The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Publications Filter?
VDare
Nothing found
 TeasersiSteve Blog
/
Amnesty

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

Screenshot 2015-10-05 01.48.59

Screenshot 2015-10-05 01.50.22

From NumbersUSA.

Commenter Lot says:

Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield is the favorite to become the next House speaker. He is an amnesty advocate. This is important, because right now, today, the majority in the House, 60+ votes in the Senate, and the President all support amnesty. The only reason that it didn’t pass is the “Hastert Rule” that says the Speaker does not bring to vote bills that don’t have a majority of Republicans in support, even if it has the support of the majority of the whole House.

It isn’t a hard and fast rule though. …

Importantly, however, [Boehner] DID NOT do this with amnesty.

I.e., Boehner kept the Schumer-Rubio amnesty bottled up in the House by not calling it up for a vote, where it likely would have passed.

… Jason Chaffetz of Utah, who beat an amnesty supporter in a Republican primary (Chris Cannon), is running against McCarthy. …

McCarthy is quite near the single worst House Republican on immigration. In fact, he scores worse than many California Democrat congressmen.

As we’ve seen with Merkel’s Boner, eternal vigilance is the price of keeping your country. One bigshot can make one seemingly technical change and set off a flash mob Camp of the Saints. Or set you on a drip drip drip erosion. Or both.

 
🔊 Listen RSS

Former President Bill Clinton is the latest Establishment type to praise former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for his repackaging amnesty. [Bill Clinton Praises Old Foe Newt Gingrich, Newsmax.com, November 26, 2011] It’s less surprising than it might seem: both, along with former President George W. Bush, are bought-and-paid-for servants of Davos Man.

The truly dominant ideology of our times isn’t anti-governmentism, it’s globalism. It’s so suffocating that at the elite level even an ex-President can only peck at it without daring to call it out by name.

Indeed, the most interesting aspect of Clinton’s recently-published Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy is the subterranean but still noticeable conflict between Clinton’s devotion to his globalist paymasters and his still-sharp political instincts that tell him that American patriotism wins elections.

It’s a struggle. But he manages.

Nobody would call Bill Clinton a profound thinker. While shallow, however, his range is certainly broad. For example, he concludes Back To Work with 46 scattershot suggestions for improving the economy, such as:

  • To support the insourcing movement, we should increase the number of empowerment zones and expand the reach of the New Markets Initiative”.

You have to give Clinton this much credit: he does not bore easily. Bush and Clinton were both born in 1946, but Bush has retired, while Clinton is still out there on the conference circuit sitting through Powerpoint presentations. He gives the impression that he’s actually interested in, say,

  • “21. Speed up the issuance of new energy efficiency rules for the most common household appliances” or
  • “33. Increase the role of the Small Business Administration (SBA).”

Clinton endorses the Obama policy on immigration, but only as #41 out of 46:

  • “41. Keep pushing for comprehensive immigration reform, and in the meantime grant more H-1B visas to immigrants in STEM fields until we have enough qualified citizens to fill the openings.

(VDARE.com links added to quotes thoughout). To my eye, he sounds less enthusiastic, more pro forma, about claiming that “the immigrants who fill the STEM jobs “ will somehow create jobs for Americans than he does about his priority #12:

  • “At least paint the roofs white.”

(Needless to say, Clinton makes no mention of the anti-unemployment immigration moratorium policy option, nor does he even show awareness of the wage and job displacement consequences of increasing the labor supply through legal and illegal immigration.)

In contrast, it’s hard to imagine either Bush or Obama sitting still for this wonkery without at least feeling the urge to flip on ESPN to check out the latest scores.

Yet because Clinton’s prose style is so non-magisterial, it’s hard to feel much confidence that he’s really thought through all these issues himself, rather than just becoming excited by some self-promoters’ ideas that he heard about at Davos or Aspen.

Inevitably, Back to Work is poorly organized. The usual way to write a policy book is to argue for some small number of organizing principles, then show how these ideas can be applied in practice. Perhaps this leads to too much ideology, but at least it leads to better books. Clinton’s brain is so random, however, that he mostly works in the opposite direction: throw out a bunch of ideas and let the reader try to figure out if there are any unifying theme. (Another point of similarity with Gingrich). That’s perhaps not necessarily a bad way to be President, but it’s a lousy way to write a book.

Clinton’s one big assertion is that the “anti-government” ideology he associates with Ronald Reagan and the Tea Party is wrong.

Instead, he reiterates, government and business should cooperate. He attempts to demonstrate this by tossing out lots of proposals he’s heard about from rich guys like his old co-campaign manager Terry McAuliffe about how the taxpayers should help out businessmen.

Significantly, Clinton never seems to notice that his proposals sound like the crony capitalism made notorious by Third World politicos such as Hosni Mubarak or Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos.

A lot of rich interests have handed Clinton a lot of cash since he left office. Since Hillary became Secretary of State, Bill has had to disclose his income, although that hasn’t seemed to slow him down. Last year, he was paid $10.7 million for giving 52 speeches.

I, personally, listened to many Clinton speeches for free in the 1990s, and those struck me as enough for one lifetime. It has never occurred to me since to that I would want to pay to hear another one. But, apparently, a lot of organizations think giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to the husband of the Secretary of State is in their best interests.

(You’ll notice that Muammar Gaddafi never anted-up for a Clinton speech. He just invested in second-stringers like Blair. And look where that got him.)

Perhaps Mr. Clinton has figured out some rules of thumb for distinguishing between public-spirited projects and Solyndra-style rip-offs of the taxpayers. But if he has, I didn’t notice him sharing them in Back to Work.

