Duncan Hunter Interview – 8/6/10: The ICE Rebellion, Anchor Babies, Iraq, & Dr. Jack Wheeler

AJM: I’m glad you’re writing it. I’m looking forward to reading it. Did you find that 2007 Odierno press briefing you were looking for?

DH: Yeah, on June 15th, 2007 is when we really went after al Qaeda, and the kill rate, or the attack rate in Iraq dropped off the cliff. And that’s why when Petraeus testified on September 7th, the Dems were out of ammo.

I mean, if you look at the statements made by their presidential candidates, the height of their anti-Petraeus run was mid summer, when the Democrats were prepping the battleground for the testimony from Petraeus. I was the ranking Republican on the first appearance that he made. We had a joint Armed Services/Foreign Affairs hearing.

DH: Yeah, we had all the leftwing Pinko ladies. In fact, I was the first to defend Petraeus. A Democrat, the late Tom Lantos, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, led off with a statement that I think was written for him by the Pelosi crew. It said, essentially, that General Petraeus was a puppet, mouthing a speech that had been written for him by the Whitehouse. And you also had at that point, as you know, the “General Betray Us” ad coming out in the NY Times.

DH: Yeah, yeah. No, not at all. I gave him a little wire-brushing. (chuckles)

But for the Dems, that was their high point. That was their high water mark. They actually had a strategy of their own, a little military strategy. They had their own little “surge” in the summer of 2007. They prepped the battleground with a series of hearings before he even got there. They had their biggest gun, which was Bill Perry, who was Clinton’s former SecDef; An ‘intellectual’ Defense guy. Then they had General Batiste, who had commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq. He hated Rumsfeld, and he was there to say everything was bad. And we had the one guy who just DOMINATED the hearings, which was General Jack Keane, retired, who was the author of the surge.

Keane was the central figure in the surge. He worked Congress. He went back and forth between Iraq and the President. He hotwired the President with Petraeus, and thereby bypassed the Joint Chiefs, who weren’t supportive of the surge!

This just shows that all the kings horses and all the kings men don’t always pan out, when you put together an elaborate chain of consultation for the President, right? The Joint Chiefs are not in the chain of command. They are supposed to advise the SecDef and they are supposed to advise the President. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs is supposed to be the President’s number one advisor. So Admiral Mullens is sitting there like the Maytag Repairman, never getting a call, right? And this old retired guy, named Jack Keane, is shuttling back and forth between the Oval Office.

In fact, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post did a little expose on it as a front page story, to the effect that Keane had become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. And he had all these conversations where Mullin was miffed. Mullin called me up as the ranking member, because I always called Keane, because Keane was my only horse to call to these hearings, because he dominated them. But there was no bench strength. There wasn’t a Keane in reserve. In fact one time when we didn’t have Keane, I called the hearing off. I called up the chairman and said ‘hey, we want to put this off – our witness is not here’.

Anyway, Mullen called me up and asked me NOT to allow Keane to testify, on the basis that he was circumventing the Joint Chiefs. And I said, “Mike, there is no chain of command for good ideas”. The notion that you can only get your ideas from one guy, or one group, is stupid. And since Mullen’s ‘best’ idea so far is to put gays in the military, he wasn’t the right guy to go to anyway. (laughs)

DH: That just shows you that these things are very close calls. We almost had another Vietnam. If Bush had given in to the Iraq Study Group, we would have been done!

DH: Of course. I met with the President. But I met with him throughout the entire war. But the President in the end….it was Keane, Keane and Kagan who put together the surge, the counterinsurgency recommendation. I had nothing to do with it, although I supported it very strongly. But it was their baby. You know, success has a thousand authors, but don’t count me as one of the brain children on this one.

DH: Yeah, I supported it very strongly. In fact, what’s funny is that President announced it on the 10th of January. So like on the 12th, I was on the Wolf Blitzer show with a Democrat who hated it. And she said to Wolf, “It’s proven it’s not working. We just had a big attack in Baghdad!” And I said, “Congresswoman Naiveté, the first surge troop has not landed in Iraq yet….”

