? If it is to somehow assuage or comfort a particular domestic political audience then I would respectfully suggest that the Israelis need to balance that perceived gain against the added difficulty it creates for the United States and the international outrage that results from those announcements, as well as the additional pressure that President Abbas receives from the Arab League and elsewhere to end his commitment to the proximity talks. In fairness, the Israelis were quick to point out this was simply an announcement — it wasn’t even as if the building in East Jerusalem would begin for possibly years. So what is the point? Ultimately, respect for the United States should be given more weight and attention. I think that’s what bothered the American administration the most. And, quite frankly, it’s the element of disrespect for America that does not sit well with many Americans, particularly those like me who cherish the unbreakable bond between America and Israel.

Wexler’s point about the difficulties that Israeli intransigence creates for the United States was underscored yesterday by Gen. David Petraeus in his testimony (pdf) before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Petraeus stated that the Israel-Palestinian conflict “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel,” and that “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the AOR [CENTCOM's Area Of Responsibility] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.”

Wexler finishes by saying:

I for one, believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu is in fact capable of both agreeing to and implementing a far-reaching, comprehensive peace agreement. While I am discouraged, at times, like many people are, I still maintain a degree of confidence and optimism and I take the prime minister, as well as President Abbas, at their individual and collective words, that their goals are to end the conflict. Everything we do in America should seek to enable the Israelis and Palestinians to end the conflict, because it is in our national security interests to do so.

With the United States working to end the conflict to the benefit of all sides, it really shouldn’t be asking too much for Netanyahu to attach greater importance to the key regional strategic interests of his country’s most important partner, than to appeasing his right political flank with more and more settlements.

A new article from three Air Force strategists and scholars, including a Colonel who is part of the staff working directly for the head of the Air Force, argues that the US should unilaterally cut its nuclear arsenal by more than 90 percent – going down to 311 nuclear weapons from the current 5000. The bold proposal comes as the Administration is finalizing their Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and a new START Treaty, which hill watchers expect to encounter loud conservative opposition. This new proposal should serve as a major boon to arms control advocates in the coming debates and should embolden the White House to push for a bolder NPR.

The article in Strategic Studies Quarterly is not an isolated ivory tower scholarly piece divorced from the actual strategic thinking taking place inside the Air Force. Two of the authors – James Forsyth and Gary Schaub – are professors at war colleges at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. The Air Force war colleges are not known for their independence and free-thinking, as they are generally seen as much less free wheeling than other services war colleges. But more surprising is the third author, Colonel B. Chance Saltzman, who is the chief of the Strategic Plans and Policy Division at Headquarters Air Force. Saltzman is therefore an integral figure in determining Air Force strategy and works closely with General Norton Schwartz the Chief of Staff of the Air Force. In short, this article is not by some Air Force outsiders, but from very influential insiders.

Noting that during the Cold War “the actual marginal utility of additional forces was quite small,” the authors conclude that a significantly smaller arsenal of nuclear weapons will be more than enough to maintain an effective deterrence and to assure allies without any cost to our security. The article backs the far reaching report from the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, which called for reductions of US forces to 500 nuclear weapons by 2025. Forsyth, Saltzman, and Schaub argue that it is possible to go even further.

This [the commission report] represents a 90-percent reduction in the nuclear arsenal but offers more than enough deterrent capability while providing flexibility to pragmatically implement the force structure cuts. In fact, the United States could address military utility concerns with only 311 nuclear weapons in its nuclear force structure while maintaining a stable deterrence… it does not matter if Russia, who is America’s biggest competitor in this arena, follows suit. The relative advantage the Russians might gain in theory does not exist in reality. Even if one were to assume the worst—a bolt from the blue that took out all of America’s ICBMs—the Russians would leave their cities at risk and therefore remain deterred from undertaking the first move.

In other words, even if we could only obliterate Moscow that would be more than enough of a nuclear capability to deter Russia from starting a nuclear war or from seeking to adopt an aggressive posture that could lead to escalating hostilities. As a result, if we cut our nuclear arsenal nothing would change, especially since, as the authors also note, the US would still maintain a vast conventional capability that would further deter adversaries and assure allies.