Clinton and Bush were opposites in managerial style. Especially after he hired Dick Morris for his re-election run, Clinton emphasized a profusion of micro-issues, such as school uniforms.

As President, Bush tried to reproduce his minimalist success in Texas, where he had run on just four issues: limited government, local control of schools, “family values,” and individual responsibility..

But Bush’s grand strategy in the White House mostly turned out to be:Invade the World, Invite the World, In Hock to the World. (Houston sportswriter Mickey Herskowitz, initially signed to write Bush’s first memoir back in 1999, revealed in 2005 that as early as 1999, Bush had expounded to him the political advantages of invading Iraq.)

Still, although Clinton and Bush had different cognitive styles, on substantive issues they were often surprisingly close. Clinton praises Bush for being: “… genuine in his commitment to diversity in government, to improved learning in public school s, to immigration reform, and to doing more to help poor nations fight AIDS.” On the big questions of ideology in the 21st Century—globalism v. patriotism and elites using concern for the poor and diverse to exploit the middle class—Clinton and Bush (not to mention Gingrich and Obama) are mostly in agreement.

The plain fact is that the money is just too good for a public figure to displease global elites. More details: Since leaving the White House, Clinton has pocketed $75.6 million in speaking fees—with $44.9 million coming from abroad. Considering how much the international conference circuit loves both Democratic ex-Presidents and black mascots such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Obama has a shot at pocketing a billion dollars during his retirement.

Clinton claims that the Tea Party’s message is “You’re on your own”. In contrast, his motto is “We’re all in this together.”

Yet Clinton does seem vaguely cognizant that “We’re all in this together” hardly jibes with his expressions of fashionable utopian anti-nationalism. On p. 14, he writes, “Because the world is still organized around nations …” echoing his should-have-been notorious statement on September 10, 2001 that he “supported the ultimate wisdom of a borderless world for people and for trade.”

On his book’s back cover, Clinton expounds upon his philosophy of American exceptionalism:

“… America at its core is an idea—the idea that no matter who you are or where you’re from, if you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll have the freedom and opportunity to pursue your own dreams and leave your kids a country where they can chase theirs.”

This is the just the same jejune propositionism that George W. Bush put forward to con the gullible.

In contrast, the reality is that I don’t want my kids to have to compete with anybody from anywhere—especially if these foreigners are unlikely to follow the rules.

Turning the United States of America into the world’s swap meet sounds very good for the handful of people who lend Clinton their private jets, but not likely to be terribly good for me and mine—and most Americans.

Still, some of the more interesting proposals in Back to Work would be unsettling to the editors of The Economist magazine. For example, in a paragraph praising the sainted Steve Jobs, Clinton writes:

“… I think most Americans respect people like Steve Jobs, who made a fortune producing products or services they wanted to buy like the iPad and the iPhone (though we wish they were made in the United States).”

This parenthetical remark (my emphasis) might just be a jibe at his former Vice-President Al Gore, who is on the Apple board. But still it’s interesting—because it’s uncool. As a good globalist, you aren’t supposed to worry that Apple, a vastly fashionable and profitable company, does very little manufacturing in the United States. That’s just the fault of those useless American workers.

I would have liked to have seen Clinton take on the Apple cult by making the innocent suggestion that Apple should manufacture in America its highest margin products, such as the $2499 MacBook Pro with the 17” screen.

Similarly, Clinton twice brings up a bizarre but obscure recent incident in which the city of Los Angeles asked for bids for new high speed trains from European manufacturers. One offered to build a plant in Los Angeles and employ Los Angelenos, while the other intended to import the rail cars from abroad. [Rail car bid in doubt, firm makes new offer,by Maeve Reston, LA Times, May 28, 2009] But, to Clinton’s incredulity:

“… the federal government told Los Angeles that since federal money would pay for the fast trains, the very different impacts on the local economy of the two proposals could not be considered in awarding the bid! … This is nuts.”

Indeed.

That certainly counts as a peck at the globalism ideology. But it’s pretty pathetic.

Someday, some politician might finally say: “America is exceptional to me, because it’s my country.”

But I’m not holding my breath.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog. His book, AMERICA’S HALF-BLOOD PRINCE: BARACK OBAMA’S “STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE”, is available here.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Economics • Tags: Amnesty, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

From the Washington Post,

A broad cross-section of House Democrats unveiled a new comprehensive immigration reform bill Tuesday, laying down an early marker for what they hope will be a major 2010 debate.

More than 80 co-sponsors have already signed on to the legislation, which is authored by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and titled the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009, or “CIR ASAP” for short. The bill includes provisions strengthening border security, creating a streamlined employment verification system, altering the visa program to promote the reunification of families and establishing a commission to recommend changes to the current system of H-1B and H-2B visas for skilled workers.

The measure, a summary of which is available here (PDF), also contains an “earned legalization program” for current undocumented workers, giving them the chance to get legal status if they pay a $500 fine, pass a criminal background check and show that they have made valuable contributions to American society “through employment, education, military service or other volunteer/community service.”

Gutierrez and several members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus as well as the Congressional Black Caucus and other groups jammed into an overstuffed, sweltering House committee room Tuesday to release the bill and demand action.

Standing before a cadre of activists chanting “Si, se puede,” and a group of children wearing shirts that said “future voter,” Gutierrez said that years of hard work and negotiations on the issue had brought them “to this bill and to this meeting, which marks the final push toward comprehensive immigration reform.”

All through 2009, the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats have repeatedly announced that they are about to begin work on amnesty legislation Real Soon Now. Their unstated goal is to freeze unemployed illegal immigrants in place in the U.S. through April 1, 2010, the date of the Census, by implying that if they go back to their warm homelands this winter to live with their families, they’ll miss out on the coming Amnesty.