DH: I don’t even know. I can’t remember. But I do know I thought it was hilarious: the president makes his speech and the next day they had proof it hadn’t worked. They didn’t understand. The surge brigades weren’t there. They started coming in about one a month.

AJM: I seem to remember you on the tube explaining this to some folks more than once.

AJM: I just want to let you know, since I’m the reporter of news since you’re too busy writing your book: The rank and file of ICE, which as you know is the immigration/customs enforcement arm, today, they gave a vote of ‘no confidence’ to the leadership of ICE. That’s the director, the assistant director, and the Obama administration, in general. They actually voted, the union voted no confidence. They accused the agency heads of “misleading the American public”, “not protecting the safety of Americans”, and calling out their “misguided and reckless initiatives”. So I just wanted to get your reaction to this breaking news, this newly brewing rebellion in ICE over their incompetent leadership.

DH: Well, I obviously don’t know the details which are behind this public statement. But here’s what I would say:

The Obama Administration has failed to secure the border, purposely so. So it is not surprising that an agency whose personnel have as a primary mission the securing of the border and the removal of illegal aliens is harshly criticizing the administration. The Administration’s failing in IT’S mission. So it’s not surprising that the men and women who are charged with executing that mission, are upset with them. It is well deserved.

DH: Now wait a minute. Obama is from Chicago. He’d say, “So what? It’s nothing but a slim majority that have come out against us”.

AJM: Ok, that’s that. Just wanted to let you know what’s brewing. I think it’s significant. It’s not a good thing that your rank and file….

DH: The point is that that in itself is not the substantive tragedy of the Obama administration. The vote is just a result of the substantive tragedy. The substantive tragedy is the Administrations deliberate failure to secure the borders. And essentially, the fact that their own employees and agents are now complaining about that is not surprising. They are failing in their mission due to the incompetence at the top.

AJM. Yeah. The other thing is, the Department of Justice along with the heads of ICE, gave excuse to the sanctuary cities! I think it was your son, actually, that brought up that ‘Hey, Obama Administration, you guys are going after Arizona enforcing the law, but here you are allowing these sanctuary cities to exist in violation of the law.’ So he even wrote legislation to this regard, and they sent out their spokesman that said, ‘Well, sanctuary cities are fine with us, for all intents and purposes. And therefore we are not going to prosecute or persecute them.’

DH: That’s right. That has got to be depressing to the Border Patrol agents and to the ICE agents who risk their lives in difficult and inconvenient operations, knowing that their own president and his administration does not support their efforts. And that they acquiesce when the left wing state and local governments try to subvert those efforts!

AJM: Yeah. I think it is a good black eye to give the Obama Administration, and I think it is well deserved.

AJM: On the same subject matter, but slightly different angle, Ann Coulter wrote a piece on anchor babies. You know she puts out a syndicated column every week. You know Ann, don’t you?

AJM: She didn’t just endorse you. On one of the national talk shows she rattled off why you were the best. She said, ‘well he’s perfect on guns, perfect on life, perfect on this and that, great on national security – in other words he’s the perfect candidate, but it’s just a shame no one knows him.’ But she did her best for awhile for you, but then when she realized that you weren’t going to get it this time, she switched over to Romney. Not sure why…

AJM: I’ll send it to you anyway so when you get time, you can go back and read it.

AJM: But basically, she went back and looked at the history of the so-called anchor baby. OK? And her point was that this nonsense, and I think it was very well researched and justified, was that the reason that we have anchor babies at all – illegals coming in and having their kids and becoming quote-unquote “citizens” – was because of a footnote that Justice Brennan put into a Supreme Court opinion in 1982!

Then she went back and did the research on what the authors of the 14th Amendment had intended when they allowed for blacks to be considered citizens. The 14th Amendment, as you know, is a…

DH: Listen, I understand it. Bilbray has done a similar analysis. Congressman Bilbray?

