McCain's motivations: Over at the Corner, inspired by former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)'s criticism of John McCain, they're trying to find anecdotes of McCain's behavior behind the scenes at the Senate. One staffer's offering some specific details on McCain's cloakroom hostility to votes on English as a national language. These backroom anecdotes can be revealing in a number of ways. Will any other details come forward about McCain? The other candidates?

McCain stands behind the "grand bargain"--said he'd sign McCain-Kennedy immigration bill as president.

Does Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) support Barack Obama in part because of Obama's work on the "grand bargain"? The Boston Globe thinks so:

Kennedy was also impressed by Obama's deep involvement last year in the bipartisan effort to craft legislation on immigration reform, a politically touchy subject the other presidential candidates avoided, the associate said.

Obama, who supports drivers licenses for the "undocumented," has pledged to push "comprehensive immigration reform" in his first term as president and called last year's debate over immigration policy "both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights." Will he use the same rhetoric if he becomes president?
"Comprehensive" "change" marches on....

The world of blogs is snapping with reports that Juan Hernandez, adviser to former Mexican President Vicente Fox and former director of the Office of Mexicans Living Abroad and aggressive defender of the "grand bargain," seems to be Hispanic Outreach Director for John McCain's presidential campaign. Hernandez has that title in this copy of a McCain press release. Hot Air has a picture of Hernandez backstage at a debate with Meghan McCain and Mark McKinnon, one of McCain's top advisors, and also has some background information on Hernandez. Malkin has a lot of other information on Hernandez and a roundup of blog reactions. Via WND, the McCain campaign admits that Hernandez is affiliated with the campaign--though it's already trying to distance itself from Hernandez, saying that he isn't paid by the campaign and does not play a "policy role."

Many of Hernandez's critics are claiming that he is an opponent of the assimilation of Mexican immigrants and has made remarks that may cast doubt the persistence of a sovereign, independent US identity. Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) narrated one conversation with Hernandez thus (e.a.):

TANCREDO: I had a great argument one time with a gentleman by the name of Juan Hernandez who was at that time the minister of that ministry that I just mentioned, the Ministry for Mexicans Living in the United States.

And I asked him that very question. What he told me the purpose of his ministry was to push people into the United States, it was to—by the way, it was also AFC work with them so that they did—he was with the community, he said. He was three days a week in the United States, four in Mexico.

By the way, he himself is a dual citizen born in Texas, university—teaching at the University of Texas and on the Vicente Fox cabinet. And he said, “I work with the community in the United States, the Mexican community because I don‘t want them essentially going native on us. We want them continually tied emotionally, linguistically, politically to Mexico, because then they‘ll continue to send money home.”

And I said to him, that does not sound like—you know, you‘re doing something that‘s actually the act of an unfriendly government.

CARLSON: Well, of course, it doesn‘t in any way serve American interests. It undermines our country in a pretty direct and direct and obvious way.

TANCREDO: Tucker, his response. Let me tell you his response.

CARLSON: Yes.

TANCREDO: At the end he goes, “Congressman,” in an incredibly condescending way. He goes, “Congressman, it‘s not two countries; it‘s just a region.”

Though we only seem to have Tancredo's word on this conversation, a number of Hernandez's public statements might not allay the fear of some. He has said that he believes and hopes that the "Mexican-American" population (from the third-generation to the seventh) will think "Mexico first." He has also said, according to various reports, that his old boss Vicente Fox believes that there are at least 123 million Mexicans: "100 million within the borders [of Mexico] and 23 million who live in the United States." This 23 million would seem to include US citizens (Hernandez is himself a dual US-Mexican citizen).

In a 2001 interview with the Devner Post (mentioned here), Hernandez elaborates on immigration policy and the need to maintain a separate Mexican identity for Mexican immigrants (blocked by archive wall, emphasis added):

In an interview Tuesday, Fox adviser Juan Hernandez, director of the new Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad, said he'll approach Owens in Denver on Thursday with the following requests:

Let undocumented migrants apply for driver's licenses. Colorado law currently bars licenses for undocumented workers. Other states such as Utah allow them. 'We're talking about safety on the roads, that's all,' Hernandez said, adding that with driver's licenses, migrants could buy insurance. 'Mexican workers want to be good citizens,' he said.