But, from the point of view of people like Rep. Gutierrez, the key date is April Fool’s Day, when the Census will count every warm body it finds in the U.S., citizen or legal immigrant or illegal immigrant equally. The more unemployed illegal immigrants stick it out through the winter before going home, the more power professional Hispanics like Gutierrez will enjoy under the Voting Rights Act, the bigger the explicit and implicit quotas for Hispanics, and so forth and so on.

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS

Back in late May, the Axis of Amnesty seemed like an unstoppable coalition of the Great and the Good. It linked the Republican White House and the Democratic leaders of Congress, business, media,religion, and the ethnic lobbies.

And yet, put to the test in the Senate, the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill collapsed ignominiouslytwice.

Why did the Axis of Amnesty turn out to be a paper tiger?

Sure, we immigration reform patriots had a large majority of American voters on our side. But only the naïve assume that the majority rules in modern America. While we entered the battle with both numbers and morale, the Axis of Amnesty held the commanding heights of the institutions and had almost all the hired guns.

So what happened?

Well, as Napoleon said: “In war, moral factors account for three quarters of the whole; relative material strength accounts for only one quarter.”

What the Axis didn’t have was any Americans below the elites who actually cared enough about the amnesty bill to write their Senators.

Let’s review each component of this mile-wide-but-inch deep coalition of special interests to see why its overall strength was so vastly overrated.

  • The MainStream Media

The good news for the Axis of Amnesty was that the MainStream Media consistently demonize patriotic immigration reformers. But that was about all the good news they enjoyed. Just about the only steadfast partisans were obviously self-interested or delusional fringe interests like the immigration lawyers, La Raza, and economists.

  • Illegal immigrants

The huge illegal alien demonstrations in the spring of 2006, with their vast sea of Mexican flags, just made actual voters more adamant in saying No mas to illegal immigration. But they intimidated andmotivated the Establishment.

But where were the marchers this year?

The dismal failure of illegal immigrants to turn out in the streets wasthe most striking change from 2006 to 2007. According to the Los Angeles Times, [15 Police Officers Injured in Clash With Demonstrators in LA, By Teresa Watanabe and Francisco Vara-Orta,May 2, 2007] the May Day march of the illegals dropped from 650,000 in 2006 to 35,000 in 2007. Similar declines were seen nationally.

Then, after the collapse of the Bush-Kennedy bill in mid-May … practically nada.

The single most important reason for this unexpected collapse: probably the fact that the old House bill threatening to make being an illegal immigrant a felony was not on the table this year. Only “a path to citizenship” was being debated. Illegal aliens don’t want to be deported, but, in contrast to the sentimental propaganda about them, they don’t care much about citizenship (or America either, for that matter). They are, in the most part, patriotic Mexican nationals here merely for the money.

Illegal aliens also, evidently, don’t long to be “brought out of the shadows”. They don’t see all that much in it for them. That’sbecause they have a better understanding of economics than do many of their elite supporters. They realize that their wages are determined not by their “legal status,” but by supply and demand.

  • Legal immigrants

The majority of legal immigrants who have become citizens and can now vote are not Mexican or Central American.[PDF] So why did anyone expect them to care about Latin American illegal immigrants who jumped ahead of their loved ones in line?

  • American-born Hispanics

While the small number of Hispanics who make a living out of their ethnicity were fired up over this chance to import more co-ethnics for them to claim to represent, the typical Latino-American wasambivalent—alternating between feelings of ethnocentrism and the hard-headed realization that importing even more people from Mexico sure wasn’t going to make his life any better.

  • African-Americans

…were unenthused. Utterly.

  • White liberals/ “progressives”

As Randall Burns has documented on VDARE.com, white liberals who are ordinary citizens showed negligible zeal for amnesty. The “progressive netroots” who hang out on Daily Kos and the like have turned themselves into a formidable political force, but they were yet another dog that didn’t bark for amnesty. On the rare occasions when the Senate legislation came up on liberal blogs, the comments sections tended toward hostility.

Just about the only pro-amnesty talking point that white liberals could rally around was that passing the bill would make white conservatives—who are, by definition, evil racists, morally far inferior to white liberals—mad.

That kind of status-striving certainly motivated a lot of the biased pro-amnesty press coverage in the MSM. But it didn’t seem to drive much positive political activism among the netroots.

The truth is that white liberals are bored by Mexican illegal immigrants, who lack the glamour of the 1960s black civil rights protestors. At the 2006 march for illegal aliens that I witnessed, I didn’t see a single white American. Everyone marching down Van Nuys Blvd. appeared to be mestizo or full-blooded Indian. (Indeed, judging from how short the marchers were on average, there weren’t many American-born Latinos in attendance either.)

  • Catholics

The Roman Catholic hierarchy’s most prominent pro-amnesty spokesman was Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony. But he was simultaneously negotiating a legal settlement of the child molestationcharges against the LA Archdiocese that would keep him from having to testify in court about why he had kept shuffling the criminal priests from one parish to another—at a cost of $660 million out of the contributions of the faithful (including me).

Not surprisingly, Mahony’s calls for amnesty were widely ignored.

  • Labor

The AFL-CIO had been a strong voice for immigration restriction going back to Samuel Gompers in the early 20th Century. But in 2000, the union’s bosses switched sides and backed amnesty. In 2007, however, the rank-and-file was so opposed that the bigshots apparently felt they had to go along and condemn the bill.

  • Business

The CEO’s finally realized that their current employees hated amnesty, so they toned down their support.

In summary, the Axis of Amnesty coalition turned out to be a lot of chiefs and very few Indians.

