As expected, Bush will sneak this through early in the year so that his clueless political base, distracted by football games, will not even be paying attention. This way he can concentrate on pointing out the sheer lucacy of the Democrats, especially on national defense, and coast to an easy victory in November.

Bush figures that with Dean as his opponent, his base has nowhere to go, or will accept anything he does. Usually, the Limbaugh and Hannity types pretend these betrayals aren’t happening. Well. let’s see if there are any protests from the “Right.”

Contra the assertion that illegal aliens do jobs that Americans won’t do, I will wash dishes in a restaurant, clean toilets, etc., for the salary of $100,000 per year, indexed for inflation each year until I retire.

If the American employer objects that this is too much money to pay a dishwasher and toilet cleaner in his restaurant, then at least we will have flushed the problem out into the open: Americans won’t do certain jobs for the amount of money that certain employers are willing to pay. (Of course, I am likely to be underbid on my $100,000 offer by another American, even if there were no illegal aliens around to drive down wages.)

Then we can discuss why it is that an employer has a RIGHT to employ persons at a wage that HE chooses, rather than at a wage chosen through supply and demand in the marketplace.

To take another example, if I can hire an American software engineer for $70,000, and the same $70,000 would get me TWO software engineers from Russia or India, who would be glad to share a cheap apartment together and send part of their money home, where $5000 sent home in a year wold seem lavish, then I guess I should offer such jobs for $35,000. If American software engineers with a B.S. and M.S. in computer science and 15 years experience don’t want to work for $35,000, then I guess we can add “senior software engineer” to the list of “jobs that Americans won’t do”, just like picking crops and washing dishes and cleaning toilets.

I agree with Clark Coleman’s excellent post. The time may be arriving, however, when Bush and his collaborators may not be able to count on Republicans rolling over for him on this issue. An article in today’s Washington Times and an article in Fortune magazine reprinted in frontpage.com suggests that even Republican congresscritters and big business may be having doubts about this.

Just a wild thought: is there any way we could deport BUSH along with the illegal aliens? That would truly be an act of great statecraft. It might not be beyond the powers of the great constitutional lawyers who have twisted the Bill of Rights into knots over the last 50 years. Of course, it would mean employing their talents toward socially valuable ends.

Since Bush is so eager to be the president of a country in which the cities more and more resemble Latin American cities (as he said in his August 2000 speech in Miami), maybe he could just move south and become the next president of Mexico, and leave the United States alone.

When I read the story that I posted at the beginning of this thread, my first thought was, “He’s going to lose.” If not the presidency itself, then at least on this particular bill. He’s out of touch with public opinion on this one, and it’s going to turn against him.

Elsewhere, in another thread, I suppose, I read a post that argued this issue would turn on what mainstream conservatives, such as Limbaugh and Hannity, decided to make of it. Well, a friend just phoned me to say that Limbaugh was discussing the topic. I tuned in. Not only is Limbaugh downplaying it, I just heard him repeat the lie that illegals “do the work that Americans refuse to do.” He then said he wasn’t in favor of Bush’s program but was “just thinking aloud.” He concluded by theorizing that this was an election strategy that would “destroy the Democrats forever.” Feel better, now? It looks as if Limbaugh has received his marching orders. The Bushbots at Fox News have probably already been informed of the party line as well. Were it not for Lou Dobbs, criticism of mass immigration wouldn’t exist anywhere in the on air/cable/satellite media.

I also commend Mr. Coleman’s post of 2:11.

As for Rush’s comment, mentioned by Paul:

“He concluded by theorizing that this was an election strategy that would ‘destroy the Democrats forever.’”

I’m speechless.

Accepting the legalisation of illegals is accepting the deliberate flouting of the law. It is very disappointing that the US President lacks the bottle to face up to the threat faced to America right under his very nose. Not all dangers come through the sky!

President Bush’s treason is now explicit. I hope there are many soldiers and Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan today who are asking themselves a simple question: Why am I risking life and limb to guard the borders of countries that are of no use to the United States on the orders of a commander-in-chief who refuses to defend the borders of our country - worse, who allies himself with those who invade her? The threat to America is not in the Middle East - it is here. No doubt the Latin American mercenaries Bush so happily welcomes into the U.S. armed forces (and grants U.S. citizenship on enlistment) are laughing about Bush’s treason, but I suspect most ordinary white and black American GIs would despise it if they understood it.

I hope Mr. Auster is right that Bush will lose on this issue. What that will require is principled Congressional Republicans (and they are how many?) standing firm on our right to national sovereignty. It is hard to imagine our sovereignty more effectively undermined than by the sickening spectacle of the President of the United States, in the United States, grovelling to Mexican illegal aliens (ahem, I meant the “undocumented”) with the grinning President of Mexico towering over him alongside. One could hardly ask for a clearer indication of which government is in charge of American immigration policy. It is the government that really cares about it: Mexico’s.