DH: And that’s the essence of his anchor baby bill, which I cosponsored. But here’s my point. This is why I worked hard on border security. Remember we talked about the vast array of issues that attend the unsecured border? Anchor babies are one of them. Illegal employers are another. The burdens on the social systems and criminal justice. All those things are a crime and are all relevant to a failed border. The point is though, all of those issues would go away, to a very large degree, if we had an enforceable border.

AJM: Well not all of them. Here’s a part that’s missing. A lot of people, the women that come over to have their kids here, actually come over on legal visas to come to the United States.

AJM: Well, it’s not among Mexican population, I assume, that can just walk over the border. But it is amongst the Irish and Peruvian and all these other illegal aliens, who don’t necessarily even come across the southern border. I want them gone too! They can fly in at 8 months pregnant, have their kid and Voila!

DH: They are not an illegal alien then, if they have papers to visit the country. My point is that if you have an enforceable border, meaning people can’t come in, ever, unless they have our permission – meaning in most cases a visa to come in, right?

DH: Then you are not going to have tons of folks coming across the border, having babies, then leveraging the system to validate their entry into the United States, which is essentially what they do.

You saw how my son got caught up in that, how he got criticized by the hordes of lefties. He recommended the only humane way, the only really humane and practical way to deal with it. Which is obviously, you’re not going to take a one month old baby and from its mother – which you’re not. And yet, we still want to follow the law. The only thing that you can do which is practical and humane is to send them ALL back, to send the baby back with the mother. He garnered howls of protests from the open borders crowd, yet he laid out the only practical road you can take once you have that situation.

DH: But the point is, I bet if you looked at this thing, the number of people who come across legally on a visa, then have an anchor baby, and then try to leverage themselves into permanent status, I’ll bet you that is less than 5 percent.

AJM: Well, we’ve got a huge illegal Irish immigration problem, just as an example. Also, a lot of eastern Europeans.

DH: Are you sure of that? For this reason: Most of Europe is losing population, the native population. Meaning they are not supporting their death rates with birth rates, they aren’t matching it. So the idea that you’ve got huge waves of people coming into the US is counter intuitive.

DH: Listen, here’s my bottom line recommendation and opinion. If you add the numbers, the total immigration into the US, legal and illegal, 95% of the anchor babies are people coming in illegally, not on a temporary legal basis, then having a baby and staying, but coming in illegally into the United States. So therefore, if you fence and secure the border, you handle, by my calculation, 95 percent of the problem. That is in addition to all of the other known benefits of protecting our sovereignty by controlling the border.

AJM: I’ll give you this, in this discussion: Whether it is 95% or even 80%, you are right; the vast majority of the problem would be taken care of. However, however, since we don’t have a secure border, none of it is being taken care of right now, right?

So here’s the point of Ann Coulter. She went back to the author of the 14th Amendment.

AJM: Here’s what he said. This is Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan. He said, “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States, who are foreigners, aliens, or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” In other words he explicitly said this does not apply!

DH: Oh absolutely. And that same research is what Bilbray had come up with. I agreed with it then, as I do now.

AJM: Yeah, so Ann’s point of it is that we don’t need to lose, or surrender the argument on anchor babies.

DH: I agree with her. That’s why I’ve been down that road more than once with legislation. Few democrats, however, are willing to bite, for obvious reasons.

AJM: The reality is that despite your best efforts to slam the border shut, in spite of conservatives’ best efforts, and in spite the efforts of your son and all the allies to secure the border, it could be another 15 years.

DH: Yeah. Is your position that if you went to court right now – because the 14th amendment is what is being utilized, however improperly, to give citizenship to anybody born on American soil – that we would win? Now the question is, with that statement by the original senator, is that controlling of that amendment? In other words, if you went to a conservative supreme court, and let’s say you had a Justice suit to deport people who were born here, let’s say as a good example, the son of a diplomat who was born here. On the basis of an Iraqi ambassador’s son who was born here while he was in the embassy in DC, is now considered to be an American citizen - because that is a direct reference to the senators statement - are you saying the court would say “no, he’s not a citizen”?