This article has not come out of nowhere. It follows a similarly bold report from the Institute for Air Power Studies – an organization closely associated with the Air Force – that surprisingly this past December called for eliminating the nuclear bomber leg of the US nuclear triad. These two reports led Kingston Reif to ask “What’s gotten into the Air Force lately?” It is a good question, one that the Administration, despite being in the final stages of its Nuclear Posture Review, would do well to explore. It would be a shame to put out an NPR that’s behind the strategic curve before it’s even released.

As the Pentagon prepares to survey soldiers about President Obama’s decision to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a new poll of military personnel who served in the Afghanistan or Iraq wars has finds that sexual orientation is “not a burning issue that overwhelms veterans’ lives.”

The new poll, commissioned by The Vet Voice Foundation and conducted jointly by Republican and Democratic pollsters, finds that most veterans are “comfortable around gay and lesbian people, believe that being gay or lesbian has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties, and would find it acceptable if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” Fifty-eight percent of veterans said they served alongside gays or lesbians, and only 22 percent thought they had not:

– 60% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans believe that being gay or lesbian “has no bearing on a service member’s ability to perform their duties.” Only 29% disagree.

– 73% of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say it is “personally acceptable to them if gay and lesbian people were allowed to serve openly in the military.” Only a quarter (25%) would find it unacceptable.

– 73% Iraq and Afghanistan veterans say “they are personally comfortable in the presence of gays and lesbians.” Only a quarter (23%) is uncomfortable, and hardly anyone is very uncomfortable (only 7%).

The survey, which sampled 45% self-identified Republicans and just 20% Democrats, suggests that military personnel are more comfortable serving alongside openly gay and lesbian troops than previously thought. The poll also contradicts the findings of a widely circulated Military Times survey, which reported that 58% of respondents are opposed to efforts to repealing DADT, and undermines the claims of some conservative lawmakers who argue that lifting the ban would undermine the primary goal of the military.

“Simply put, our military is the most professional organization the world has ever known. Not only will service members abide by a repeal, but they’ll largely accept it and move on to the task at hand. For all of the hyperbolic rhetoric from those opposed to a repeal, today’s military really doesn’t see an issue here,” said Jon Soltz, Chairman of the Vet Voice Foundation. Indeed, the survey concluded that veterans under age 35 lean toward favoring allowing gay and lesbian people to serve openly (41% favor to 35% oppose) while veterans over age 35 lean toward opposing by five points (31% favor, 36% oppose).

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff known for his controversial immigration enforcement tactics, says he’s “considering” running for governor of Arizona. “I would run for governor for two reasons, because the people want me, and I know I can do the job, that’s not being egotistical,” he said.

This morning, Arpaio was on MSNBC to discuss the brutal murder of three U.S. consulate officials at the hands of the Aztecas drug gang in the Mexican city of Juárez. Arpaio argued that the U.S. should send troops to Mexico to deal with the drug cartel problem:

I don’t ­want ­to ­be ­an ­extremist­. W­e ­do­ send ­our ­military ­to ­other ­countries. ­I ­know­ it’s­ a­ difficult ­economic­ and­ diplomatic ­problem­ what ­I’m ­going­ to ­say ­but ­possibly ­we­ should ­send­ the­ troops ­into­ Mexico, ­work ­with ­the ­Mexican ­government, ­give­ them­ resources,­ not ­just ­technical ­equipment. When­ I ­was ­in ­the ­DEA ­we ­worked­ undercover,­ involved ­in ­gun battles.­ We­ were operational. ­Maybe ­we ­should­ get ­more­ operational ­in ­that ­country ­especially­ at ­the­ border ­areas.

Watch it:

Many experts have pointed out that militarizing the drug war is counterproductive. Shortly after his inauguration in 2006, President Felipe Calderon began assigning large numbers of troops to fighting the drug war. The National Human Rights Commission specifically cited the case of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico’s murder capital, when it concluded that “using the Mexican military against drug cartels has brought no improvement in public safety.”