Give migrant children who graduate from high school the same access as legal residents to higher education. Texas recently passed legislation letting undocumented Mexicans attend state colleges and junior colleges.

'It's possible' that Colorado could enter into an agreement on this with Mexico, said Jeanne Adkins, policy and planning director for the Colorado Commission on Higher Education. Research on costs is in progress, Adkins said. Legislators 'probably have to enter the picture at some point.' Owens 'wants a lot of the background information before making a decision.'

Grant undocumented migrants access to health care beyond emergencies. Some hospitals won't accept migrants seeking prenatal and other basic care. 'This is a human right,' Hernandez said.

[...]

That's because Mexicans working in the United States 'are going to keep one foot in Mexico,' Hernandez said. Four leading mayors in the central state of Guanjuato once worked as undocumented migrants in the United States, he noted.

Migrants also should engage politically in their U.S. communities, he said. 'But should they assimilate? They are not going to assimilate in the sense of dissolving into not being Mexican.'

Hernandez presented a document defending "multiple belongings":

Sending countries should not see the process of migrants’ incorporation into receiving societies as an identity threat and should allow for dual or multiple belongings, nationalities or citizenships, and the ability to exercise their political rights, wherever they may reside.

Receiving countries should not consider these continued residual attachments as threats to the full incorporation of new immigrants into the host society, but rather, should acknowledge that by permitting these multiple attachments, they not only facilitate social incorporation, but also enrich their societies.

Along with Tancredo's claim that Hernandez said that the US and Mexico are not two countries but one "region," this YouTube clip (go to around 0:20 or so) shows Hernandez saying that the US, Mexico, and Canada should become a single "bloc"--though he does distinguish this bloc from being one nation.

So some questions: Does Hernandez deny what Tancredo said he said? Has he changed his mind about assimilation? Does John McCain support Hernandez's principles about assimilation? Does McCain also want a Canada-US-Mexico bloc? This controversy, along with "grand bargain" partisan Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL)'s recent endorsement of McCain, seems likely to reignite the concerns and opposition of those who were already skeptical about McCain's stance on immigration.

UPDATE: Malkin investigates the ties between the "Reform Institute," George Soros, Hernandez, McCain, and McCain's campaign manager.

Ace (at Ace of Spades) posts a questionnaire on immigration Sen. Sessions (R-AL), one of the leading opponents of the "grand bargain," has prepared for presidential candidates.

A partial presidential roundup:

Thompson's out.

Kaus warns against historical-political determinism.

Clinton goes after Obama's past statements about single-payer health care.

Flush with his South Carolina victory, John McCain insists that he hasn't changed his position on immigration policy. Keeping "comprehensive"? He seems to say that the border should be "secured"--and it seems like it might be "secure" if border state governors say it is secure...Kaus, for one, is skeptical about this approach...

Hot Air wonders how much a friend Mike Huckabee is of the First Amendment; he's now saying (or seeming to say) that he'd like to ban much political speech unless it is approved by a given candidate:

I personally wish that all of this was outlawed. I think that every candidates should speak for themselves, and that every thing that involves the candidate's name or another candidate's name should be authorized and approved by that candidate, otherwise it shouldn't be spoken....

The point is that candidates can't force these special interest 527 groups to stop. I wish we could.

There's a new fight going on between the Clinton and Obama camps over a pro-Obama Spanish-language ad attacking Clinton for not "respect[ing] our people."

