For the past two months, the informed and active portion of the GOP electorate has been following Rockin’ Robbo Eichmann’s determination to destroy U.S. Senate candidate Bader Qarmout with much the same fascination that movie-going audiences back in 1956 watched Gregory Peck’s Capt. Ahab pursue Moby Dick, wondering all the while if Eichmann’s metaphorical fate will mirror that of Ahab’s.
There is no small measure of speculation as to why Eichmann continues to spend so much time obsessing over a candidate who has a snowball’s chance in hell of prevailing over Joe Kyrillos. Time will tell, I suppose.
As an American citizen who came here when he was a lad, Qarmout understands the immigrant experience. As a man of Christian faith, he refuses to believe that the only way to deal with the problem of illegal immigration is to deport every single transgressor without regard to mitigating circumstances. In effect, Mr. Qarmout is pleading for the United States to deal with the matter of long-term illegal immigrant residence in a responsible and sensitive way.
While there is certainly room to debate his proposal (some conservatives may have reservations about the details of his plan), the fact remains that Mr. Qarmout has offered a solution to a problem that is not going to simply disappear even if the borders are sealed shut like a Tupperware container: of the 15 million or so illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S., a significant number of them are families that have lived here for more than 20 years. In many cases, parents came here with little children who are now young adults with younger siblings who were born here. Oftentimes father and mother have started a small business that now thrives and both are productive members of the community. What is to be done with families such as these?
Shall we deport all of them – save for the children born on U.S. soil? That appears to be the thinking of some. It certainly is a simple solution and about as morally subtle as a brick through a plate glass window – and anyone with a smidgen of human compassion rejects it in the belief that a more intellectually, emotionally, morally and legally satisfying solution is possible. Much like Newt Gingrich, Bader Qarmout had the courage to face the slings and arrows of simple-minded political hacks and offer a solution that he believes will work. It isn’t close to being ideal (neither was Newt’s, for that matter), but it is – or at least it should be – a springboard for deeper and more thoughtful discussion and debate, because that is what conservative do: we employ reason and logic, not invective and emotion.
The primary platform for Eichmann’s assault on Bader Qarmout is a once-respected political website that is now a wholly-owned and operated subsidiary of the NJ GOP Establishment, as demonstrated by the fact that the blogger-in-chief of the site has yet to publish a single post that criticizes – or even vets – Establishment RINOs Leonard Lance or Joe Kyrillos, although he does post articles that routinely defame Mr. Qarmout.
What about Kyrillos? Alas, Joe Kyrillos’ campaign website does not venture a footstep beyond the jejune RINO platitudes conservatives have come to know and loathe:
Nothing about abortion. Nothing about same-sex marriage. Nothing about the Second Amendment. Nothing about energy policy.
And nothing about immigration.
Fortunately, at a recent event in Hudson County Mr. Kyrillos was interviewed by local TV media and gave the electorate some valuable insight into his views on immigration:
Here’s the word-for-word transcript:
…to be a part of that, uh, of that solution. To, uh, to say hey, I love immigration. I love legal immigration and we want to, uh, welcome people to this country like my grandparents came, like my father came…build our economy, build our society, build our economy, um, and um, and secure our borders in a way that, that, uh, that makes sense. And deal with the, with the problems that we have with, with folks that are here, that came here as, you know, young children before they, they learned English, Spanish or anything else and deal with them in a, in a, in a, in a, in a responsible and sensitive way at the same time.
Hmmmm. Note the hesitant stuttering just before he utters words he fears might come back to haunt him: “in a responsible and sensitive way.”
My friends, logic dictates there are two – and only two – options for dealing with illegal immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for a long period of time: deport them or let them stay. ANY option permitting them stay here while sparing them from criminal prosecution effectively grants them a pardon from deportation, which is a punishment for the crime of entering the U.S. illegally.
A pardon for a crime – whether or not a conviction occurs – is, by definition, amnesty. (Unfortunately for the nature of the immigration debate, the word “amnesty” has become an emotionally-charged buzzword that means “the granting of citizenship to illegal immigrants.”)
Even dimwits like Rob Eichmann understand that the word “sensitive” cannot be used to modify the word “deportation,” which means that Kyrillos very likely rejects mass deportation of every illegal immigrant. IF he rejects deportation, it follows that, in some cases, he favors a “responsible and sensitive” solution that enables these particular illegal immigrants to remain.
Exit Questions: (a) What is Kyrillos’ proposal for dealing with long-term illegal immigration? (b) Has he given any serious thought at all to the issue? (c) Is he avoiding any detail because he’s confident that the local Drive-Bys and his ‘amen corner’ at Conservative New Jersey won’t ever ask the hard questions that demand detailed answers?
Don’t bother pondering any further. I’ll answer the questions for you:
(a) He has none.
Now watch carefully as the Dimwit Duo of Eichmann & Winkler gleefully pronounce that I am a proponent of amnesty who embraces the Bader Proposal.