CRISIS ON THE BORDER: HOW MUCH MORE WRONG COULD WE GET IT?

As was to be expected, John McCain, John Cornyn, Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and other members of the Do-Nothing Clown Show have gone rabid over what is not a "sudden influx"---this "sudden influx" began last October---of mothers and children from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras across the Rio Grande and into Texas.

It is, of course, as is everything from the rise of Boko Haram to Mr. McCain's sore throat to the blatant racism of Ted Cruz' father to the increase of squirrels around the pear trees in my front yard, the fault of Barack Obama.  

Ask one of my neighbors why he's had a recent spate of flat tires and he will tell you it's the fault of all the potholes in our neighborhood streets.  Ask him why he thinks the potholes don't get fixed and he will tell you it's the fault of Barack Obama.  

While "blame" for this present crisis on the border should be equally spread between all three branches of government extending all the way back to the Reagan administration, that discussion is for another time.

It is enough for the moment to say that the Clown Show does not understand what this "influx" really represents.  And it is enough to say that their misunderstanding, though it serves their political purposes (which is what this is all about for them, anyway), serves neither the mamas and children who are alone and hungry and homeless in hostile territory nor the policy debate per how the United States---"home of the brave, land of the free"---should respond.

Simply put, the influx of women and children from Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras is not an "immigration" issue.  It is a "refugee" issue.  

These mamas and their children are not "illegal immigrants."  
They are, by definition (a definition conveniently provided for us by both Mr. McCain and Mr. Perry), "refugees."

And, as a party to the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the United States, by law, must respond to refugees differently than it responds to illegal immigrants.

Why hasn't this distinction occurred to the Republicans who are doing their usual bomb-throwing per this issue?  Because this isn't a humanitarian issue for them; and, please, don't embarrass yourself by saying that, well, of course the Republicans in Washington "care" about these mamas and their children.  This is a purely political issue for them and they don't want to spend time parsing the difference between an "illegal immigrant" and a "refugee" when they could be using that time pandering to their base by talking about "impeaching" our "lawless" president.

Why hasn't this distinction occurred to the Democrats who, excepting a very few, are strangely silent on the matter? Because the Democrats in Washington are "strangely silent" about almost every issue of import these days.  One wishes that Elizabeth Warren would share some of her testosterone with the rest of her caucus.

The conversation is wrong and misguided when it is about "illegal immigrants."  It only becomes right when it is about "refugees."

In the same way, our response is wrong and misguided if we frame this as an issue related to "illegal immigrants."  It will only become right, just and, yes, legal when we frame this as an issue related to "refugees." 

A PERSONAL MEMO TO JOHN McCAIN:  Shut the hell up!  You have become the male equivalent of Michele Bachmann.

(Sorry for my use of the word "hell."  My only justification is to say that sometimes there is only one word that will suffice.  In this instance, it was the word "hell."  And that's all I have to say about that!)