This doesn’t mean the Axis won’t try again. They will, probably by trying to smuggle through mini-amnesties.

But they have sustained an epochal defeat. And it has exposed their weaknesses as never before.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Amnesty, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

As I’ve pointed out before, the priority of new immigration legislation should be to stop the situation from getting worse. But the media and the Kennedy-Bush Axis of Amnesty assumes the most crucial issue is”doing something” about the illegal immigrants currently here. Specifically, we must “bring them out of the shadows,” as the cliche goes.

Why?

Can anybody document what bringing 2.7 million illegal immigrants out of the shadows into legality accomplished in 1986?

These amnestied illegals were preponderantly living in California, so we can look at California‘s experience. Did amnesty:

- Help California’s standard of living? Well, from the standpoint of becoming a homeowner, California‘s combination of high cost of living and low median income now offers the second worst standard of living of any state in America, better than only isolated Hawaii.

- Improve California‘s schools? California, home to Silicon Valley, now battles states like Arkansas and South Carolina for the runner-up position at the bottom of the NAEP scores.

- Persuade the amnestied illegals’ kids to stop spraypainting their tags all over every vertical surface in LA? Ever since Villaraigosa got elected mayor in 2005, the city has been swamped by gang graffiti.

- Stop more illegal aliens from coming to California? Yeah, right …

So, why does Axis keep trying to yank our chains about the benefits of amnesty when it failed so spectacularly in the biggest state in the country?

(Republished from iSteve by permission of author or representative)
 
🔊 Listen RSS

It was a fun week, with our side winning a big vote in the Senate on Thursday to prevent the Kennedy-Bush Axis of Amnesty from ramming their Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill through.

Of course, the usual suspects are Kudlowing away—using their privileged access to the Mainstream Media to convince themselves, and their backers, that the bill can be resurrected. So here are a few lessons—some worrisome, some encouraging—to keep in mind.

  • First, don’t forget that the powers-that-be are still powerful. The Amnesty/ Surge bill really isn’t dead yet. Harvard economist George Borjas, the leading immigration economics researcher, presciently warned Wednesday on his new blog:

“A big chunk of the ‘elite’ wants something like this bill and they want it badly—the polls be damned. And debate is curtailed in the simplest way possible: Anyone in their way will be insinuated to be (or sometimes even explicitly called) a racist or a xenophobe.”

On Friday evening, in “Senate tries to kick-start stalled immigration bill“, Carrie Budoff reported in The Politico:

“Senators and their staff, White House officials, and dozens of interests groups discussed strategy Friday. Pro-immigrant advocates met with Democratic staffers. Senate Republicans regrouped with the White House by phone.”

So, don’t relax and assume all is well. As Andy Jackson pointed out in his Farewell Address, “Remember, my fellow citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty…”

  • Second, we’ve merely dodged a bullet—even if the Kennedy-Bush bill is a goner.

We’re a long, long way from winning the war. Beating back a bad bill isn’t the same as passing a good one.

After the triumph of the cloture vote Thursday evening, a well-wisher in Istanbul wrote to remind me of the mordant Turkish saying in response to partial good news: “Now, that leaves only three horseshoes and a horse to find.”

While much of the press was trying to pin the failure of the Kennedy-Bush gang on inside baseball minutia, the Los Angeles Times was honest enough to admit the primary cause in Immigration bill drew fire from both sides by Janet Hook and Nicole Gaouette [June 8, 2007]. Yet, look how their choice of language to describe us is so hate-filled that it might be drawn from the stylebook of the Völkischer Beobachter:

“But the single most powerful obstacle facing the bill is a groundswell of virulent opposition to illegal immigration — mostly among Republicans who peppered GOP lawmakers with furious criticism… Those angry critics booed Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), both bill supporters, at their state conventions. … [O]ne man shouted, ‘I can tell you’re for amnesty!’ and stalked out. On Friday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said misinformation and angerabout the bill was such that ‘in my 15 years I’ve never received more hate or more racist phone calls and threats.’” [Italics mine]

Yeah, okay, I get it, we’re not public-spirited citizens, we’re frothing-at-the-mouth irrational racist madmen …

  • Fourth, note the revolutionary ability of Internet-enabled patriots to overcome the entrenched clout of the Beltway Boys.

I’ve written about immigration for over seven years (this is my 315th VDARE.com article). So I sometimes get depressed rereading, year after year in the MainStream Media, the same old fallacies. “Hey,” I’ll groan, “I debunked that on VDARE.COM back in 2001!”

A lie goes halfway around the world before the truth gets its boots on.

The good news, though, is that nothing goes away on the Internet. Concerned citizens can always use Google to find articles with the facts.

And they can email those articles to friends.

  • Fifth, the Achilles heel of the Axis of Amnesty’s putsch was that the bill had to be posted on the Internet.

The legislation was written in secret. Committee hearings on it were blocked. It was far too long for many busy Senators and their staffers to read.

But networks of highly intelligent citizens examined it carefully and emailed each other with what they found. For example, Thursday’s VDARE.com article, Ten Reasons The Amnesty/Immigration Surge Bill Is Appalling, by ‘An Economist,’ grew out of an email list utilized by a brilliant economist-turned-highly successful businessman, who has been devoting a lot of his extraordinary energy to immigration.

  • Sixth, it has become obvious over last three weeks that there is a strong correlation between one’s level of factual knowledge about immigration and one’s level of skepticism about the Kennedy-Bush Immigration Surge scheme.

Indeed, that helps explain something that baffled the clueless MSM. According to the press’ interpretation of their own polls, the public thought the Kennedy-Bush plan was a swell idea. The “Gallup Guru,” Frank Newport of the Gallup Poll organization, influentially claimed on May 22: “Senate immigration bill in sync with American public opinion.”

