Natural Americans are born all over the world, but they don't all get to live here. Michael Totten has a fascinating (and gruesome) interview with an Iraqi interpreter:

MJT: Is there a solution to the problem in this country?

Hammer: Nuke Iraq.

MJT: Be serious.

Hammer: I am serious. If you screen all Iraqis, 5 million of them would be good people. Clear them out, then kill everyone else. Syria and Iran would surrender. [Laughs.]

Right now they see 100 corpses every day in the streets. It’s not okay to kill the bad people who do that?

Ok, if you want a serious solution try this:

Charge money to the families of insurgents. Fine them huge amounts of money if anyone in their family is captured or killed and identified as an insurgent. Make them pay. You can put it into law. Within one week they won’t do anything wrong because they want money. Their familes will make them stop.

The militias pay them 100 dollars to set up IEDs. Fine them thousands of dollars if they are caught and their families will make them stop. Give them that law. Go ahead. Try it.

MJT: What will happen if the Americans leave next year?

Hammer: Rivers of blood everywhere. Syria and Iran will take pieces of Iraq. Anti-American governments will laugh. You will be a joke of a country that no one will take seriously.

I will kill myself if it happens. I am completely serious. The militias will hunt down and kill me and my family. I will beat them to it by killing myself.

I worked for the U.S. government for four years. Everyone who works as an interpreter for four years and gets a signature from a General or a Senator gets a Green Card. My hope is to get this somehow. I will do anything for this.

I am doing this for my son. Everything for my son. I don’t want my son living here getting into religion and militias and Al Qaeda. I want my son to be free, to have a girlfriend, to get married, and to be a good citizen.

These are the kinds of people who should get priority for green cards, if they feel they're unable to help fix their native country. And how the British are treating their translators is disgraceful:

Last month Denmark granted asylum to 60 former Iraqi staff and their families before its forces withdrew from the south. The US has said it will take in 7,000 Iraqis this year, including former employees.

But Britain has so far refused to make an exception. The Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office said yesterday that Iraqi employees would receive no special help in applying for asylum.

“Anyone who is seeking to apply for refugee status must do so from within the United Kingdom. There is no exception to that,” said a Home Office spokesman. “Their cases will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis against the criteria of the 1951 Refugee Convention.”

One of the great and ongoing mistakes in our foreign policy is to reward our enemies, and punish or betray our friends.

One problem with this is that if you allow the good, and pro-American Iraqi's to leave you have less good and pro-American Iraqi's in Iraq.

I understand in a fall of Saigon scenerio we should definately help out those that have helped us. No question there, but anything less than that and we're actually helping our enemies. What we should be doing is promoting refugees in the West to move back to their homelands (if their provinces are relatively safe) because their knowledge of rule of law and democracy is the kind of thing Iraq (and Afghanistan) need at this point.

What do you think should be done with the 5 million good Iraqis spoken of by Hammer?

Rand, there was a similar discussion on a local radio show last night about a private bill in the House. The issue is a Sergeant, who died in Iraq, had a final wish for his family (specifically parents), whose came to the US illegally, to receive citizenship. The show host argued that while he didn't think the Dad deserved the citizenship (he had been caught and deported twice previously, and thus no longer eligible to obtain a citizenship legally), the Dad should get citizenship as our payback to his son.

I have problems with that concept for all sorts of reasons, but I appreciate that this is now going through the proper Congressional process.

I bring this up because of your comment about "people who should get priority for green cards". The people helping the U.S. in this war should get priority. The interpreter's life in an unstable Iraq is defunct, because he assisted the US. I think the US would do the right thing in granting him, and his family citizenship.

I think differently about the soldier, but primarily because I think it is bad precedent to reward citizenship up the family tree based on the duties of the son. I see the potential for all sorts of abuse, if such a precedent became a common occurence. In addition, other soldiers, regardless of valor, don't receive such additional consideration by Congress on all sorts of issues.

Another thought is what is considered sufficient sacrafice to be awarded citizenship. Does one need to put their life on the line in Iraq? What is putting their life on the line? If a villager helps troops identify IEDs on multiple occassions, but not for payment (employment by the government), do they deserve a reward of this magnitude. One way to curtail such debate is to take the British stance and just say, "help us because it is the right thing to do". With that concept, I don't consider what the British is doing as "disgraceful", but I can understand why others may considerate it ingratitude.

I'm sure the British consider it gracious to risk their lives to remove Saddam from power, rid the country of murderous terrorists, and then leave the citizens to develop their own government. Others consider it the rise of British neo-Imperialism and a disgrace in turning Iraq into a battleground of terrorism.

Rand, I agree with you.

But what should we do about the current 2 million Iraqi refugees? Should they also get green cards? Or at least the Iraqi Christians, who have no future in Iraq?

If you agree with Rand, then you know the answer to your questions.

