One can only conclude that Bush, by calling for effectively open borders, has made it possible for the more intelligent of the Bushophobic liberals to begin to wonder if maybe they actually don’t like immigration anymore.

Will one of the Democrat candidates get a clue? Probably not. They’re all as isolated from the people as Bush is, and it seems doubtful, for instance, that Kerry’s obscenely swollen drinking buddy Ted Kennedy will suggest a “close the borders” theme for the campaign anytime soon.

They woke up and heard GWB yap about letting millions more into the Nation a year, and as that truth became clear; they seen their own end !

The first three responses I’ve gotten on this posting—Shrewsbury’s and Mr. Hagan’s comments, plus an e-mail I got from another reader—have all made the same point which had not occurred to me, that it was Bush’s over-the-top amnesty proposal that went too far even for the liberals and finally broke down their PC inhibitions on this subject. Here’s what my correspondent wrote:

“Apparently the spectre of this amnesty, uh, guest worker program, was just too much. They couldn’t keep pretending how great it is and had to register the truth.”

What a testament to our “conservative” president, George W. Bush: his immigration policy is so radical and irresponsible and dangerous that even the liberals are protesting it.

This is really interesting. Since Bush proposed it, and because he is the most evil of enemies to the leftist, it has become worthy of scrutiny. The fact that liberals do not realize that Bush is one of them makes for a very intersting cognitive and discursive dynamic.

Liberalism has succeeded in making itself the only respectable grounds for public discussion. But since serious opposition can’t be abolished (even though the point to liberalism is to abolish serious opposition) she turns on herself.

I am torn as to whether the presidency of George W. Bush is a good thing or not. Liberals hate him and think of him as a demon; yet objectively he is so close to them ideologically as to be indistinguishable from them. So when they attack him, they attack themselves; and a traditionalist conservative can hardly be disheartened by that.

It seems that even liberals can recognize their own reasoning as insanity when it comes from a non-approved source.

Matt writes:

“Liberals hate [Bush] and think of him as a demon; yet objectively he is so close to them ideologically as to be indistinguishable from them. So when they attack him, they attack themselves.”

Great insight. Can we think of any other examples of it?

Thrasymachus writes:

“It seems that even liberals can recognize their own reasoning as insanity when it comes from a non-approved source.”

Expanding on this, we could suggest, to be whimsical for a moment, that Bush in his infinite wiliness thought this all out in advance. “Liberalism has us in a straightjacket,” he said to himself, “so that it’s impossible to say anything critical of liberalism even though liberalism is leading the country to disaster. So here’s what I’ll do. I’ll pretend to be what liberals think of as a right-wing conservative, quoting the Bible, publicly reverencing Jesus, making cowboy threats against our enemies, so that the liberals will loathe me and everything I stand for. Then, having made myself the ultimate hate object for the liberals, I’ll take extreme liberal positions, and the liberals, blinded with hatred of me, will start attacking those liberal positions as well.”

Could W. be the ultimate political jujitso artist? :-)

Seriously, this can be an effective way of dealing with liberals in debate. Instead of arguing against liberal positions, which of course only arouses fierce opposition from them and gets nowhere, conservatives could take even more extreme liberal positions than the liberals. This will force the liberals to one of two responses. Either they will argue against that extreme liberal position, which will then give us the opportunity to say “_Why_ are you against this?”, which could push them into articulating an _anti-liberal_ principle. Or, alternatively, they will support the extreme liberal position, which will expose how extreme they really are.

Another possibility… Democrats knew that there policies were disastrous, but relied on the Republicans to be adults, to hold back the flood.

Another analogy, the Democrats played “chicken” with the Republicans, certain that they would always act the adult role.

Bush has called their bluff. Our role now is to show both Republicans and Democrats that such stupidity leads to loss at the ballot box.

“Can we think of any other examples of it?”

I guess the criteria would be for left-liberals to flip-flop on an issue, or at least start questioning its orthodoxy, simply because it gets adopted by the “conservative” right-liberal Bush.

I think it is true that when a leftist attacks Bush he is attacking his own best friend. But if what we are looking for is specific spite-reversals in reaction to specific Bush policies I don’t know of any offhand.

In fact maintaining the illusory left-liberal right-liberal distinction is probably necessary for liberalism’s survival. That is the only way for it to be completely dominant and provide the illusion of freedom at the same time. The forms of liberalism that have given the distinction up — Communism with single-candidate elections comes to mind — have proven much less resilient.

So as has been observed here before it isn’t the left-liberals who truly strengthen liberalism and move things ever leftward; it is right-liberals - commonly called “conservatives” in America - who provide the engine that advances and sustains liberalism; and “compassionate conservatism” unwittingly undermines that support.

This is all very abstract, but it implies that the closer together left-liberalism and right-liberalism can be pushed, the weaker liberalism overall will become and the more apostates will fall off the bandwagon. Presumably some of those apostates — especially the ones with naturally conservative tendencies — will be open to complete repentence from liberalism and the adoption of a genuine traditionalism.

