That article was truly disgusting, as have been many other articles that I have read by “conservatives” on this issue.

It seems like many here at VFR view neoconservatives and country club types as materialistic. Maybe they are, but the stupid part is that promoting mass unskilled immigration is bad economics.

It is basic economics that when something is as heavily subsidized as unskilled labor, demand will become artificially high, and will continue even if the total costs (direct cost plus subsidy costs) exceed total benefits (increases in profits plus reduction in prices for consumers).

When education alone costs an average of $20,000-$30,000 a year for the children of an immigrant family, and taxpayers much also pay for health care and other services, there is no such thing as a market-based immigration policy. Allowing supply to reach demand when there is a huge subsidy is just asking for economic disaster— corporations will hire immigrant laborers even if the benefit to them is only $1,000 per new laborer and the costs to taxpayers is $20,000 per new laborer. Bottom line, the economic argument in favor of mass unskilled immigration is pure sophistry.

In the first sentence of the last paragraph, “much also pay for health care…” should be “MUST also pay for health care…”

“This is not the end of the American worker.” In the eyes of the WS and GW Bush and the other neocon boosters of this suicidal plan, of course it isn’t. In their minds there is no necessary link between being a born American and an American worker. Anybody working in America, whether he is a Mayflower descendant or a Mexican who broke in last week, is an American worker.

This is proposition nation idiocy carried to its nihilistic conclusion. I can understand how destroying the old America might appeal to someone named Cesar Conda, but what is Stuart Anderson’s (or George Bush’s) excuse? HRS

Howard asks, “What is Stuart Anderson’s or GWB’s excuse for destroying the old America?” He is hoping it will please someone named Cesar Conda. This is the Eastern Liberal Republican in action.

I have been thinking about the differences between the (disastrous) 1986 amnesty and President Bush’s 2004 amnesty/”guest”-worker proposal. In 1986 President Reagan, although he was overly susceptible to nationofimmigrants nonsense, recognized that the influx of illegal aliens was a problem. In 2004 President Bush sees a far greater influx not as a problem, but as an opportunity, nay, a blessing. Maybe it’s a vision thing.

Reagan’s attempt to solve the problem failed, but at least it was an attempt to solve a problem. Bush wants to call a catastrophe a blessing and exacerbate it.

The difference in approach to what is the same problem (only much worse than in 1986) illustrates how much proposition nation/nationofimmigrants ideology has undermined conservatism in a very short time. So does the race to excuse or justify Bush’s proposal among Weekly Standard and National Review “conservatives.” Bush’s proposal should be anathema to conservatives, moderates and even liberals who care about American workers. As late as 1986, I’m sure a proposal as radical as Bush’s would have been.

This is a sensitive subject, but I also believe the influx into movement conservatism of people who are of recent immigrant stock has a lot to do with it. As Mr. Levine says elsewhere, many neoconservatives do not want to “betray their grandparents” by supporting immigration restrictions. As President Bush and his acolytes populate the Republican Party with hispanic placemen, immigrants themselves or offspring of very recent immigrants, bringing the GOP around to immigration reform will only get harder.

So it is time to move on from the Republican Party. Can any VFRers out there think of potentially strong candidates, with national recognition, to lead a conservative third party that would take a nationalist line on immigration (i.e., end it)? I’m afraid no names are leaping into my mind, unless Tancredo were willing to make the leap. I confess I do not know if Tancredo is very conservative on other issues, and I believe he has entertained thoughts of guest-worker programs. That would be a deal-breaker for me. HRS

David,

Touché. HRS

Get this quote from The American Spectator:
President Bush didn’t have to do this at all—but he did it for all the right reasons.

I don’t suppose anyone takes TAS seriously anymore, but this column on their site by someone named Lawrence Henry is typical of the pro-immigration “conservatives.” Henry says, “Step back. Stop. Think.”

The piece is at: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6003

According to this pompous airhead Lawrence Henry at the American Spectator, one of the things we anti-immigrant hotheads are supposed to “think” about is that Bush’s proposal is really part of a quid pro quo with Mexico to get their help in the war on terror. In other words, if we were thoughtful people instead of just reactionary slobs, we would understand that opening our nation’s borders and legalizing ten million illegal aliens is really a good thing because it (supposedly) gets some political assistance from Mexico on an issue completely unrelated to that of illegal immigration.

This is an example of the abstracted, unreal way that today’s “intellectuals” think about our country and its well-being.

Not to mention the little inconvenient fact that Bush’s good amigo Vincente Fox has been considerably less than helpful in the war on terror since it was declared.

Liberalism, G.W. Bush version: I rub your back, you stab my back, I rub your back.

Liberalism, G.W. Bush version: I rub your back, you stab my back, I rub your back, then I turn around and stab all my real friends and supporters in the back while continuing to rub your back.

Perfecto.

Does Bush ever think? Steve Sailer’s latest in Vdare is on this subject. One biographer is quoted as saying that 300 people he had interviewed had never heard GWB say anything interesting. Bush’s former Treasury Secretary now says that a meeting with Bush is a monologue. GWB has nothing to say. Sailer’s conclusion is that Bush doesn’t think and has no curiosity, as every job or position his family connections has brought has eventually bored him.

Sailer DOES believe Bush seeks a Dynasty, with making the USA and Mexico the same country. Perhaps this proves there is nothing between GWB’s ears. Here is Sailer’s piece:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/bush_thinking.htm

The Sailer article is remarkable. I will be posting a blog entry about it tomorrow.

I was checking the History Channel schedule and saw that they had a poll on GWB’s amnesty proposal. The vote on this unoficial (but still revealing) poll was 79%-21% AGAINST Bush’s amnesty. I ask again, Does Bush think? Or can he? Do objective facts man anything to this man?

Mr. Sutherland, I believe, has said that Bush doesn’t read or seek out information. He just listens to what his advisers tell him. What a management style. Just what have we got in the oval office?

The Sailer article is really quite shocking - even for a a person who has little respect for the Bushes like me. This man - and the entire fanily - are completely ANATHEMA to everything we at VFR value and cherish. I find myself wondering if it would have been better if Gore (wooden leftist moron that he is) would have won the election - a position I never thought I’d be in!!! As our Jewish friendslike to say: Oy Vey!!

If the figures are accurate, I think they are more politically significant than similar levels of support for reductions in legal immigration.

It’s often pointed out that while a large majority of the American people support substantial reductions in legal immigration, the nation’s leadership doesn’t respond to that majority opinion. This is understandable, as the the majority lacks the will and conviction to push through its weak preferences over highly motivated elites and ethnic interest groups. But this current situation is different from that. Here, it is Bush and the elites who want to make a change, i.e., to push through a radical reform in immigration that a large majority of the people _oppose_. Moreover, I think the popular opposition to the legalize-the-illegals scheme has more passion behind it than the popular support for reductions in legal immigration.

Cesar Conda, co-author of the Weekly Standard article, is Vice President Cheney’s domestic policy adviser.