One of the great and ongoing mistakes in our foreign policy is to reward our enemies, and punish or betray our friends.

Of course! That's what the war in Iraq is all about. It's the only way to keep declaring victory. Nouri al-Maliki is and has always been a pro-Iranian Shiite Islamist. But according to President Bush, Maliki is a "friend" and "the right man for the job", because otherwise we wouldn't be winning in Iraq, would we? Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of Iraqi Christians want to get out of Iraq before the Islamists behead them. But the Bush Administration can't allow that: it would be defeatist, and defeatism is defeat. Their message to Iraqi Christians is, stay home while we liberate you.

And you don't actually believe that the Bush Administration has let in 7,000 Iraqis who worked for the US occupation, do you? It is true that they promised that they would, but that has turned out the same way as other government promises. They said last year that it would be 7,000 by this October, but as of the end of July, they processed only 133. You're absolutely right that it's a betrayal, but it isn't just Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2132438,00.html

Sweden, of all countries, has taken in more than 60,000 Iraqi refugees since the start of the war. The US has accepted fewer than a thousand. So Sweden gains moral credibility as Bush burns it up for the US.

http://www.ecre.org/positions/Iraq_Quest_Summary_Apr04.shtml

"Charge money to the families of insurgents. Fine them huge amounts of money if anyone in their family is captured or killed and identified as an insurgent."

If he means Corruption of the Blood, why not just say it? CotB was popular in the bible, but for some reason, western civilizations gave it up. I guess they thought it was unjust to punish someone who hasn't done anything wrong.

"[America] will be a joke of a country that no one will take seriously."

Just like what happened after Vietnam, right?

I understand in a fall of Saigon scenerio we should definately help out those that have helped us.

With two Iraqi million refugees in Syria and Jordan, we already have a "fall of Saigon scenario". Except for one thing, which is that Saigon doesn't fall until the US admits that Saigon falls. After all, the US military really can't be defeated, except by mistakes at the top. So rest assured that we won't help out most of those that have helped us until January 2009 at the earliest. Because the president that we have now would never tolerate the fall of Saigon.

You can consider the plight of the most pro-Bush Iraqi blogger on the web, Omar Fadhil. Omar has been invited to study at an American university. But the US, loyal to victory, has no appropriate visa for him in Baghdad, so he has to fly to Jordan to get one. Jordan already has almost a million Iraqi refugees and has no patience for any more "visitors", so they turned him back. (Omar, pro-American to the last, blamed Jordan more than the US for this travesty.)

http://iraqthemodel.com/2007/07/flight-to- nowhere.html

Another thought is what is considered sufficient sacrafice to be awarded citizenship.

It's very simple, Leland. All that the US has to do is follow its own rules for political asylum. Every Iraqi who has worked for the US occupation, and hundreds of thousands of others, would qualify.

anon moron wrote: All that the US has to do is follow its own rules for political asylum. Every Iraqi who has worked for the US occupation, and hundreds of thousands of others, would qualify.

What rules? Do you mean the rules that were in effect when Elian Gonzales' mom requested political asylum for herself and her son?

One solution; allow anyone who wants it to leave Iraq for a Western country, with one requirement - require them to say "there is no Devil but Satan, and Mohammed is his prophet" and then eat a bacon sandwich washed down with a beer.

Wait a while, then kill them all. And sow the ground where their cities used to stand with salt.

Is this guy Fletcher Christian for real?

He is truly a vile SOB.

If you agree with Rand, then you know the answer to your questions.

Leland, did you mean just in this particular instance or is this the announcement of some deeper and profound insight?

Offside, you wrote:

But what should we do about the current 2 million Iraqi refugees? Should they also get green cards? Or at least the Iraqi Christians, who have no future in Iraq?

Keep in mind a consider portion were Ba'athists or other troublemakers. We shouldn't let those in.

What rules?

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_in_the_United_States

Do you mean the rules that were in effect when Elian Gonzales' mom requested political asylum for herself and her son?

Actually, she never did.

Keep in mind a consider portion were Ba'athists or other troublemakers. We shouldn't let those in.

The right way to handle asylum requests is on a case-by-case basis. That is exactly what the United States isn't doing for Iraqis, except at a snail's pace. In fact it isn't doing it inside Iraq itself at all; the Baghdad embassy does not handle immigrant visas at all.

http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/consular.html

Actually anonymous moron, the right way to handle Iraqi refugees is to continue to destroy AQI in Iraq. That way, the refugees can return to their country. I know, I know, that doesn't fit in your "I hate Bush" doctrine, but there it is.

Is this guy Fletcher Christian for real?

He is truly a vile SOB.

Yup, he's for real, and displaying the same rationality as the scum we're fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. He'd rather be part of the problem than part of a solution.

Mac, one difference between myself and the vile scum that we are both talking about. I write stuff on the internet; they blow up women and kids, and occasionally decapitate schoolgirls. You may of course not see the difference.