This article makes the most sense of anything I have read. Which gets me to thinking.
What we think about this issue can be seen by anyone, because people post on FR exactly what they are thinking. Conversly, I do not know of anywhere where pro-amnesty people write down what they are thinking: "Screw the country, I need the cheap labor for my profit". "Hey, these people will vote Dem, and are easy to buy off with handouts." These are the only thoughts that square with the deeds, the entire political class seems to be working in concert, but don't they need to compare notes? How the heck does the MSM, Dems, OBL, WSJ, and Qusiling Republicans all get on the same page without any precise written communication of their thoughts and strategy? Is there a secret Amnesty-lover message board?
They are all on the same page but for different reasons/agendas.
1. The politicos, as per the article, see themselves as permanent honchos over a docile, dependent group—they envy the high living Mexican elites. They also
wax benevolent over helping the less fortunate. They see nothing but win-win.
2. The MSM hate our country and feel above all us voters out in flyover country.
Stigmatizing our citizens as racists is right where they wanty to be. This covers the WSJ and Fox panel, tool We just don’t understand.
3. Dems see what I named above, only more so—thery see themselves in permanent power, supported forever by grateful welfare workers.
4. The Repubs see what the Dems see, but the idiots are having a wet dream that it could happen to them—perpetual power and riches.
Very good article, and a real eye opener about GHW Bush and the Mexican connection.
I hate to admit it, but this Bush may go down as the 3rd worst Pres. 1. Carter.
2. Clinton.3 Bush.
vaudine
>>How the heck does the MSM, Dems, OBL, WSJ, and Quisling Republicans all get on the same page without any precise
>>written communication of their thoughts and strategy?
There isn’t a coordinated effort among the various amnesty advocates, so there isn’t any need for a set of talking points, a blog, or a message board.
Instead, the amnesty advocates simply confirm Rufus Miles’ dictum, “where you stand depends upon where you sit”. For most people, self-interest trumps ideology as a factor of political belief. This is not the case among those with a strong belief in a particular political philosophy. Many people at FR might stand to personally benefit from illegal immigrant labor, but they do not subordinate their political beliefs to their desire for material gain.
Why doesn’t anyone explicate their self interest, that is, just come out and say it? I think there is an awareness that it is morally shabby. There can’t be much pride in doing what suits oneself at the expense of what one professes. Also, seeking self-interest at the expense of professed beliefs, what we call hypocrisy, is as common and plentiful as sand. The hypocritical act needs no justification, simply because it is so natural.