In particular, the Washington Post didn’t just drink the Inside-the-Beltway Kool-Aid about the popularity of amnesty, it brewed up vast new quantities. Even on Saturday morning, June 9, the Post’s immigration “reporter” Jonathan Weisman [Send him mail](who was culpable for last Monday’s notoriously wrong agitprop classic Backers of Immigration Bill More Optimistic: Lawmakers Cite Sense of Urgencywas still proclaiming:

“Within policy circles, immigration reform is viewed as vital, addressing both the growing demand for workers and the social costs of an illegal underclass. The public also generally supports the idea.”

Yet, when push came to shove, an unexpected majority of Senators ran away from the Kennedy-Bush bill—because their constituents had made clear to them over the Memorial Day break that they opposed it.

That’s opposed—NOT supported. There’s a difference.

To his credit, Gallup’s Newport looked deeper into the topic. He reported on June 6:

“Those Americans who are following the debate closely are highly likely to be opponents of the bill. Among those who know enough to have an opinion, the bill is opposed by almost a three to one margin. Among those who say they are following the news about the bill very closely, opposition outweighs support by almost a four to one margin.” [While Majority Unsure About Immigration Bill, Those With Opinion Are Strongly Opposed, Gallup News Service, June 06, 2007]

In other words, pro-amnesty pollsters manipulated the ignorant into expressing approval of the Kennedy-Bush plan by presenting them with a few carefully crafted talking points about what its sponsors claimed it would do.

That kind of polling technique would get a marketing researcher fired in the consumer packaged goods business. But any shoddy methodology is okay with Big Media when it comes to promoting its favored policies. I call this technique “pollaganda.”

  • Seventh and last, we’re a long way from winning—but this week shows there’s reason for hope.

To quote an 1849 poem by Arthur Hugh Clough that was a favorite of Winston Churchill’s:

SAY not the struggle naught availeth, The labour and the wounds are vain, The enemy faints not, nor faileth, And as things have been, things remain; … For while the tired waves vainly breaking Seem here no painful inch to gain, Far back, through creeks and inlets making, Comes silent, flooding in, the main. And not by eastern windows only, When daylight comes, comes in the light,In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly, But westward, look, the land is bright.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Amnesty, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

Was this the straw that finally broke the camel’s back?

On Tuesday, May 29, President George W. Bush declared that opponents of the Kennedy-Bush “comprehensive immigration reform” plan in the Senate “don’t want to do what’s right for America”.

Bush to Americans: You unpatriotic curs!

The response to Bush’s bluster has been overwhelming—but not in the direction that the President must have hoped.

White House staffers then threw fuel on the fire, telling the New York Times, that Bush “had ad-libbed the line during a passionate address on an issue he holds dear.” [President's Push on Immigration Tests G.O.P. Base, By Jim Rutenberg And Carl Hulse, June 3, 2007]

In other words: Don’t blame us flacks, we didn’t come up with that line. Blame our boss—he really means it. Bush is so nuts for illegal immigrants that he’s out of our control.

On Friday, Bush waded back in, delivering a semi-literate defense of the Senate amnesty bill:

“I say the system isn’t working because there’s a lot of Americans who say that the government is not enforcing our border.”

In other words: How dare those disrespectful Americans say that the government is not enforcing our border! Don’t they know the government is me?

Bush huffed on:

“I say the system is broken because there are people coming into America to do work that Americans are not doing.

In other words: Uh … hmmhmm … Well, I don’t quite know what this means. My best guess is that the President left out a part of the sentence necessary for it to make sense.

More Bush:

“There are so-called innkeepers, providing substandard hovels for people who are smuggled into our country. In other words, we have got a system that is causing people—good, decent people—to be exploited.”

In other words: People aren’t being nice to those swell illegal immigrants and that makes me mad!

The amateurishness of Friday’s remarks is noteworthy. Despite all his failures as a manager and “decider,” Bush’s speeches have traditionally done a better job of putting a more eloquent gloss on his policies than they’ve deserved. Now, though, even an eloquent speechwriting staff can’t help. We’re seeing the real Bush

Moreover, the hectoring inanity of his arguments—America must not fear diversity. We ought to welcome diversity”—is revealing.

It’s not just that after more than six years of pushing for amnesties and guest worker programs, the President can’t come up with better reasons; it’s that nobody can. Instead of analysis of the facts, the American public is bullied with the threat of being smeared as racist.

Bush went on:

“This bill isn’t amnesty. For those who call it amnesty, they’re just trying to, in my judgment, frighten people about the bill.”

The President has been flailing about for years trying to come up with some contrived definition of the word “amnesty” that would handwave away two massive political problems besetting his immigration schemes.

  • First, the public doesn’t want to reward illegal residence in America by making it legal. That encourages more of it. In the years since the 1986 amnesty that was supposed to solve the problem permanently, the illegal alien population in America has quintupled (or worse).

And there are lots more where those came from. The Chicago Tribunereported in 2005:

“More than 40 percent of Mexicans in a new survey would opt to immigrate [sic] to the United States and more than 20 percent of them would enter this country illegally given the opportunity, a study released Tuesday disclosed.”[Poll: Over 40% in Mexico would live in U.S. |Pew study also finds many Hispanics born here support curbs By Vincent J. Schodolski, August 17, 2005 ]

The population of Mexico is approaching 109 million. You do the math.

Even more disastrous for the long run: five billion people live in countries poorer than Mexico. Something like one-fifth of all Mexicans and one-fourth of all Puerto Ricans now live in our 50 states. What does that suggest the five billion people in even poorer countries than Mexico and Puerto Rico will do when Bush gives them the chance?