To get Republicans to buck our “wartime” president on this issue will require unremitting pressure on them from outraged American voters. Direct pressure on the administration probably won’t work; this president is beyond redemption. This may be the last chance for average white Americans to realize before it is too late what our political and business elites really think of them.

That is not all it will take, though. There needs to be some Democratic opposition, which will be harder to generate given that party’s multiculturalist Leftism. There is one key Democratic group that is directly threatened by the Mexican invasion, perhaps more than any other Americans: black Americans. I hope the Congressional Black Caucus, worthless grievance mongerers though they are, will rally to the interests of black Americans and fight the president on this. This may be the last chance for average black Americans to realize before it is too late what our political and business elites really think of them.

Mr. Auster has made the point, and rightly so, that Moslem immigration is a national threat that must be halted and reversed through deportation. I would say that Latin American, especially Mexican, immigration is, through proximity and sheer numbers, a far greater cultural and political threat to America that must be halted and reversed through deportation. A saner United States would see the Mexican government’s border incursions, flagrant undermining of American sovereignty and meddling in the affairs of our states as a more than sufficient casus belli. We launched a punitive expedition into northern Mexico on far less provocation in 1916.

From now on, and for as long as the Bush administration’s policy is to advocate amnesties for illegal aliens, I will feel free to ignore any blather from the president and his mouthpieces about threats to our national security from the Middle East or anywhere else. They have no idea what a real threat to national security is. HRS

We’re all feeling scandalized and angry about this, and we should be, but we shouldn’t be surprised. Bush made it clear at the start of his presidency that he wanted to do this, and he couldn’t have been chummier with his pal from south of the border. Then 9/11 happened, and that put off any opening of the borders. Then Mexico under Bush’s pal displayed serious hostility toward the U.S. during the Iraq war debate, and that also put off the long-awaited consummation. But now, at long last, Bush is simply proceeding to do what he’s been wanting to do all along.

I agree with most of Mr. Sutherland’s comment, but not with his final point:

“From now on, and for as long as the Bush administration’s policy is to advocate amnesties for illegal aliens, I will feel free to ignore any blather from the president and his mouthpieces about threats to our national security from the Middle East or anywhere else.”

To say that Bush’s position on immigration automatically invalidates anything he may say about some possible threat to national security elsewhere is not logical. Suppose some Middle East country threatened us with a WMD attack, and Bush warned the country about it. Would Mr. Sutherland say to Bush, “Sorry, since you’ve ignored the threat of immigration that I’m worried about, I’m going to ignore the threat of a military attack that you’re worried about”?

Truth is not determined by some tit for tat. What is true is true. If a threat to national security came from the Middle East, Bush’s betrayal of the country on the immigration issue wouldn’t make it less of a threat.

Mr. Auster makes a point. I suppose mine was that Bush’s judgment of national security issues is so self-evidently flawed that I will (already do) find his pronunciamentos on the subject very hard to take seriously. HRS

It is so frustrating that Bush (and many of the other Republicans, and the neoconservatives) are so bad on this issue. Shame on them.

Newt Gingrich was on C-SPAN today delivering a speech, during which he called for a realism about “people who come here to work, who believe in the Statue of Liberty” or some such. He praised President Bush for his “act of enormous leadership” on this issue, having begun to push the amnesty-by-other-name before the Election.

Mr. Gingrich lectured the audience about how we’re not going to have machine guns on the border, or land mines, and we just to accept the way things are going to be. But the most ridiculous thing was his assertion that if we essentially just open our borders to Mexicans, it would make it easier for us to catch terrorists and drug dealers among them. The logic, you see, is that they would no longer be able to hide among the illegal entrants, and since we were no longer concerned with people who were just coming here to work, we could focus our attention exclusively on the unsavory elements.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry over such rubbish. The part about machines guns was interesting though, since Mexican paramilitary troops and police have crossed our border and occassionally had brief skirmishes with our Border Patrol, who are armed with pistols. (Hello, media??) To say nothing of how Mexico patrols HER southern border!

The first battle will occur in the House Judiciary committee. Concentrating efforts there may pay off.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/immigration.congress/index.html

Yes, the House Judiciary will be key, especially since Bush, at the White House news conference announcing his amnesty plan, publicly thanked two of the Republicans who sit on the immigration subcommittee, Jeff Flake of AZ and Chris Cannon of UT, for their “leadership” on immigration (both have recently introduced massive amnesty/guest worker legislation).

But the chairman of the subcommittee, Jeff Hoestettler of IN, is solid on the issue, and Chairman Sensenbrenner frequently exhibits understanding of and common sense on immigration.

Importantly, Tom DeLay of TX has already come out against the proposal (good for him!).

The key will be Speaker Hastert who, you can be sure, will be under enormous pressure from the White House to move legislation—that is, assuming the White House really wants to move an immigration bill in this Congress.

Is this Craig Nelsen of ProjectUSA?