Posted on 01/09/2004 12:56:02 PM PST by JohnGalt
Real Message of The Bush Amnesty
by Pat Buchanan
If George Bush’s amnesty for between 8 million and 14 million illegal aliens is enacted, you can kiss the old America goodbye.
Consider what the president is saying with his amnesty. He is telling us that he cannot or will not do his constitutional duty to defend the states from invasion. He is saying that he simply cannot or will not protect our borders or enforce our immigration laws. He is saying he will no longer send illegal aliens back.
Not long ago, this would have produced calls for impeachment and cries that, “If Bush won’t enforce our laws, let’s elect a president who will.”
By offering amnesty and residency to millions who broke in line, broke our laws and broke into our country, Bush is not only rewarding wholesale criminality, he proposes to legalize it.
His amnesty will send this message to the world: the candy store is open, and the Americans cannot protect it. Now is the time to bust in.
As there must be billions of people willing to come and work for a fraction of our minimum wage—and exploit our social safety net—the number who could come under the Bush guest-worker program is almost infinite.
Imagine a car wash that employs 40 African-American, Latino, and white working-class folks at $8 an hour each. A new car wash down the street opens up, offering 40 new jobs at $5.15 an hour. No Americans apply. Under Bush’s proposal, that employer would be free to go to Asia, Africa, and Latin America, round up workers, and bring them in.
The new car wash with its foreign workers then drives the old car wash with its American workers out of business. Taxpayers are then forced to subsidize the newly unemployed—and pay for the medical care, food stamps, rent supplements, welfare, and schooling of all the new immigrants and their families, provide legal services when they get in trouble and pay for more cops to police their neighborhoods.
And every child born of a guest worker would, under our 14th Amendment, become an American citizen, automatically entitled to all the benefits of citizenship. Meanwhile, Bush’s amnesty will do nothing to halt the illegal invasion that continues to this hour. If you would know what America’s social, cultural, and fiscal future will look like, take a ride through Los Angeles, capital of Mexifornia.
But why did President Bush pick now to propose as explosive an idea as amnesty, when it seemed he was holding a winning hand on the issues of taxes, national security, the economy, and gay marriages?
One sees here the cynical ploy of “Boy Genius” Karl Rove. With the filing deadlines for the Republican primaries having passed and no GOP opponent, with no Third Party challenger from the Right, and with Dean the likely Democratic nominee, Rove knows conservatives are boxed in. In the old cliché, “The conservatives have nowhere else to go.”
So Rove is executing an “apertura a sinistra,” an opening to the Left, pandering to Hispanics and Mexican President Vicente Fox, to whom Bush is to pay a visit.
But Rove may be too clever for the president’s good. For there is no hard evidence that Hispanics, other than those militants who detest Republicans, are demanding amnesty. And with Bush’s spending on foreign aid soaring, his deficits rising, and the White House refusing to veto a single spending bill, Rove & Co. may have stretched conservative loyalty to the breaking point.
For some conservatives, this amnesty will snap it. They may just get on their hind legs and fight, for huge majorities have repeatedly registered opposition to any amnesty for illegal aliens. How is the president helped by a bloody battle with his political base in an election year?
Half a century ago, Dwight Eisenhower, informed there were a million illegals in the United States, most of them from Mexico, ordered them sent back. The project was called “Operation Wetback.”
Ike was a strong president. But in George W. Bush, we have a leader unwilling to pay the political price of doing his duty and enforcing the immigration laws of his country because he fears the reaction from the media elite and Mexican-Americans.
When it comes to standing up to truly powerful ethnic lobbies—the Hispanic Lobby, the Cuban-American Lobby, the Israeli Lobby—Bush wilts and folds every time. Nor is it a healthy sign for the future of our republic when its president offers an amnesty to law-breakers, rather than doing his painful duty to protect his country from what has now become an unstoppable foreign invasion.
The real threats to America’s survival do not come from the Sunni Triangle. They come from within, and unfortunately we have a president who either does not understand them or will not look them in the face.
And white men never break the law.
Come on, the crime rate has been declining for decades, even while illegal immigration has been going through the roof.
Make any case you want that illegals do more crime. Fine. But I bet the black crime rate is higher.
Would you deport blacks on the excuse they have a higher crime rate?
What percentage of them do? I'm sure you've got that number right in front of you.
I couldn't agree with you more.
What we have right now is that there's no incentive for capital expentiture on technology in these jobs as its cheaper to hire a bunch of illegals to do the job, and in particular the crop production industries (apples, lettuce, etc).
I also agree here. Personell costs are a strong driving force behind technological advances that reduce costs through automation and increased productivity.
The way I see it right now however (and this is worth the electiricity being used to get it up on FR)... is that the current crop of illegals are artificially holding down personell costs since they a more vulnerable to being taken advantage of in terms of pay. For example, I'll pay you 5.15, but I expect a 1.00 kickback or I'll call the INS.
Regulating the illegal work force effectively could eliminate less than honest compensation forcing employers to realize at least the minimum wage personell costs (assuming the legal-illegals had an avenue to pursue their claims). While this in and of itself might not be the cost-benifit point to advance technology, it likely would bring the issue closer to forefront.
That statement is preposterous.
Absolutely correct! So why do you not recognize Pres. Bush's responsibility in this? He appointed James Ziglar to head the INS who refused to deport arrested illegals. President Bush has had a love affair with Mexico and Fox for years. He has always supported illegals. Who was his first nominee for Sec of Labor? Do you remember Linda Sanchez who had illegals working in her home?
Oh, and by the way! Yes, I voted for him. Never again!
Please note, the quotes attribute that statement to "the old cliche, not Karl Rove.
To assume that he might think it is open to debate, to attribute that he actually said it is an entirely different ballgame.
Buchananites might see some benefit from applying critical thinking (not to mention comprehensive reading) skills.
You need to seriously get a clue. The vast majority of them cannot save significant wealth that would afford them much of anything here in America. In mexico their money goes much further. Its the same way someone from India can work for much less than an American, take his money back to India and come out ahead.
You have essentially just told everyone that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
If Clinton proposed this nonsense, methinks alot of President Bush's supporters would be bashing away. And rightly so.
Another nice post, JG. Bush is showing us the side feared by those on the right, isn't he? Daddy's little boy, it seems.
This argument is nonsense. If true it still doesnt excuse the fact that illegals are not supposed to be here in the first place. Against citizens, WE ENFORCE THE LAW!
Why should anyone take serious anything you say? You are either insulting Jews are throwing out some Left wing type statement about putting people in the desert. Sorry you have no creditability .
Rephrased
To the point about the right to keep and bear arms I'm sure had the framers of that Amendment forseen the day when we'd have so many news reports about crimes committed with guns or the many loopholes and lack of necessity in the 21st century, then they probably would have made it so that only the government and their agents had a right to keep and bear arms. At least they had an excuse in that they couldn't see the future.
Scary it isn't it?
I sincerely apologize if the hypothical example I provided screamed over your head like an F-16 intercepting a flight from France...
If I manage to come up with a way to express the impact of automation on jobs in a more simple manner I will post it.
But please, don't hold your breath waiting.
Those same idiots thought that the US would never be able to invade Iraq without a clear mandate from the French.
I don't know if it is in the "national" interest to deport all illegals, but it is in the interest of lower middle class voters. Since they don't have the money, they don't count.
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.