June 25, 2007
Two Top California Republicans Are Aliens (JOSH GERSTEIN, June 25, 2007, NY Sun)
The California Republican Party is coming under criticism for its decision to hire political operatives who are not American citizens for two top jobs.
In March, the state party hired an Australian, Michael Kamburowski, to be its chief operating officer. He now lives in America on a so-called green card, but he was ordered deported in 2001. That order was eventually lifted, though he is now suing the Department of Homeland Security for $41 million over an episode in 2004 where he was jailed for 30 days by immigration authorities, according to court records.
Recently, the party gave the position of research and political technology director to a Canadian, Christopher Matthews. Mr. Matthews is presently in America on a special work visa for Mexican and Canadian nationals, but California GOP officials applied for and received a coveted "H1B" visa for him, a party spokesman said. The H1B program is the subject of intense lobbying by the technology industry, which has urged Congress to increase the annual allotment of 65,000 visas for skilled workers.
Tom Tancredo is sponsoring a bill in Congress to get that wetback off the sawbuck.
Posted by Orrin Judd at June 25, 2007 4:57 PM
I don't know if these complaints come from the right or the left, but it reminds me of the hysteria that forced Livingston to resign before becoming Speaker. The reaction about this story (including forcing at least one of them to resign!) puts the lie to the claim that the "illegal immigration" furor ripping the GOP to pieces is about the "illegal" part. Insanity.
Is this as bad as accepting campaign funds from China like the Clintons did?
Leadership positions in the California GOP. Truly jobs real Americans will not do.
Real Americans? Invloved in California politics? Don't think so.
Re: Matthews, those are jobs Americans won't do - look at how bad the pubbies have been on research.
So-called green card??????
Now if they actually hired an outside PR firm, things might look up.
Livingston's offenses were moral, not imaginary.
The wet back on the saw buck was at least a co-subject of George III along with Washington, and Jefferson and Franklin. None of your friends form the illelgal community are US citizens. Otherwise ther'd be no problem.
Exactly. Just legalize them and the "problem" goes away.
No problem, all that needs to be done is this: they go home, apply for a visa, wait for one to be issued and then travel in. Presto - Chango they're legal. No muss,no Senators harmed in the making.
No magic wand for anyone please.
Being California, I expected they were space aliens.
oj: I agree that for moral reasons Livingston was unfit for leadership. But the problem with his resignation at that time was that coming after the Lewinsky it apparently showed that sex was all that mattered, when those few of us who have principles know that Clinton committed felony sexual harassment and blatant obstruction of justice.
My (strained?) analogy was an attempt to show that this case shows that the "immigration" part is the hang-up, NOT the "illegal" part.
Sex was all that mattered. Clinton should have resigned or been impeached solely on the basis of freakin' on the help. The rest was for prosecutors.
That would place trivial technicalities above human decency. It's not worthy of a Christian nation.
Fine. So my analogy was imperfect. As they all are.
Clinton should have been resigned, and failing that should have been impeached. What he did was criminal. What Livingston did was not. Similarly, hiring these guys is absolutely fine because they are immigrants, but legally. That was my point. Sheesh.
If the GOP were not in the process of imploding over this immigration bill, they could make a point of asking James Carville whether it's appropriate for the CA GOP to employ these guys. How may countries has he worked on campaigns in?
The criminality of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky is an open question. He had to be removed because it was immoral. Ditto Livingston. Except that only one party believes in morality.
If that wasn't sexual harassment, then there is no such thing.
Indeed, there isn't. That's immaterial to the question at hand though.