Bush found this out, apparently to his surprise, when he floated his first amnesty trial balloon in the summer of 2001. As I wrote in VDARE.COM on August 14, 2001:

“My prediction: … It will fall apart in Congress because the Democrats want to put more immigrants on the road to being voters, confident that the majority will vote Democratic. The more intelligent Republicans understand that and don’t want it.”

By the first week in September of 2001, Bush’s plan was dead in the water. He was only saved from a humiliating rebuff in the House by the 9/11 attacks.

So, when Bush relaunched his amnesty plan in January 2004, he altered it to deny citizenship to the illegal aliens he intended to legalize. Instead, he converted them into a disenfranchised caste of unassimilated guest workers.

But as I pointed out in February 2004, Bush’s new Machiavellianism automatically ceded the rhetorical high ground to the Democrats, who quickly began pushing for earned legalization (i.e., giving illegals the vote). Bush was left contradictorily sputtering about how wonderful immigrants are and how we don’t want them to become our fellow citizens.

Predictably, on Cinco de Mayo 2004, Ted Kennedy unveiled a bill to put illegal aliens on the path to citizenship.

Bush then realized that perpetual helotry for immigrants wasn’t an appealing notion. So he conceded that illegal aliens should become citizens. But to mollify the House Republicans, he declared that they shouldn’t become citizens soon.

And here’s where the President displayed his genius for stupidity—with a masterful bit of verbal legerdemain so idiotic that it successfully stupefied everybody who wasn’t paying the closest attention to immigration policy (e.g., the entire Mainstream Media).

What Bush did was redefine “amnesty” to mean … putting legalized illegal aliens first in line for full citizenship. In contrast, according to the President, giving them the legal right to be in the country but making them wait their turn to vote behind legal Green Card holders applying for citizenship was not amnesty!

In a debate with John Kerry, Bush said:

“Now, it’s very important for our citizens to also know that I don’t believe we ought to have amnesty. I don’t think we ought to reward illegal behavior. There are plenty of people standing in line to become a citizen. And we ought not to crowd these people ahead of them in line. If they want to become a citizen, they can stand in line, too. And here is where my opponent and I differ. In September 2003, he supported amnesty for illegal aliens.”

Of course, what amnesty primarily is about is not citizenship, but legal residency—the right to continue to enjoy your ill-gotten gain of living in the United States.

Mr. Bush’s definition of “amnesty” was so off-the-wall moronic that it made your head hurt to try to think about it. And that was the brilliance of it. The rather obtuse John Kerry couldn’t figure it out, and let the issue die—along with his chance at the White House.

In May 2006, Mr. Bush comically redefined “amnesty” once again:

“They should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it.” [Emphasis mine.]

And on Friday, Bush came up with yet another definition of amnesty:

“This bill isn’t amnesty… This bill is one that says we recognize that you’re here illegally and there’s a consequence for it.”

Oh yeah? The main “consequence” is that the illegal resident gets, virtually immediately, the legal right to reside in our country. The fines specified in the Kennedy-Bush plan would be a tiny fraction of the net present value of American residence.

And what if the illegals don’t pay the fine? Is Mr. Bush going to round them up and deport them?

Well, on Friday, he said:

“… it is impossible for this country to route people out of our society and, you know, quote, ‘send them home.’ It’s just not going to happen.”

In other words: no.

So much for Bush’s “consequences”.

Personally, I prefer Malaysia’s definition of amnesty. In 2004, it offered an amnesty to illegal Indonesian aliens—which meant the illegals got the chance to go home without being punished for breaking Malaysian law.

And by punishment, Malaysia means caning.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Amnesty, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

Under the leadership of Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), variousSenators and Bush Administration officials pulled an all-nighter behind closed doors on Wednesday. By noon Thursday, the bleary-eyed politicos had concocted an illegal alien amnesty (a.k.a.,“comprehensive immigration reform”) bill.

I presume politicians don’t have Smoke-Filled Rooms anymore. So you could call this the Red Bull-Filled Room approach to deciding the fate of America.

No

committee hearings are to be held on what may well be the most important legislation of the decade. As Senator Chuck Grassley [R-IA] correctly pointed out:

“It’s disappointing and even ironic how the deal announced today skirts the democratic processes of Congress. It was cut by a group of senators operating outside the committees of jurisdiction and without public hearings on key components.” [A'Troubled' Immigration Reform Proposal | President Bush and the Democrats reach a compromise on immigration reform, by Lorraine Woellert and Eamon Javers, BusinessWeek, May 18, 2007]

As of early Saturday morning, May 19, the public has not even beenshown the text of the bill. The ultimately failed amnesty legislation the Senate passed last year was 118,277 words long. This may well be more complicated. A

photo of the first draft shows it to be almost twice as thick as a Bible.

So reading the new bill carefully will likely take at least 10 uninterrupted hours, and quite possibly twice that, a span of time that few Senators have readily available. To truly understand how the legislation would work and what its long term implications are would take weeks of questioning and debate.

Nonetheless, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) wants to have the entire bill passed by Memorial Day, a week from now.

Even more appallingly, Reid wants to hold the crucial “cloture” vote to shut off the possibility of a filibuster, the best chance to derail it, on Monday, May 21!

It is utterly impossible for the United States Senate to exercise the due diligence commensurate with the importance of major immigration legislation without extensive hearings.