DH: Oh, I think she does. I remember talking to Bilbray a number of years ago whether or not there has been any test case on this. But you’re suggesting that a test case that went to the Supreme Court, with pretty strict constructionists, would say ‘we agree with the senator’.

DH: Now remember, when you do a constitution, or an amendment to the constitution, you’ve got the one senator…

DH: Yeah I understand that. Let me tell you, because I’ve done this before, where what I said during debates on legislation has been used in court before. Like some of the environmental laws where I put in exceptions and exemptions, where we allowed vehicular travel along the border, for example in wilderness areas. And in the lawsuits that were trying to ban all vehicular travel, they pulled out statements I made that ‘Hunter did not intend for this to be as far reaching.’ Because I’m the author.

DH: So my point is that the stated opinion of the author, the intent of the author, is probative, but it is not conclusive. So court cases do not solely rely on such statements, even if they should, in some cases.

AJM: No, no doubt. The problem that I’ve had, is that unlike you and Bilbray and the other conservatives, I’ve heard numerous Republicans, I mean more often than not, say, “Oh well, it’s just the way it is, anchor babies are part of the 14th Amendment.”

DH: So the common sense rebuttal to that is: Well wait a minute, that’s not necessarily what the Amendment said, and it certainly is not what it means. And here is the author of the amendment. In other words, the Senator’s statement may not be conclusive, but they aren’t chopped liver either. And Justice Brennan was sorely mistaken in his side note.

I think that is good. I agree with Ann Coulter saying it. It ought to be put to a challenge. I think to have a plaintiff put it to a challenge; I think you almost need to have the federal government, because the federal government is in charge of deportation. And right now, we’ve seen their tendencies.

One thing you’d never see out of an Obama government, or for that matter a Bush government, is an anchor baby deportation order, right?

DH: With their politically correct sensibilities, they don’t want to be stigmatized as the guys trying to send little babies offshore.

DH: There you go. But I’m saying you may have trouble getting a plaintiff for the test case. But we’d have to try to get the test case.

AJM: I think one way to skip the test case is to go ahead and pass legislation that says we will not allow anchor babies to be under the 14th amendment, that we will restore the original intent. So the ‘test case’ will come sure as the sun rises when the liberals start screaming and suing.

But listen, I’ve got General Odierno here trying to sweep into Diyala Province.

DH: Yeah. From a long time ago. Doctor?? You know the last guy who was a doctor in Washington was a big lobbyist. I finally looked the thing up and he was a doctor in physical education. (laughs)

DH: So why does Wheeler have to be a doctor?! I don’t think he’s a doctor.

AJM: He’s got a doctorate; I’m sure, in something. Anyway, he has a fantastic piece that…

DH: He’s a good guy. The last time I saw him, he had a wife named Rebel. That’s her name; Rebel.

DH: Yeah, well he really is. He was helping the freedom fighters, and doing all sorts of other stuff. He’s an interesting and colorful guy. But I hear about these guys 10 years later and they’re all doctors! (laughs)

DH: Maybe not 10. I think I saw him on a plane coming out of Washington maybe a couple years ago.

AJM: He’s a very good writer. I’m going to send you his piece along with Coulter’s piece, and you can read it at your leisure. It really has some teeth to it, in terms of the situation America finds herself in.

In case you missed these recent interviews and statements!

Duncan Hunter Slams Proposition 8 Ruling for Subverting the Will of the People

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2564762/posts

Duncan Hunter – July 29, 2010: Arizona Politics, Obama’s Corrupt Amnesty Plan & Beautiful People

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2561912/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview 07-20-10: Barry & Hugo, the Monroe Doctrine & a Patriot Pop Quiz

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2557510/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview 07-16-10, Pt II: Obama’s Immigration Fraud and Some American Heroes

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2557375/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview 07-16-10, Part 1: Uncle Fester, Mitt Romney, and taming the EPA Monster

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2555621/posts

Duncan Hunter Takes on Obama’s Planned Executive Order Amnesty and Elena Kagan

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2544451/posts

Duncan Hunter 6/22/10 Interview PART 2: Joe Barton vs. The Hypocrits & Arizona vs. Obama

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2541291/posts

Duncan Hunter 6/22/10 Part 1: Iraq Reality vs. The Wash. Post & Gen. McChrystal Vs. Obama

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2540963/posts

Duncan Hunter interview 6/9/10: CA Elections, ‘Virtual Appearances’, Chicom Dangers, and more!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2536020/posts

Duncan Hunter talks War: The Korean flareup, Vietnam, and Leftwing Disgraces - Interview 5/26/10

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2522373/posts

Tradin’ with Reagan and Gaggin’ on Kagan: Duncan Hunter Interview May 17, 2010, Part II

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2517498/posts

On Knuckleheaded Apologies, Russia & Iran, and Border Politics: Duncan Hunter 5/17/10, Part I

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2516378/posts

A very, very Brief Conversation with Duncan Hunter: 5/17/10 - Chuck DeVore endorsement!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2515430/posts

Duncan Hunter FR Exclusive: On Gunny Pop, Chuck DeVore, Car Bombers, Anchor Babies and more!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2509921/posts

Duncan Hunter on GOP & Tea Party Politics, Rick Perry and Ilegal Aliens

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2504213/posts

Duncan Hunter (of course) Supports Arizona’s crackdown on Illegal Aliens

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2501797/posts

Duncan Hunter 4/8/10: Obama’s Nuke Puke, Stimulating Russia Jobs, and that Evil Oil

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2490025/posts

Duncan Hunter Talks 4/1/10: Shooting Donkeys, Phony v. Real Protests, & McCain’s ‘border security’!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2485034/posts

Duncan Hunter Takes Obama, Biden and Grahamnesty to the Woodshed & More!(Interview 3/19/10)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2475394/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview 3-5-2010: On Obama the Apostrate, The Reagan Doctrine, and Aging Hippies

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2465638/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview 2/24/2010 – McCain v Hayworth, O’Reilly v 2A, w/cameo from Gunny Pop

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2458713/posts

Duncan Hunter Slams the Obama Adminstration over push for Gays in the Military

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2444696/posts

Duncan Hunter Slams Obama’s SOTU! 1-28-2010 Interview

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2439864/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview – 1/21/2010: Mass. Miracle, Obama, Cheney, Jobs, McCain-Feingold & More!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2435091/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview 1-8-2010: GOP Primary Politics, JD Hayworth, Panty Bomber and FOOTBALL

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2425011/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview - Dec. 18, 2009: On Christmas Blessings, the Gay Agenda, and Don Rumsfeld

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2412548/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview - Dec 8, 2009: On Huckabee, the EPA, GOP Amnesty Hacks, and Harry Reid!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2404824/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview 12-01-2009: Obama’s Weak Speech, SEALS, ClimateGate, and Shrinking Uncle Sam

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2398503/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview 11-17-09: Terrorist Trials in NY, Amnesty, Sarah Palin and More!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2391044/posts

Duncan Hunter Interview 11-10-09: Gunny Pop, Afghanistan, Terrorism & Political Correctness!!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2384405/posts

Duncan Hunter – Nov. 4, 2009: On the 2009 Elections, Global Warming Alarmists, and Ronald Reagan!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2378862/posts

Duncan Hunter – October 27, 2009: On ObamaCare, RomneyCare and Americans!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2372627/posts

Duncan Hunter 10/9/09 Interview. Bomb Iran, confront China, and work to defeat Socialism!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2360735/posts

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.