STEVE KING: Herman, there are 50 million people in line in foreign countries waiting to come into the United States legally. So how many would be too many?

CAIN: I don’t have an answer for that, congressman, because I would have to look at one, what type of qualifications do these 50 million people have, secondly, what type of skills and education do they bring with them. If they’re bringing us more problems than opportunities, then 50 million might be too many.

STEVE KING: Would you though, be favorable towards establishing illegal immigration policy that rewarded merits of applicants –

CAIN: Yes.

STEVE KING: I very much appreciate that response.

King also asked former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “Is there such a thing as too many legal immigrants? And how would you define that? And how would you — and would you support a merit system to identify their ability to contribute to this economy, rather than familial and any other means that we have?”

The questions suggest that King, who is a prominent member of the U.S. House Tea Party Caucus and has considerable influence among the social conservatives that dominate the GOP Iowa caucuses, wants the presidential candidates to endorse an end, or at least a significant reduction, to family-based immigration.

Sixty-five percent of green cards are granted for family connections: 46 percent of green cards go to immediate family members and 19 percent go to extended family of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Fourteen percent of green cards are granted for reasons of  employment, 15 percent for refugees and 4 percent are selected through the “diversity visa” lottery. The U.S. employment visa system is structured around an employer-based system, wherein U.S. firms sponsor potential employees that meet the specific criteria needed to fill a certain job.

A merit-based immigration system, such as a Canadian-style “points system,” places greater emphasis on employment by ranking immigrant applicants on the basis of labor market-relevant skills such as language proficiency or graduate degrees. A points system was the centerpiece of the failed comprehensive reform efforts in 2007, spearheaded by the Bush White House and a Democratically-controlled Senate and ultimately foiled through determined efforts by DeMint and other Senate conservatives because of the provisions related to undocumented immigrants. Yet many Republicans maintain that they want a points-based system: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has said in congressional hearings that he “would take Canada’s system in a heartbeat.”

Because points-based immigration systems require immigrants apply directly to government agencies for visas, the power of employers within the system decreases, which, according to a Migration Policy Institute report (PDF), has both pros and cons. Point systems have greater legitimacy because they, “enable the government to set clear and transparent standards for the human-capital level of incoming immigrants, while conveying to the public that they are in control of economic-stream immigration.” But the report also reveals that in recent years, nations with exclusively points-based employment visa systems have made steps towards hybridizing their systems so as to incorporate the needs of employers, for example, by requiring that immigrants already have a job offer within the receiving country when they apply for a visa. It’s certainly true, however, that the United States is an outlier when it comes to the prevalence of family as a basis for permanent residence.

King has become a fierce and public opponent of many of the family-based components of the U.S. immigration system, which has led to some controversy and was most likely why he was ultimately skipped over for the job of immigration subcommittee chair when Republicans took over the House this year. He has referred to children born of undocumented parents as “anchor babies” because they qualify for citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment and can technically sponsor their parents for visas when they turn 18. And although such remarks are considered controversial they nevertheless coincide with an overall shift towards making an end to birthright citizenship a part of the conservative orthodoxy. Of the leading presidential contenders, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) was a cosponsor, along with King, of a bill that would end birthright citizenship that garnered significant support from House Republicans, and candidate Mitt Romney suggested ending birthright citizenship during his 2008 campaign (although he hasn’t commented on the issue since then).

Attempts to shrink family-based immigration would certainly draw opposition from the Hispanic Caucus and other lawmakers representing recent immigrants and their families. Indeed, many are frustrated with the already extremely long waiting lists for family sponsorship of green card applicants: Because no single country can surpass 7 percent as a country of origin for legal immigrants, immediate relatives of U.S. citizens from Mexico or the Philippines can expect to wait 15 years or more before their petition for family sponsorship is granted.

Nevertheless, King, Sessions, DeMint and other conservative would-be immigration reformers have significant sway in the current primary season, so it’s quite possible that candidates other than Herman Cain will be forced to make public their views on whether the family-based system needs changing.

Robert George — founder of the American Principles Project, which sponsored the forum, as well as NOM’s chair emeritus — co-hosted the event alongside Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The final candidate roster was Bachmann, Georgia businessman Herman Cain, former U.S. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. (Texas Gov. Rick Perry was originally slated to attend but dropped out at the last minute to take care of wildfires affecting his state.)

In an blog post, NOM gave Bachmann a “solid A” for asserting that Congress should outlaw abortion by authoring a federal constitutional amendment, following a question from George. In the post, NOM noted that Bachmann’s answer “breaks new ground” and praised the candidate for agreeing to choose a vice president who opposes abortion rights and marriage for gay and lesbian couples and for criticizing President Obama for not defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

From the debate, as reproduced in an initial transcript by CNN:

George: Would you as president propose to Congress appropriate legislation pursuant to the 14th Amendment to protect human life in all stages and conditions?

Bachmann: Yes, I would. I would put forward a human life amendment. And, at the same time, I would do everything within my power to restrict the number of abortions that occurs in the United States. Perhaps no other federal law has done more good for prohibiting abortion than the Hyde amendment. And I would do everything I could to keep out the taxpayer funding of abortion.

[...]