The pro-amnesty Senate hearings spearheaded by McCain in early 2006 aroused tremendous opposition among the public. Although an amnesty bill passed the Senate in May, House Republican leaders wisely refused to be lured into a conference committee to reconcile their enforcement-only bill with the Senate’s diametrically opposed bill. Instead, they held additional hearings on immigration last summer around the country. Foolishly, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) tried to hold his own hearings in favor of the Senate bill, but the result of the dueling hearings was the collapse of any chance for amnesty last year.

From a good government standpoint, what we are witnessing is perhaps the most irresponsible and shameless attempt to hustle a pig in a poke past the public in recent memory. Of course, that’s the whole point of the exercise—to not let us simple citizens in on the process of deciding who our fellow citizens will be.

It’s only a modest exaggeration to call this an attempted coup against the American people.

Of course, the Main Stream Media finds this elite putsch admirable. U.S. News’ Political Bulletin commented on Friday: Media Revels in Bipartisanship Bliss The bipartisan process that led to the Senatedeal is being celebrated in media reports.” Today’s press probably would have spun the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact as a triumph of bipartisan bridge-building. Who cares if the American people have to play the role of the betrayed Poles?

Why this obscene haste? According to the Boston Globe, [Adversariespraise a relentless Kennedy, By Susan Milligan, May 18, 2007] the reason is that “an immigration pact would need to be finished by summer or it would collapse in the heat of campaigning.”

In other words, the government wants to elect a new people before the people start to elect a new government.

Tellingly, the increasingly out-of-touch Senator John McCain (R-AZ)and the half-Hispanic governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) were the only two of the countless Presidential candidates currently running to endorse the scheme immediately.

While many of the candidates appear to lack enthusiasm in their hearts for rigorous border control, they at least know what the voters want to hear. Thus, Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) noted that the Kennedy-Bush plan would “replace the current group of undocumentedimmigrations with a new undocumented population … andpotentially drive down wages of American workers.” Former Senator Fred Thompson said we “should scrap this bill and the whole debate until we can convince the American people that we have secured the borders.”[How candidates line up on the immigration bill, By Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times, May 19, 2007]

The track record of the principals behind the deal is not reassuring. The last time Senator Kennedy and President Bush teamed up, the result was the absurd No Child Left Behind act, whose mandate that everychild in America be “proficient” (i.e., above average ) in reading and math by 2014 can be met only by fraud on the most colossal scale.

If Kennedy is successful, this will be the third generation of Senators that the Massachusetts Democrat has hoodwinked into passing a bad immigration bill, beginning with the epochally disastrous 1965 immigration act, and continuing with the laughable 1990 Diversity Visa law. Despite (or possibly because of) this history, the Bush cabinet secretaries gushed about their night with Senator Ted. “He’sawesome,” exclaimed Homeland Security supremo Michael Chertoff. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez effused that it was “a realprivilege” to work with the Democratic warhorse.

While Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has claimed that she would only pass comprehensive immigration reform if President Bush delivers 70 Republican House members to her side, Slate’s Mickey Kaus wisely counsels:

“Opponents of the

GOP cave-in on immigration would be fools, I think, to rely on Nancy Pelosi’s House to kill the legislation. … What are the bill’s opponents going to do when Pelosi decides that, hey, 20 or 30 Republican votes are enough?”

As I’ve pointed out before, the Age of Ideology—when the bigquestions were simple ones, such as Communism vs. Capitalism —is over. We live in the Age of the Fine Print, where the devil is in the details.

We saw that with the 1986 immigration compromise that mandated both amnesty for current illegal aliens and workplace enforcement to discourage new ones from entering.

While most of the participants in that fiasco were reasonably sincere—unlike now, after 21 more years of immigration degrading our political culture —they were confounded by the difficulty of anticipating theconsequences of their legislation. Thus they failed to set up effective enforcement mechanisms to prevent employers of illegals from demanding that the Congressmen to whom they gave campaign contributions badger the INS into ignoring lawbreaking at their factories and farms. So, due to rampant corruption, the 1986 compromise ended up in practice being amnesty-only.

The 2007 law’s employer enforcement clauses would likely be asineffectual – but for even more cynical reasons.

Only a massive and absolutely immediate response from an outraged public will stop this week going down as one of the most shameful in American political history.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Amnesty, VDare Archives 
🔊 Listen RSS

After letting Ted Kennedy and John McCain lead the fight for his illegalimmigration cave-in earlier in the year, President Bush has now re-emerged to push publicly for the amnesty and guest worker plans that have obsessed him from his first days in office.

In tandem with the May Day “show of force” by hordes of marching illegal aliens, the impact on Bush’s popularity appears to have been brutal.

President Bush’s public approval ratings have dropped this month to Nixon-during-Watergate levels. According to the Gallup Poll, Bush’s rating among Republicans has been plummeting a point per day for the last two weeks!

And yet Bush can’t resist going back for more of the hair-of-the-dog-that-bit-him. He is still prodding the Senate to pass his disastrous immigration legislation—what we have called The Bush Betrayal.”On Friday, Senate Democratic minority leader Harry Reid and the White House’s main man on Capitol Hill, Republican majority leader Bill Frist, announced that the misbegotten bill they almost shoved through earlier this year is now ready again to be voted on by the Senate.

To cover up this historic sell-out of the American people, Bush reportedly will address the nation Monday night (8 pm EDT) and announce some cosmetic toughening-up measures.

The White House’s working philosophy seems to be what I call “marketing major post-modernism”: the belief, often acquired through osmosis while studying public relations or advertising in college, that some egghead over in Europe proved that there’s no such thing as truth or reality, so … spin away!