Chances are U.S. troops wouldn’t necessarily be welcomed with open arms either. Jorge Angel Pescador Osuna, the former Mexican consul general in Los Angeles, stated in 2008 “[Mexican] foreign policy has been subordinated to that of the Americans, the policemen of the world. … What we need here is to strengthen our democracy, and we will not accomplish that by using the military for civilian law enforcement.”

More at The Wonk Room.

This past weekend, three U.S. consulate officials were brutally shot and murdered by the violent Aztecas drug gang in the Mexican city of Juárez. In response, Joe Arpaio, an Arizona sheriff known for his controversial immigration enforcement tactics, announced this morning on MSNBC that the U.S. should send troops to Mexico to deal with the drug cartel problem:

I don’t ­want ­to ­be ­an ­extremist­. W­e ­do­ send ­our ­military ­to ­other ­countries. ­I ­know­ it’s­ a­ difficult ­economic­ and­ diplomatic ­problem­ what ­I’m ­going­ to ­say ­but ­possibly ­we­ should ­send­ the­ troops ­into­ Mexico, ­work ­with ­the ­Mexican ­government, ­give­ them­ resources,­ not ­just ­technical ­equipment. When­ I ­was ­in ­the ­DEA ­we ­worked­ undercover,­ involved ­in ­gun battles.­ We­ were operational. ­Maybe ­we ­should­ get ­more­ operational ­in ­that ­country ­especially­ at ­the­ border ­areas.

Arpaio quickly pivoted to the topic of immigration and proceeded to complain about how the drug problem is obscuring the nation’s immigration problem:

I’m not liked by Washington and certain politicians. I’m the poster boy because I go after illegal immigrants, smugglers on crime suppression operations. There’s violence here — tons of violence in this country because of illegal immigration but we seem to always talk about the drug problem because politically people don’t want to talk about the illegal immigration problem.

Watch it:

Many experts have pointed out that militarizing the drug war is counterproductive. Shortly after his inauguration in 2006, President Felipe Calderon began assigning large numbers of troops to fighting the drug war. The National Human Rights Commission specifically cited the case of Ciudad Juarez, Mexico’s murder capital, when it concluded that “using the Mexican military against drug cartels has brought no improvement in public safety.” Chances are U.S. troops wouldn’t necessarily be welcomed with open arms either. Jorge Angel Pescador Osuna, the former Mexican consul general in Los Angeles, stated in 2008 “[Mexican] foreign policy has been subordinated to that of the Americans, the policemen of the world. … What we need here is to strengthen our democracy, and we will not accomplish that by using the military for civilian law enforcement.”

Meanwhile, if anyone is guilty of conflating the drug war problem with the problem of immigration, it’s Arpaio. Rather than focusing his resources on violence that has spilled over the border, Arpaio has dedicated most of his energy to chasing busboys and nannies through the desert and most of his talking points to bragging about it. Despite the fact that research shows that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes or be behind bars than the native-born citizens, Arpaio allots an overwhelming amount of his budget to targeting and hunting down non-violent undocumented immigrants and throwing them in jail for “smuggling themselves” across the border. Two independent reports by the East Valley Tribune and the Goldwater Institute show that Arpaio’s immigration-enforcement crusade has contributed to a huge county budget deficit and that crime rates have actually escalated as Arpaio has failed to arrest top smugglers and criminals.

When Vice President Biden recently told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s intention to build thousands of new settlements was undermining U.S. interests in the region, he was reportedly conveying the assessment made by Gen. David Petraeus.

Foreign Policy’s Mark Perry reveals that Biden’s concerns about Israeli behavior endangering American troops stem from a special briefing delivered in January at the Pentagon. On January 16, “team of senior military officers from the U.S. Central Command [CENTCOM],” acting under the orders of CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus, presented Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen with a “33-slide, 45-minute PowerPoint briefing” outlining the concern that “Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region.” The presentation “stunned” Mullen. Perry reports “David Petraeus sent a briefing team to the Pentagon with a stark warning: America’s relationship with Israel is important, but not as important as the lives of America’s soldiers.”

After the Obama administration publicly aired its concerns, leading conservatives began quickly attacking. House Republican leader John Boehner (R-OH) said the administration’s admonishments were “irresponsible” and “an affront to the values” of our relationship with Israel. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) accused Biden of a “double standard,” Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) claimed that the administration was alienating an ally over a protest over a “zoning decision in its capital city,” and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) effectively told “the White House to be quiet on [the issue].”

While conservatives are currently on the offensive against Petraeus’s concerns today, they thought differently in 2007. As the country was heatedly debating our policies in Iraq, leading conservatives demanded that we listen to Petraeus and agree with the views he advocated:

– Boehner said in the Fall of 2007 that Petraeus has “earned” the right to be listened to. In a statement put out condemning a Moveon.org advertisement criticizing Petraeus, Boehner said, “I call on my colleagues to listen to what General Petraeus has to say. He’s earned it.” [9/10/07]

– Cantor said it was important to show that we “stand behind” Petraeus and his advice on Iraq. During an appearance on PBS’s Newshour, the congressman endorsed the “Petraeus plan for victory” and said that supporting him was a way to “send a message to our troops that we stand behind them.” [3/22/07]

– Brownback called Petraeus an “exceptionally smart and thoughtful man.” In a press release lauding President Bush’s appointment of Petraeus as the new top military commander in Iraq, Brownback noted that he knows Petraeus “very well” and that he’s an “exceptionally smart and thoughtful man” who “will do a superb job.” [1/5/07]

– Lieberman and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) asked their colleagues to “listen carefully” to Petraeus’s advice on Iraq. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published in September 2007 titled “Listening To Petraeus” the senators implored their colleagues to “listen carefully” to the General’s advice about how to stablize Iraq. [9/10/07]

General Petraeus is hardly the only defense official who has warned that failing to bring a just end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can lead to Muslim radicalization and endanger our troops. In 2004, the Defense Science Board Task Force noted that our “one sided support in favor of Israel” and failure to resolve the conflict was a leading source of “threats to America’s national security.”

Given how eager the right was to endorse Petraeus’s Iraq solution in 2007, will they listen to him, CENTCOM, and other defense officials about the dangers of not acting to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Today, at a luncheon at the National Press Club on the future of the Republican Party in Washington, FreedomWorks chairman and tea party strategist Dick Armey slammed former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) and other anti-immigration activists for “alienating a ‘natural’ constituency [Latinos] that could help the party win elections.” Armey admitted that as House leader, he made sure Tancredo didn’t have a stage to speak on. The Daily Caller reports:

Former Republican House leader Dick Armey said staunch anti-immigration opponents such as Rep. Tom Tancredo are destructive to Republicans — and are alienating a “natural” constituency that could help the party win elections. “Who in the Republican Party was the genius that said that now that we have identified the fastest-growing voting demographic in America, let’s go out and alienate them?” Armey said, referencing Hispanics, during a luncheon in Washington at the National Press Club.

“When I was the majority leader, I saw to it that Tom Tancredo did not get on the stage because I saw how destructive he was,” Armey said of the Colorado congressman and 2008 Republican presidential candidate known for his opposition to illegal immigration. [...]

Armey also said “the Republican Party is the most naturally talented party at losing its natural constituents in the history of the world.” “This party was born with the emancipation proclamation and can’t get a black vote to save its life. How do they do that?”

Tancredo has long been a target of Armey’s criticism. In an interview with Charlie Rose that aired earlier this month, Armey went as far as to list former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) as representing part of the “tea party tent” that he feels “uncomfortable” with. In 2006, Armey referred to Tancredo as the “cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate.”

Armey’s remarks have clearly made “nativist-extremist” groups that are trying to exploit the momentum of the tea party movement nervous. Americans for Legal Immigration (ALIPAC) quickly came to Tancredo’s defense and started urging its members to attack Armey’s immigration position and make their voices heard. According to ALIPAC, Armey has been fighting to “keep the illegal immigration issue out of the Tea Party movement.” On an organizing conference call hosted by NumbersUSA, callers dismissed Armey as not being a “true tea party patriot,” but also sought tips on how to translate their anti-immigrant views to fit the tea party narrative. “We’ll be a whole lot better off if when [sic] we talk about illegal immigrants we leave off the Hispanic-Latino stuff,” advised NumbersUSA executive director Roy Beck.

While Armey’s remarks might delegitimize nativist tea bagger-wannabes in the eyes of those who value his funding and leadership, he’s ultimately the one responsible for giving their voices a megaphone. Armey may have kicked Tancredo off the stage in the House, but now he’s built a platform that’s open to any wingnut who wants to capitalize off of the anger and frustration that the tea party movement encapsulates.

Finally, while critiquing the GOP, Armey himself falls into another trap of the Republican Party: failing to offer workable solutions on immigration. While Armey is quick to critique the federal government’s immigration agency, the only solution he has offered is to privatize the U.S. immigration system. Currently, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is the lone Republican working on comprehensive immigration reform. A second Republican co-sponsor is, so far, nowhere to be found.

Last week, the Israeli government announced that it had approved settlement expansion in East Jerusalem and the West Bank just as Vice President Biden arrived in the country to propel Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Biden quickly condemned the move, saying that “the substance and the timing” of the announcement “undermines the trust we need right now and runs counter to the constructive discussions.” Later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the Israeli move “insulting” and “a very unfortunate and difficult moment.” Israel’s U.S. ambassador reportedly described U.S.-Israeli relations as in a state of “crisis.”

Now, conservative Israel supporters are pinning the blame on the Obama administration for the spat for daring to publicly air its differences with the Israeli government. Making reference to Clinton’s remarks, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who himself enjoys airing public disagreements with Obama, urged the White House to be quiet on Israel:

“It was a dust-up, a misunderstanding. (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu has apologized, and the timing was unfortunate. But the second round of criticism is unproductive. I make one appeal — sometimes silence really is golden.”

In a press release, the Israel lobby organization AIPAC offered similar remarks. “The Obama Administration’s recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern,” the statement read, adding that the “Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel.”

On Fox News Sunday yesterday, the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol stated bluntly that the dust-up was all Obama’s fault. “This is a fight that the White House has picked,” he said. “I do not know, honestly, why the president chose to pick a big public fight just when it was all dying down with Israel.”

It’s unclear why critics believe the White House “picked” the fight considering that Israel agreed in November to to curb settlement growth in partial fulfillment of Israel’s obligations under the Bush administration road map.

The administration is speaking up in defense of U.S. interests in the region. CentCom commander Gen. David Petraeus said recently he “worries” about the “lack of progress in resolving the issue” for U.S. forces in the region and that he believes “that Israeli intransigence on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was jeopardizing U.S. standing in the region.”

The Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz editorialized yesterday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s settlement policies are “leading to Israel’s increasing international isolation and threatening its key security interests in the name of an extreme right-wing ideology.”

In the lead up to the Iraq war, neoconservatives were fond of suggesting that “the road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.” The idea, peddled by neoconservatives associated with the Project for The New American Century (PNAC), was that regime change in Iraq would transform the power dynamics in the Middle East in such a way that, among various other wonderful benefits, Israel would feel more secure:

“The road to Jerusalem,” the mantra went, led through Baghdad. Neoconservatives and other hawks within the Bush administration expected that the United States would win respect in the Arab world through a massive show of force, and that Israel would be more comfortable making peace with the Palestinians once Saddam was gone.

As Leon Hadar wrote in September, the notion “proved to be an illusion“:

Instead of strengthening the pro-American bloc in the Middle East, weakening the power of radical political Islam, and accelerating the peace process, the Bush administration’s policies helped tilt the regional balance of power toward Iran and its satellites, empowering anti-American and anti-Israeli forces in Lebanon and Palestine and generating mistrust and violence in the Holy Land.