The New York Times wonders about the possibility of a brokered convention for Republicans in 2008--though it puts a dower spin on the effects of such a convention for Republicans. See also David Freddoso's article on the possible roads to this brokered convention for Republicans; Freddoso thinks that a brokered convention could benefit Republicans.
It seems to me that, the more likely people think a brokered convention could be, the more likely a brokered convention will be. After all, even if you're running a distant third in the delegate count, you can still, under a brokered convention scenario, play the kingmaker--so why don't you stay in as long as you can to strengthen your hand? The more candidates stay in, the more likely they are to collect enough votes to keep a single candidate from having a sufficient majority.

Though Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) may be trying to circumvent the state legislature to grant in-state tuition to the "undocumented," only 33% of Massachusetts residents, according to a recent poll, think that the "undocumented" should get in-state tuition--62% think that they should not.

Hot Air unravels some of the relevant law cases for the ACLU's claim that sexual relations in public bathroom stalls are protected by a "reasonable expectation of privacy."

Some analysis of the Democratic debate last night on "gun control."

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (D) aims to create a two-tiered drivers license system: one for legal residents, the other for the "undocumented." Hot Air wonders if the plan will go the way of NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D)'s failed similar plan.

Glenn Greenwald and Mark Steyn find common ground.

Instapundit's not too happy with a ban on incandescent lightbulbs.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick (D) wants in-state tuition for "illegal immigrants" very badly and is trying to think of ways to bypass the state legislature (which has earlier killed a bill that would grant in-state tuition) so that he can provide in-state tuition. One plan, according to the Boston Globe:

Patrick said his legal team is weighing whether the state could grant the lower rate by passing a regulation, which would require approval by the 11-member Board of Higher Education. Patrick's comments, in response to a question from an audience member, came two years after an in-state tuition bill failed in the Legislature, and amid a debate over illegal immigration in the presidential race.

Paying in-state tuition would save illegal immigrant students thousands of dollars. At the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, out-of-state tuition is close to $10,000 a year, compared with about $1,700 a year for residents. Out-of-state tuition runs as high as $8,430 a year at a community college compared to about $700 a year for residents.

Some members of the legislature are outraged by this plan. This proposal comes in the wake of a new plan Patrick has announced that would further centralize power for education policy in the governor's office.

Though Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) is boasting about the death of the "famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent bulb" due to the recently passed energy bill (which has efficiency requirements that would, within four or so years, ban present incandescent bulbs in the place of compact florescent bulbs), some Americans with certain conditions skin might not be so well served by a ban of incandescents.

A UK coalition of charities and activists known as Spectrum and the British Association of Dermatologists are pleading with the British government (which has regulations that would seemingly ban incandescents by 2011) to allow incandescent bulbs to be available to people with certain skin conditions. For some, continual exposure to compact florescent lights can be very dangerous--even leading to skin cancer:

Dr Colin Holden, President of the British Association of Dermatologists, said: 'It is important that patients with photosensitive skin eruptions are allowed to use lights that don't exacerbate their condition.

'Photosensitive eruptions range from disabling eczema-like reactions, to light sensitivities that can lead to skin cancer. It is essential that such patients are able to protect themselves from specific wavelengths of light emitted by fluorescent bulbs, especially as they are often trapped indoors because they can't venture out in natural sunlight.'

Another UK group is also claiming that compact florescent bulbs can trigger migraines and have other unpleasant consequences for some:

Last year it was claimed that the "green" bulbs can cause people with epilepsy to experience symptoms similar to the early stages of a fit.

There have also been complaints from people with lupus, a chronic immune disease that causes pain and extreme tiredness.

GE is working on a newer incandescent model that would meet future US energy efficiency requirements, so perhaps, for the US at least, some of these concerns (including mercury poisoning) might be made moot.

In any case, these stories do bring into focus an interesting nexus of global environmental aims, governmental requirements, public health, and private well-being. Some of the British activists are asking for incandescents be made available to those afflicted with certain skin conditions; could licenses for "famously inefficient" incandescents be next (especially if GE's new technology doesn't come through)? A black market for light bulbs?

Kaus has a rundown of various theories about Clinton's victory over Obama in the NH primary--and why the latest polls for that race turned out so wrong.

Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani clash over the meaning of "amnesty."