George: Because, as I say, some people believe that a constitutional amendment would be needed to overturn Roe vs. Wade, and short of that, the best we can do is put some limitations around the edges and prohibit federal funding, as we have done in the Hyde amendment. But my question goes to a matter of constitutional principle concerning the respective rules of the government. President Lincoln famously said in his first inaugural address that if we permit the policy of the government on matters that are essential to the whole people to be determined simply by the Supreme Court, we will have abdicated our responsibility, handed over self-government to that eminent tribunal, as Lincoln said. So, given the clear mandate of the 14th Amendment, empowering Congress to enforce the guarantee of equal protection, shouldn’t Congress act on that now?

Bachmann: Yes, I believe that they should. And it is not only Abraham Lincoln that subscribed to that view. Thomas Jefferson did as well … because Thomas Jefferson understood that, of the three branches of government, the most important was the United States Congress, consisting of the House and the Senate. The second would be the executive, and the third, and a far distance third, was considered the Supreme Court of the United States. If the Supreme Court, by a plurality of the justices, may impose their own personal morality on the rest of the nation, then we are quite literally being ruled by those individuals, as opposed to giving our consent to the people’s representatives.
[...]

George: And if it meant a confrontation with the Supreme Court, are you prepared for that?

Bachmann: Most assuredly.

Romney, who originally had made headlines for refusing to attend the Freedom Forum but then changed his mind, disagreed with Bachmann, asserting that George’s suggestion would amount to a “constitutional crisis.”

Romney: I would like to see that Supreme Court return to the states the responsibility to determining laws related to abortion, as opposed to having the federal Supreme Court from the bench telling America and all the states how they have to do it. I think that’s the appropriate course. … Now, is there a constitutional path to have the Congress say we’re going to push aside the decision of the Supreme Court and we instead are going to step forward and return to the states this power or put in place our own views on abortion? That would create obviously a constitutional crisis. Could that happen in this country? Could there be circumstances where that might occur? I think it’s reasonable that something of that nature might happen someday. That’s not something I would precipitate.

What I would look to do would be appoint people to the Supreme Court that will follow strictly the constitution as opposed to legislating from the bench. I believe that we must be a nation of laws.

Cain and Gingrich, like Bachmann, said they would support congressional legislation to ban abortion, while Paul sided with Romney, saying: “Violence and murder should be dealt with by the states.”

Watch Bachmann and Romney diverge on abortion and Congress’ power in a video mash-up produced by the Huffington Post:

Romney will join fellow Republican presidential candidates Gov. Rick Perry (Texas), Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Rep. Ron Paul (Texas), former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Herman Cain in attending the forum.

DeMint will join Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), a prominent member of the Tea Party Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as National Organization for Marriage (NOM) chair emeritus Robert George on the moderators’ panel. The panel’s makeup suggests that attending the forum is necessary for any presidential candidate who wants to win over South Carolina’s social conservatives.

By initially rejecting the invitation and saying that he would focus on campaigning in New Hampshire, Romney may have been attempting to cultivate a moderate image demonstrating his viability in a general election campaign against President Barack Obama, in contrast to Perry and Bachmann, who are both seen as more appealing to movement conservatives. But Perry’s rapid rise to the top of the national polls has made it clear that courting social conservatives in the GOP primary is necessary, even for Romney.

DeMint holds tremendous influence over South Carolina Republicans, more so than either Gov. Nikki Haley or Sen. Lindsey Graham, as well as considerable national influence. He has also asked GOP leaders in South Carolina to hold off on endorsing candidates before Labor Day so as to maximize their impact on the race. This “Keep the Powder Dry” caucus reflects DeMint’s discontent with his early endorsement of Romney in the 2008 cycle.

DeMint also recently announced that he would not run for reelection, a move that could cement his status as a conservative party boss who is above the fray in the struggle for the 2012 nomination.

Todd alleges that a mugger, upon spotting her McCain-Palin bumper sticker, assaulted her and carved a “B” — for “Barack” — into her cheek. Both campaigns have condemned the attack and expressed their sympathy for Todd.

But police have begun to question the validity of her story. According to Salon, various elements of her account of the attack don’t add up. For starters, she’s changed her story several times. The “B” on her face is backwards (as if she cut her own face using a mirror). And her story conflicts with evidence at the crime scene. Police administered a polygraph test this morning but have not released the results.

While it’s too early to pass judgment on Todd — who might truly be the victim of a terrible crime — the incident brings to mind a controversy at Princeton University in December, when a student claimed to have been attacked by liberals for his conservative views.

Ashley Todd (hotair.com)

As it turned out, Francisco Nava, a member of Princeton’s socially conservative Anscombe Society,  subsequently admitted to police that his injuries were self-inflicted and that he had fabricated hateful and threatening emails sent to fellow Anscombe members and to Professor Robert George, a conservative leader on campus.

The Princeton incident led some to wonder whether the collapsing popularity of President George W. Bush and the conservative movement was causing some conservatives, particularly on left-leaning campuses, to feel sufficiently threatened to invent stories of hate crimes perpetrated by liberals against them, in an effort to discredit the notion that liberals are tolerant.

If Todd’s claims turn out to be spurious, we can only hope that these incidents do not constitute the beginning of a trend.