Now the message emanating from Israel and some of its supporters in the United States is that the road to Jerusalem leads through Iran.

Right on time, here’s Jamie Fly of the Foreign Policy Initiative (which is essentially a rebranded PNAC) showing that neocon illusions never die, they just get repackaged for new wars:

There is indeed a linkage between all of these regional problems, but the Obama administration has the sequence reversed. Regime change in Iran, not continued pressure on Israel and the Palestinians, represents the best chance this administration has to remake the Middle East.

Iran does pose a serious problem for the U.S. — but I’m more inclined to go with General David Petraeus on this one, that better behavior by our client Israel and progress on the Israeli-Palestinian peace front would bolster U.S. credibility in region and help us more effectively confront Iran, among other challenges.

As for the various colorful ponies that Fly assures us will result from regime change this time, I would refer him to the Sage of Crawford:

Last month, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) reelection campaign called on challenger and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) to disavow the endorsement of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), an anti-immigrant group that the Anti-Defamation League accuses of promoting “virulent anti- Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric” and “adopting the tactics and rhetoric of racist groups and moving it into the mainstream.”

The McCain campaign isn’t letting up the pressure. In a statement issued today, campaign spokesman Brian Rogers slammed Hayworth once again for accepting ALIPAC’s endorsement. Politico reports:

Let’s be clear: Congressman [J.D.] Hayworth’s continued flirtation with extreme groups that condone racism only opens the door for liberals to falsely paint all opponents of illegal immigration as bigots. Congressman Hayworth should immediately disavow this group’s support and commit to never again associating himself with groups that accept this kind of hateful and counterproductive rhetoric,” McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said in a statement Friday.

It’s the latest iteration of one of McCain’s most consistent messages: that Hayworth, a vocal immigration hawk, holds views that go beyond the conservative mainstream and into the fringe.

Hayworth isn’t just facing heat from McCain. Somos Republicans — an Arizona group which disassociates itself from the local and state Republican Party in an effort to register more Latinos — released a statement pounding Hayworth:

Arizona Hispanic Republicans will not be supporting J.D. Hayworth who was recently endorsed by ALIPAC…The Arizona Republican Party cannot afford to have their politicians embrace organizations like ALIPAC who use racial slurs such as “wetbacks,” “taco-benders,” and the like, especially in our State of Arizona where the legal Hispanic population is 30%. Supporting these types of politicians will thrust the State of Arizona into a Democratic State, much like we recently witnessed in our neighboring State of New Mexico.

When asked about these “racial slurs,” ALIPAC director William Gheen told Phoenix New Times writer James King to “contact him by e-mail in the future so he could shove a hard copy of our questions ‘up [our] ass.’” Gheen also threatened to “sue the s$*& out of” the New Times for even asking about racist language on the Web site.

Somos Republicans have recommended that Arizona Republicans learn a lesson from Colorado — a state where former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) alienated Latinos with his anti-immigrant rhetoric and caused the state to turn from “red to blue.” That’s probably why FreedomWorks chairman and tea party strategist Dick Armey, who has identified Tancredo as the “cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate” and an un-wanted tea party patriot, has decided not to back Hayworth. “J.D. had a fairly short, undistinguished congressional career with virtually no initiative on his part. I just don’t see any reason why we should be concerned about that race,” stated Armey.

While the McCain campaign, Somos Republicans, and even Dick Armey all make good points, they side-step the fact that the Republican Party has repeatedly legitimized — if not elevated — its anti-immigrant fringe. The Republican National Committee’s 2008 party platform offered nothing but enforcement-only solutions to the country’s broken immigration system and outright opposed “amnesty.” Meanwhile, right-wing Republicans did everything in their power to block comprehensive immigration reform in 2006 and 2007. This year, no other Republican — not even McCain — has demonstrated willingness to push for immigration reform in 2010. Quite the contrary, McCain has allowed himself to be intimidated by Hayworth’s hard line immigration views and has moved his own immigration platform further to the right.