Ultimate explanation for George Bush's immigration & amnesty push - by John Derbyshire

National Review ^ | July 2, 2007 2:20 PM | John Derbyshire

[dennisw]

What a Waste. Steve Sailer said it all.

[L]et's stop and think about what an enormous waste of six years it has been for the President, aided and abetted by the almost the entire American Establishment, to pursue his delusion of imposing his immigration obsession on the citizenry. Even leaving aside how much better the immigration situation would be if Bush had followed his oath and simply enforced the damn laws, imagine what he would have been able to accomplish legislatively in other areas without wasting time, energy, and political capital on a losing proposition like this.

Well, why did he? Why did the president push this appalling bill with such passion and such arrogance? A number of theories are current. On a realist-to-romantic, or prose-to-poetry, spectrum, they are:

Machiavelli. Bush has been persuaded, probably by Karl Rove, of the following theorem: Hispanics are now a large proportion of the electorate, and are destined, via differential birthrates, to become a larger one. It’s important for the Republican party to win over these voters by doing Hispanic-friendly things. As a rough first approximation, Immigrant=Hispanic, so that a kind’n’gentle policy on immigration should be pleasing to Hispanics.

Bicycle. Someone — perhaps a visitor from the Wall Street Journal editorial page — has persuaded Bush that the U.S. economy would come to a juddering halt and fall over if not fed by a steady stream of unskilled immigrants working for below-minimum wages.

Pauline Kael. Bush has never in his life mixed socially with any person whose job or neighborhood quality is threatened by mass unskilled immigration. To the people he does mix with socially, unskilled immigrants are a good source of servant labor, or a way to “socialize the costs, privatize the profits” of enterprises they own or invest in. This puts us in somewhat the same zone as Pauline Kael’s famous bafflement on hearing that Nixon had been elected president: “How is that possible? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Can elite Americans really be that out of touch with reality? Believe me, gentle reader, they can.

Noblesse oblige. Bush’s childhood experience of friendly, deferential Mexican servants and employees, and of his Dad’s elite Mexican friends in the oil business, disposed him so kindly towards Mexicans in general, he is keen to do anything to (a) please the Mexican authorities, and (b) avoid any appearance of unkindness or lack of generosity towards Mexicans in general (e.g. by apprehending illegal Mexican immigrants). The first approximation here is even rougher than the Rovian one: Immigrant=Mexican.

Evangelical. The president is known to cleave to a generous and universalist (if you like it), or naive and sappy (if you don’t) style of evangelical Christianity. He sees himself, in his own mind, holding out his arms, murmuring: “Suffer the little immigrants to come unto me.” While by no means despicable as a personal lifestyle choice, this may not be a good foundation for national policy.

My guess is that there is some combination of all these at work, but with the center of gravity down in the romantic zone. W is an intelligent man, but he’s a feeler more than a thinker, consulting his heart before his head, and sometimes forgetting to consult his head at all. This can be an endearing trait under some circumstances. The forming of national policy is not one of those circumstances.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Just where IS that White House guy who showed up here on FR briefly just to lobby us against opposing the Prez on immigration??

I REALLY want to send this to him.

And what’s more, I REALLY want to get their feedback on each and everyone of these theories. I want to hear the White House deny each of them (although one if not several, may well be true!!!)

Er, well, yes.

That was, as best I can tell from the tag line and subsequent searches for the poster, a legitimate posting from a legitimate WH rep. However, he also NEVER responded nor presented any follow-up comments to those who DID reply.

Very typical, in fact, of the WH entire “efforts” at mass communication.

They think that by releasing soft words to a bitterly hostile press corpse, they have “communicated” their words and reasoning to the mass population. And by making one 200 word statement, they have replied to the entire “blogosphere...

[dennisw]

Check this out!!! I posted the same thing 4.5 years ago!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/805111/posts?page=19#19 ——>>>>

“Just like American Patrol said two years ago. The maqilladora zones draw Mexicans right to the border. The maqilladora zones function as a staging area for invading the United States. Especially as the maqilladora concept turns to shit as those factories move to lower priced China.”

[nicmarlo]

Especially as the maqilladora concept turns to shit as those factories move to lower priced China.”

Exactly what's happening. Don't tell me this wasn't well planned out....if you're that much on top of the "obvious" consequences (not meant to slight you at all)....think about how much these elitists knew exactly what would happen...how to make it happen....when to make it happen...etc., etc., etc.

[dennisw]

Especially as the maqilladora concept turns to shit as those factories move to lower priced China.”

Exactly what's happening. Don't tell me this wasn't well planned out....if you're that much on top of the "obvious" consequences (not meant to slight you at all)....think about how much these elitists knew exactly what would happen...how to make it happen....when to make it happen...etc., etc., etc.

I remember the big sell job on NAFTA. This was rammed through the Senate same as they tried with the recent Amnesty. NAFTA came into effect on 1 January 1994. 

There was no internet back then and Rush Limbaugh spoke pro NAFTA all the time.

I remember the AlGore/Ross Perot debate on NAFTA. I was definitely with Ross Perot on this one

I remember the lies about how NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration. A big fat lie of course and the elites (the Feds) reduced border and interior enforcement with Clinton's enforcement record being superior to George Bush'. So we got phony free trade with Mexico and more illegal alien Mexicans. The Central Americas copied Mexico and also decided to invade

[dennisw]

All NAFTA gave us was a huge trade deficit with Mexico and millions more illegal aliens. The elites could care less about trade deficits (same as many FReepers) and an immigration invasion

[nicmarlo]

I was definitely with Ross Perot on this one....I remember the lies about how NAFTA would reduce illegal immigration. A big fat lie of course

As was I and I remember telling everyone about how bad this would be....to no avail, obviously. It's disastrous.

That's all politicians do: lie and lie some more.

[nicmarlo]

The elites could care less about trade deficits (same as many FReepers) and an immigration invasion

That's obvious. We need to boot out the traitors...and quickly. The titanic is sinking....

[dennisw]

NAFTA + AMNESTY = deport good American factory jobs and import Mexico’s poor to squeeze US workers even more

[nicmarlo]

you left out the Chi Coms and their invasion plan once they get off the Mexican trucks coming up to the USA from the Mexican ports.....

[ovrtaxt]

Hey, there’s a thread here that you may be interested in. Don’t know if you’ve seen it yet.

[Czar]

"I don’t recall knowing about that one......"

OAS has been around for awhile, I believe. However, we can be sure that just about anything Foggy Bottom endorses we would be better rid of...

[stephenjohnbanker]

“NAFTA + AMNESTY = deport good American factory jobs and import Mexico’s poor to squeeze US workers even more”

That is exactly what is happening!

[Little Ray]

Derb got some of it, missed a lot of others. These are the reasons, I think, for President Bush’s support for illegal immigration and amnesty:

1. Business Expansion - we currently have a 4.5% unemployment with an expanding economy. Thats actually more a negative .5% unemployment - 5% are supposed to changing jobs at any one time. So we have more jobs than we do workers. If we want the economy to continue expanding, we need more workers.

2. Social Security - Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme with the older members collecting from newer members. Unfortunately, the number of newer members dropped so we need more folks to join. Legalize the illegals and herd ‘em into the system to pay for the generation retiring right now.

3. National Security - Mexico would be one of the best economies in the world if it weren’t a corrupt cesspool. If we close the safety valve (illegal immigration) it might blow and we’ll have a Cuba or Venezuela on our southern border.

4. Humanity - They’re here already. We already have to pay their medical and education costs, anyway and we can’t deport them in the quantities necessary without massive violations of basic human rights (in the opinion of the idiot Elites and the corrupt UN). Might as well give them a legal status to protect them from exploitive employers.

5. Secure their future votes - The illegals represent a growing demographic. They are conservative in their basic family values and would make natural Republicans. Securing this demographic would ensure Republican power for decades to come.

All of this is easily refutable, but remember the “Pauline Kael” effect - President Bush isn’t hearing anyone refuting these... and probably wouldn't listen!

[wtc911]

Let us not forget the SPP goal.

[Osage Orange]

Frankly, I don’t expect to see that screen name again.......

[wtc911]

I have been as against this version of immigration reform as the next, but I know, that the 4.5% unemployment number is only sustainable in the presence of illegal immigrants. If these people were to up and leave, the US would sustain the worst inflation we have seen since Jimmy Carter.

===========================================

Do you have a doctorate in economics?

Even if what you predict were to prove true the discomfort of a Carter-like recession (yes, I am old enough to fully remember the 70s) would be a very small price to pay in order to give my grandchildren the chance to live in America rather than the job of surviving in a balkanized mess that would be the country formally known as America. p

[LucyT]

I don’t expect to see that screen name again, either. The entire exercise was a feeble attempt to make us “feel good” because people, for a brief moment, thought they had input to the White House. Somewhere I read History is made by the sound of boots going up the stairs while velvet slippers descend the stairs.

[nicmarlo]

That is exactly what is happening!

Yep...shipping out jobs and shipping in cheap labor, driving down wages, decreasing number of middle class, increasing number of lower class....reducing lifestyles for most all.

[blam]

I wonder how many more illegal immigrants have entered the country since 'we won the battle' over the immigration bill. Nothing has changed. We need to be writing our congresscritters to 'secure the border and enforce the law.'

They're still coming!! (Nothing Changed!!)

[LucyT]

Congresscritters will break the amnesty bill into little pieces and pass each line item while no one notices. One day down the road we’ll discover that by stealth, it was passed after all.