I wonder if too that immigrants are thinking about money and less about political power. In the pre-‘24 wave recent immigrants often favored immigration restrictions the most; they knew that new waves willing to work for peanuts held down their ability to move up. Perhaps Mexican-Americans in California and elsewhere are wisening up too. In TX, for example, it’s not unusual to hear assimilated Mexicans, who speak English and whose parents or grandparents were born here, complain about how they don’t like “wetbacks.”

Today on NRO David Frum speculates that if Ralph Nader runs he might be a vociferous critic of Bush’s immigration plans. There are plenty of reasonable tacks for a leftist to take against immigration: overpopulation/environment, labor unions/blacks being hurt, etc.

Will Mr. Auster support Nader in that event?

If there is a conservative third-party candidate such as Michael Petroutka of the Constitution party who is against Bush’s plan, why would voting for a leftist who is against Bush’s immigration plan be better than voting for a conservative who is against it?

My main object is to defeat Bush and discredit Bushism. It seems to me that the best way of doing that is to vote for the Democratic candidate. If the election were being held today, I would vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever it was. This is my feeling at the moment, but it’s not something I’m committed to. I may end up voting for the Constitution party candidate instead. In any case, a vote for Nader would be the worst choice of all.

Mr. Auster wrote: “In any case, a vote for Nader would be the worst choice of all.”

I can’t imagine Nader coming out against immigration of any sort. But if he did? Well, a vote for Nader might not be such a bad idea. Why? Because I think there is more of a chance of Democrats changing their position on this issue than Republicans doing so. And, as Agricola states above, there is a natural constituency in the Democratic party, environmentalists and poor whites and blacks, who have a strong interest in opposing the Latin invasion. The Democrats will listen to environmentalists and blacks, moreover, whereas Republicans completely ignore their base on immigration. Were Nader to threaten to run on an anti-immigrant position, it just might spook the Democrat candidate into re-thinking *his* stance.

If one of the Democrats came out against immigration, the Democrat would probably be hard for Bush to beat. I first heard this from conservative pundit and radio talk-show host Laura Ingrahm about four months ago when none of the Democrats were considered a serious threat to Bush.

I am hopeful that once the Republicans get rid of Bush, they can go after the immigration reform voters and blue collar worker vote and various other consituencies of the Democrats. Blue collar workers are being hurt badly by immigration, even if the union leaders are not. We need a country more than we need a perfect fiscal policy or a perfect economy. If we lack a country, we have nothing.

A solution for illegal immigration.

The trick to having a successful program is to:

1) Announce a zero tolerance policy towards illegal aliens. This needs to include asset forfeiture penalties.
2) Announce a 30-day grace period for voluntary self-removal without asset forfeiture penalties “if you leave voluntarily within the 30-day grace period, no penalties will be imposed.”
3) Implement harsh penalties for coyotes, mandatory life in prison for bringing into or transporting in the US illegal aliens and a mandatory death penalty if an illegal alien dies in the process.
4) Advertise the program in advance, and have widespread news coverage of steps 1,2, and 3.
5) Show no mercy. This is a zero tolerance program. If an example is made early on, the rest will get the message

Voila! If this is done correctly, the problem will solve itself, MILLIONS will leave voluntarily, and you will have to deal with less than a million!

Mr. Auster wrote:

“It seems to me that the best way of doing that is to vote for the Democratic candidate. If the election were being held today, I would vote for the Democratic candidate, whoever it was.”

He is SO incredibly “right on the mark”! Once I read the Times of India article on Sept. 3, 2003 entitled “Bush Against Scrapping H1-B Visas”, I realized that I could never vote again for George W. Bush—whether he backtracked from amnesty for illegals or whether he stayed with it. It was Bush’s nasty, hateful remarks about my hero, Rep. Tom Tancredo AND CONSERVATIVES IN GENERAL that gave me pause, and that was that. By the way, there hasn’t been one true conservative friend of mine—be it personal friend or chat friend—who was aware of that Times of India story. If more of us were…Does the name “Paul Revere” come to mind? No, NOT me—the article!

ALL cogent replies/comments from Robert Hume, Mr. Auster, Matt and P. Murgos—I’m sure there are others I missed (just noticed this thread for the first time today, 1/26)! I’m looking forward to a long and serendipitous chat!!

D. Levin

I am not registered with the LA Times, so all I have read of this essay is Mr. Auster’s excerpts; but it occurs to me that, the LA Times being an emphatically liberal organ, this could be an attempt to signal the Democratic candidates that opposition to immigration is now acceptable.

In short, someone high in the ranks of organized liberalism may be saying something like: “Hey guys, if you want to get some traction on Bush, really get some traction on him, by threatening his own constitutencies like the so-called ‘Reagan Democrats’, then go after him for his immigration policy. Don’t worry, we’ll make sure you get away with it. We’ll even provide some cover by publicizing immigration’s damage to things WE like — the environment, minimum wage, welfare services, etc.”

