Sorry Sarah, it’s still breaking the law.

This isn’t going to be a very popular position, but I have to put it out there.

Now, I’ll tell you up front that I’m favorably impressed with Sarah Palin and there is no doubt that she has incredible appeal to many conservatives.  I admire her “moxie”.

But there are a couple of things that I’m having a hard time squaring when it comes to Palin’s circle. Her endorsement of Carly Fiorina for one thing. Fiorina is not a conservative.  Chuck DeVore is.  According to conventional wisdom, DeVore was not electable in liberal California.  But I’ll always wonder: If Palin had thrown her endorsement to DeVore, might it have made all the difference for him?  Maybe. Maybe not.

Agreeing to campaign for John McCain is another.  Ya, ya, ya, I know.  She “owed” him, she’d have looked bad if she didn’t.  Got it.  Not delighted, but it’s what she had to do.  I can’t blame her. We had a choice to make too:  vote for him or sit out the 2008 race.  So many of us held our noses against the stench… (and voted for Palin).  It was all part of the deal.

But the thing that’s really bothering me… and it’s a BIG one for a lot of us — is her position on amnesty.

A majority of “We the people” have made it quite clear what we believe about amnesty — in 2007 we melted down Washington’s phone system and crashed computer servers telling Congress — and especially John McCain — that we DID NOT WANT the amnesty bill he and The Swimmer were dishing up like a foul stew.  They almost got away with it and we’ll not forgive McCain for it (along with all his other RINO transgressions.)

Well, a majority of us still feel that way.  Look at the polls — overwhelming national support for Arizona’s newly enacted defense/offense legislation that addresses their horrific border problem. (You go, Jan Brewer!)

So, here’s the thing:  Sarah Palin’s position on amnesty is troubling to many conservatives.  It leaves a lot to be desired. It’s a take-away, not an asset.

Many wonder if that’s a major reason McCain picked her for his running mate: shared views on amnesty.

Here’s an excerpt from an interview Sarah Palin did with Univision during the 2008 campaign. Note the boldfaced answers:

Amnesty

Q.  Governor, let me ask you about immigration. How many undocumented immigrants are there in Alaska?

I don’t know, I don’t know. That’s a good question.

I would have asked a follow up: “How many sanctuary cities are there in Alaska?”  (There are two.)

Q.  As governor, how do you deal with them? Do you think they all should be deported?

There is no way that in the US we would roundup every illegal immigrant -there are about 12 million of the illegal immigrants- not only economically is that just an impossibility but that’s not a humane way anyway to deal with the issue that we face with illegal immigration.

Q.   Do you then favor an amnesty for the 12 or 13 million undocumented immigrants?

No, I do not. I do not. Not total amnesty. You know, people have got to follow the rules. They’ve got to follow the bar, and we have got to make sure that there is equal opportunity and those who are here legally should be first in line for services being provided and those opportunities that this great country provides.

So, first Palin says she does not favor an amnesty for the “12 or 13” million “undocumented immigrants. And by the way, how do we know there are “12 million”?  Who’s counting them?  You can’t. Well, you could start at Walmart, I suppose. (I know, I’m being snarky).   But look, we’ve been using that 12 million number for years.   Ya think it might have increased?  That number is nothing more than an estimate — a low ball estimate at that.  Many of us are guessing it’s got to be 20 million or more, millions of them “anchor” babies under the age of ten.  Anchor babies.  Who came up with that?  It is clearly unconstitutional.  A child born of parents here illegally does not get to be a citizen.  The issue resulting from the coupling of two wrongs do not a “legal” make.

Palin then says “not total amnesty”.  Ummm, what am I missing here?  It’s either amnesty.  Or it isn’t.  She says people have to follow the rules.  Really?  Whose rules?  Who follows them?

In the next breath says we have to make sure there is equal opportunity, blah blah blah.  She’s contradicting herself. Is she conflicted? Schizoid? Or is she deliberately obfuscating, using doublespeak.  Doublespeak?  Come on, Sarah!  Not you too?  Fence straddling.  It defies logic.

I also disagree with Palin that there is no way to track down illegals.  Not to worry. We don’t have to when we enforce our laws.  They’ll get the hint, pack up their kit and caboodle and hit the road.  Illegals left Oklahoma when stringent measures were passed a couple of years ago.  Illegals already are leaving Arizona in anticipation of the law’s enactment. It’s called voluntary emigration.  Works every time. And the ones who persist in hiding in the shadows?  We route them out, arrest them, and send them heading south of the border down Mexico way.  We’ll even make you a sandwich to go.  Here’s your sombrero, amigo.  Hasta la vista.

Q.  To clarify, so you support a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?

I do because I understand why people would want to be in America. To seek the safety and prosperity, the opportunities, the health that is here. It is so important that yes, people follow the rules so that people can be treated equally and fairly in this country.

We have a path to citizenship.  It’s called naturalization.  We’re not saying they can’t come.  We’re saying they have to use the front door.  We expect them to do what our grandparents did when they came over: make certain commitments , like assimilation, upholding our Constitution, learn English, and be grateful for the precious opportunities our nation gives us. (Assuming there are any left by the time we give the boot to that other illegal immigrant in the White House.)

There’s such a thing as pragmatism and I if nothing else, Palin is a pragmatist.  And that’s a good thing, for the most part. But not in this case.

Sorry Sarah.  These “undocumented immigrants” (sheesh, don’t you love the terminology?!?)  are breaking the law.  As are the businesses that hire them.  We aid and abet in the commission of a felony when we fail to hold these “greedy capitalists”  accountable.  Think about that, Sarah.

No rewards for crime. The illegals must leave.

If they want to come back to work, they register and we give them work visas.  They pay taxes, they pay their way. They don’t get food stamps, or free medical care, or any other welfare benefits. That’s the deal. We’ll let them work, they pay their taxes, and we’ll call it even.  They don’t like it? They can leave.  Or — if they want all the perks of citizenship, there’s a process. We make sure they use it.

On some issues, pragmatism must make way for principles. This is one of them. The principles have to be monuments: unmovable. No compromise. Period.

Sarah, can you hear me now?