The New York Times reports, in effect, that Bush operatives believe they just haven’t been clever enough in their lying:

“White House officials said Mr. Bush had always understood the need to protect the border as a former governor of a border state, Texas. But they acknowledged they had perhaps erred in not emphasizing that understanding as they pushed provisions granting illegal immigrants working here legal status, angering Republicans.” (Bush to Unveil Plan to Tighten Border Controls,by Jim Rutenberg, May 13, 2006)

This is comically mendacious. As President, Bush has killed off the last remnants of the once grand-seeming grand compromise in the 1986 immigration legislation, in which amnesty for current illegal aliens was supposedly to be combined with strict employer sanctions to prevent new illegal immigration. As VDARE.com’s Edwin S. Rubenstein noted:

“Under the Bush Administration worksite arrests of illegal aliens fell some 97 percent, from 2,859 in 1999 to 159 in 2004.”

It is rumored that the President will announce that National Guard troops will be headed to the border. (Why the National Guard? Don’t we have an Army?) [VDARE.COM note: It's been repeatedly suggested that using the Army for border control would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, designed to prevent the Army from being used on Americans. (E.g. Raoul Lowery Contreras, in the middle of an attack on us here: “It is illegal to put troops on the border .") No, it wouldn't. Aside from the multiple modern exceptions to the Act, what is at issue here is a matter of guarding the border from foreign invaders. This is what armies are for.]

My question: Exactly how can the Bush Administration round up enough National Guardsmen when so many are deployed—as VDARE.COM’s own Allan Wall was—in Iraq?

The answer: it can’t.

The Washington Post reports:

“One defense official said military leaders believe the number of troops required could range from 3,500 to perhaps 10,000, depending on the final plan. Another administration official cautioned that the 10,000 figure was too high.” [Bush Weighs Deploying Guard to U.S. Border, byLolita C. Baldor , May 13, 2006]

Sounds impressive!

But do the math…

  • There are 168 hours in a week, so each Guardsman would be on duty on the border for, say, one quarter of that or 42 hours per week. (That is unreasonably optimistic, considering how much work time these days is devoted to training, leave, sexual harassment seminars, diversity sensitivity workshops, and the like.)

So, if each one of the 3,500 National Guardsmen was on patrol an average of, say, 21 hours per week (which is 1/8th of the 168 hours in a week), that would provide one soldier per 4.5 miles of border.

For some reason, I’m not reassured.

Particularly because this deployment would certainly be withdrawn as soon as Bush feels what might be called a “decent interval” has elapsed.

Some of the news stories on how the Bush Administration is going to “militarize” the border sound like the first draft of an Evelyn Waugh story. The New York Times’ Rutenberg reports:

“Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld met at the Pentagon with Mexico’s defense minister, Gen. Gerardo Clemente Ricardo Vega. Officials said they had discussed, among other things, potential United States help in training and equipping Mexican forces at the border.”

Of course, Mr. Rumsfeld is part of the same Administration that is evidently tipping off the Mexican government on where the Minutemen are guarding the border.

So we can only imagine what he’s been passing along to a foreign military that has staged hundreds of incursions onto American soil while escorting Mexican drug and immigrant smugglers.

The Bush Administration has seemed never to notice that Mexico is not the 51st state, but a foreign country—one that is engaged in a slow-motion invasion of America.

Of course, Bush will make no mention of any attempt to actually, well,deport the illegal aliens he has allowed to sneak in—even though there are many ways short of mass round-ups that public policy could encourage them to leave.

And Bush is unlikely to propose the one border enforcement step that couldn’t be quickly reversed once public attention is diverted: an Israeli-style security fence along the entire frontier.

But even if Mr. Bush announces Monday that he favors a fence, the plain fact is that he simply can’t be trusted to provide any honest leadership on such a project at all. It would be easy for him to delay its construction for, roughly, ever.

Here’s just one obvious opportunity for obstruction: environmental impact.

Look at the endless delays in California golf course construction. It only took 18 months to build the superb Barona Creek golf course outside San Diego—because it is on an Indian reservation immune to the less crucial environmental regulations. In contrast, Barona Creek’s designer Todd Eckenrode told me that he had other courses that were still on the drawing board after 8 to 12 years due to environmental impact hassles. The TPC Valencia course north of Los Angeles wasproposed in 1985 but didn’t open until 2002. Most of these delays are driven by the Not-In-My-Back-Yard interests of neighbors rather than by legitimate conservation needs.

Construction of a 14-mile fence along the border in San Diego began 13 years ago. But the final three miles next to the ocean are still not finished due to wetlands lawsuits.

Congress has the right to override environmental regulations, which they finally did last year to get the San Diego fence project moving again. But that won’t happen on a national fence unless we voters demand it as part of the initial legislative package.

Just as the public was betrayed on immigration by its elected leadership in 1986 and 1996, we can expect more of the same in 2006.

This is shaping up to be a disastrous moment in the history of the Republic. The full impact of immigration legislation does not become visible to voters for decades (and, apparently, not to Senators forcenturies). If recent history repeats itself, Congress won’t consider immigration again until 2016.

Why is Bush doing this? I have suggested that his motives are dynastic—that he is selfishly sacrificing the GOP to build a family vehicle, much like Brian Mulroney sacrificed the Canadian Progressive Conservative party in a vain effort to build a personal fief in the French-speaking province of Quebec. Brenda Walker speculates he is a “MexiChurian Candidate.”

What he is not is an American patriot.

So, my fellow Americans, it’s now or never—unless Tom Tancredo’s Immigration Reform Caucus in the House of Representatives can persuade Republicans there to hold the line.

[Steve Sailer [email him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

(Republished from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Amnesty, VDare Archives 
No Items Found
Steve Sailer
About Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is a journalist, movie critic for Taki's Magazine, VDARE.com columnist, and founder of the Human Biodiversity discussion group for top scientists and public intellectuals.


PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation