The false dilemma behind the Bush Amnesty

January 17th, 2004 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

Other than Terror and taxes, I lost my enthusiasm for President Bush quite a while ago. I remember what he did during the #187 Campaign in 1994. Despite some trepidations, I was broken glass in 2000, and even dragged my daughter to street protests on Bush's behalf during the Florida mess (here in L.A., not in Fla.). Bought her a Sore Loserman t-shirt a year before I became a Freeper.

I was was quite proud of the President following 9/11, and am pleased overall with his prosecution of the war. However, the President's domestic agenda leaves me cold, for the most part. I want nothing to do with most of it, I think it's bad for the country.

The problem is, any Democrat would be worse. Setting aside the rest of their foolishness for the moment, we need to understand that every one of the Democrat Presidential candidates supports worse Amnesties for Illegal Aliens than that proposed by President Bush.

So, for now, my vote remains Bush's to lose, and I'm getting a big clothes-pin ready for November. Could he lose it? Sure, but I'd have to think long and hard on it. Something rotten would have to happen, though, because I'd vote for him today.

On the other hand, I can't quite go along with those who say "the kool aid's fine, jump in!" I don't trust politicians, any of them. I believe power tends to corrupt, and that it deludes long before it corrupts. I expect and elect politicians to do the right things, so I focus on where they don't.

Such is the case with President Bush's "not an Amnesty" Amnesty proposal for Illegal Aliens. It's a reward for lawbreakers, and all of the hairsplitting over the Bush blue cards vs. the green cards of the Reagan Amnesty are most unpersuasive.

So, the trick now is to get President Bush reelected, while simultaneously defeating his Amnesty, for good.

Part of the trick depends on meeting the challenge of offering genuine solutions. Consider that challenge met.

[Sabertooth]

FYI

[SAMWolf]

Bump

[ovrtaxt]

Nice essay. Like you, I'm a little more than annoyed with Bush's overall domestic agenda. I clearly remember in August of 2001, sadly scraping the Bush sticker off my car. He had just started his leftward domestic tilt, with the Education bill and so forth. Now, we have damaged the First Amendment, a trail of big government spending in between.

I never forgot what Buchanan said about him during the primary, and he was right.

Quite a testament to the impact of 911. It's still outweighs the alternatives. But if we lose the Constitution in the process, what are we defending?

[Nephi]

So, the trick now is to get President Bush reelected, while simultaneously defeating his Amnesty, for good.

That's not the trick, the trick is how did Bush turn so many conservatives into socialist lemmings?

[SCalGal]

I was was quite proud of the President following 9/11, and am pleased overall with his prosecution of the war. However, the President's domestic agenda leaves me cold, for the most part. I want nothing to do with most of it, I think it's bad for the country.

Repeat and Bump.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

---

If this is taxes with reprsentation
Give me taxes without representation
I much prefer a tax on tea!
Instead of everything else.

[HennepinPrisoner]

Bump

[Barnacle]

Mr. Tooth, I start to read it and I feel my blood pressure rise. So if you'll forgive me, I'll just give it a BUMP for the time being.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[dirtboy]

Nice work. Just as with the war on terror, it took us a long time to get here, and it will take some time to reverse the tide. But apparently to some, appeasement rightfully was never an option after 9/11 - but appeasement amnesty is the way to deal with illegal immigration - despite the fact that amnesty has been tried and doesn't work.

[Amerigomag]

Part of the trick depends on meeting the challenge of offering genuine solutions

Another part is working hard to elect a Congressman and a Senator who will oppose Bush when he strays off the reservation.

[Southack]

"by applying systematic pressure to all of the factors that encourage the Illegals to violate our laws and sovereignty, we can win early victories that generate and sustain a momentum whereby the problem starts to solve itself.

The key is to get the Illegals to leave our country on their own initiative."

Of course, this is precisely what Bush's new immigration plan *does*, except of course that it accomplishes this key goal in a non-obvious manner (hence, unnecessary and hostile reaction to said plan).

For instance, Bush's plan offers a carrot/reward to illegals. If they register with the federal government, then they get a blue card, can't be hassled by INS raids, can get a bank account, can transfer money back to their relatives without paying outrageous bribes, become eligible for tax refunds (some of their payroll taxes are refundable), can return to their home countries on vacations without fearing yet another illegal border crossing, and they become immune to the deportation blackmail scams of illegal employers as well as other illegals.

But Bush's carrot/reward to illegals comes with a catch or two. For one thing, they have to *register* with our government to get that reward. Registration changes everything, too. Our status quo *without* registering illegals is that our government doesn't know, institutionally, where all 8 million illegals live and work.

However, once they register for Bush's reward/carrot, poof, we suddenly know who they are, where they live, and who they work for. Now the INS can track them and the IRS can tax them. Like I said, *registration* changes everything.

And there's more...

Bush's plan requires them to voluntarily return to their home countries after three years in order to apply for additional time here in the U.S.

After investing 3 years of their lives into Bush's new plan, few illegals will be willing to risk losing it all. Rather than forfeit their legal right to live and work here, as well as lose their refundable taxes, most illegals will opt to return back to their home countries in order to be able to apply for more legal time here.

But by returning to their home countries voluntarily, they have just done what would take an army of law enforcement to otherwise do by force: they will have deported themselves.

Considering that the 8 million illegals are a larger problem in size/scope than the relocations by force of 6 million Jews in Europe during WW2, this accomplishment of convincing illegals to self-deport themselves voluntarily is not insignificant.

In fact, it is brilliant.

President Bush's plan, once it is finally understood by most radio talk show hosts, will one day be lauded for delivering on precisely your above demands for convincing illegals to go home on their own.

[AzJohn]

I don't know if proposals/approaches on this subject should be categorized so neatly as you suggest. For example, most of your 18 points could in theory be combined with the principles from President Bush's speech last week.

Suppose such a combination, some sort of guest worker approach which includes current illegals along with some of your enforcement measures, made it through Congress. Depending on the specifics I might support that. Is any kind of legalization of most of those currently here illegally a deal-breaker for you, regardless of what else is in the package?

[Southack]

"However, the President's domestic agenda leaves me cold, for the most part. I want nothing to do with most of it, I think it's bad for the country."

Banning Partial Birth Abortion leaves you cold and you want nothing to do with it?!

Cutting income taxes and dividend taxes is the wrong direction domestically for you?!

Cutting red tape for building new logging roads, killing CO2 regulations for our electricity providers, and deep-sixing OSHA's proposed ban on American home businesses for "ergonomic" reasons is something to be upset with?!

Surely not. I know you better than that. Surely you were simply painting with too broad of a brush. Surely you simply meant that letting Congress spend too much money was wrong-headed and that signing CFR in the face of today's warped SCOTUS was a tactical mistake, NOT that the above-mentioned domestic policies go against your own beliefs...

[Southack]

c#13

[dirtboy]

"However, the President's domestic agenda leaves me cold, for the most part. I want nothing to do with most of it, I think it's bad for the country."

Banning Partial Birth Abortion leaves you cold and you want nothing to do with it?! Cutting income taxes and dividend taxes is the wrong direction domestically for you?!

Why don't you just ask him what parts he doesn't like and go from there, instead of attempting to put words in his mouth?

[PSYCHO-FREEP]

I like your logical approach.

I also prefer to wait and see how it pans out. It surely is no worse off than we are now, which is not really that bad in the first place.

The hyper ventilators should just breath deeply into a paper bag.. it helps pseudo-hypoxia.

The bill will more than likely be defeated in the legislature anyway because of the gross ignorance of conservatives misjudging the merits of the bill in the first place.

[Zipporah]

How did Bush do it? Well if you are referring to the people that surround him, they weren't conservatives-really. Constituents who are conservatives were so sick of Clinton that they welcomed Bush without thorough examination (me for example) I continued being a Bush supporter and felt confused about some Bush policies. But I continued supporting. More liberal policy.. But I continued supporting. The illegal alien issue came along, I began to open my eyes did the research and realized I had been a fool. The illegal amnesty proposal along with the Patriot Act should make any American, much less conservatives, shake in their boots. If they do not, then they refuse to see what is ahead, the refuse to believe that someone they trusted betrayed them or they have something to gain.

[dirtboy]

Same stuff, different thread. I already made my opinions clear last night regarding your presentation of Bush's proposal.