Just a thought …

I agree with Frank.

Frank Vera is right in his 5 steps of ridding the country of much of the illegal alien problem.

I would, however, want to add two other steps:

6) Deputize regular citizens like you and me to report illegals or “undocs” to the authorities (our local police). If the local police do not take them away, we would call the INS. A federal law making it a crime to knowingly ignore deputized reports about illegals punishable by jail time and loss of job would help give such a plan “teeth”.

Enforcement is the main problem and lack of resources at the local level. Most PDs are strapped and undermanned. Deputized citizens would be of great help, therefore, in at least “identifying” potential illegals or undocs. It is very likely that many more local and state police would have to be hired until the illegals are back in their country of origin.

And this is where the Army/National Guard and groups like Ranch Rescue in Arizona would take over.

7) The Army/National Guard, working with local citizens groups like Ranch Rescue in Arizona, would man the Southern Border—especially in Arizona and Texas where the greatest numbers are flooding in. Without such a step, all the apprehending and sending back to Mexico will do little to solve the problem as they will be back in the U.S. in no time flat.

David Levin

A solution for illegal immigration.

I hope Mr. Levin will share some of the things Bush said about conservatives and Tancredo. Such things could make great talking points in letters to politicians and to editors. Plus, they will help us understand better what Bush has planned for traditionalists when his invasion is complete.

P. Murgos writes “I hope Mr. Levin will share some of the things Bush said about conservatives and Tancredo.”

If I may, I will attach below the Times of India 9/3/03 article I was referring to. Contrary to my previous statement, this article did not state that Bush “hates conservatives” or Mr. Tancredo in particular, and I apologize for having given that impression. I must have seen those comments from another source, and it was many months ago and I cannot recall that source! I will try to find it, however. I couldn’t make something like that up, so I must have seen it in some article regarding the Times of India article. I will contact my news source for clarification.

[Note by LA. Please do not reproduce entire articles on this discussion board. Articles available on the Web can be linked. Here is the link to the Times of India article:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=184360

However, I’ll leave here the passage in the article where Bush expressed his views of Tancredo.]

Immigration attorney Paresh Shah, who was present at the meeting, said he specifically questioned the President regarding his stand on the bill, in which Rep Tancredo has called for terminating the H1-B visa programme altogether.

“Bush spread his hands as wide apart as possible and stated unequivocally: “Tancredo and I are at opposite ends of the pole. I fully do not support Congressman Tancredo’s bill against H1-Bs’,” Shah told IANS.

I doubt that any Democrat could get a clue in a field full of clues in clue mating season with his body covered in clue musk and doing the clue mating dance. But if I’m wrong, I might actually wind up voting for one.

Lawrence Auster I think somewhat misunderstands the situation at the L.A. Times.

As far as I can ascertain, the LA Times is still pretty strongly pro mass immigration and pro amnesty.

Although, they have been a bit more forthcoming in publishing material on the other side of the issue.

To illustrate these points: Today the LA Times editorialized against those who wish to restore the Sierra Club to its traditional support for population stabilization.

On the other hand, it published a couple of excellent letters to the editor the other day from people who support the Sierra Club insurgents.

But, the article in LA Times magazine is a different situation. There you have one particular individual in charge who is a believer in allowing alternative viewpoints on issues to be aired. A few weeks ago, he had a cover story on the damaging effect of illegal immigration on the aspirations of the working poor. “No way up” I believe it was entititled.

So, what you see in the LA Times magazine has nothing to do with the views of those who run the LA Times. It simply reflects the fact that there is a person of integrity and intellectual curiosity in charge of the content of the LA Times Magazine.

Thanks to Mr. Sjogren for the clarification, though it makes the Green article seem less significant.

A bit more on that LA Times Magazine situation.

The guy I believe is named Drex Heikes. Executive Editor of LA Times Magazine. I saw him a few weeks ago on a program on our local PBS affiliate that is run by the LA School District. (which once in a while accidentally lets a revolutionary program slip out. For example, one time I saw Tony Brown’s Journal on that channel when Tony had a couple of immigration restrictionists on it, Camarota or Krikorian was one, possibly Roy Beck was the other).

At any rate, the program I saw a few weeks ago was “Between the Lines”, a book review program. And that LA Times Magazine guy was the guest. And, I decided, hey I am going to watch this, I am just curious if they will mention the “No Way Up” article. And sure enough, it came up. And the Magazine guy commented that what he is seeking are articles that don’t necessarily give the answers, but raise questions that ought to be raised. I’m pretty sure the guy is on our side, for what it’s worth. And the moderator of the books program, who I am sure has 99% guests for whom challenging the status quo on immigration would be anathema, he commented that it put the issue of immigration in a different perspective than he had previously seen it. And that doesn’t mean he or even the Magazine guy will become activists. But as they say, victory comes not just from winning activists, but from shifting moderates toward leaning in your favor, and shifting those on the other side a bit more toward neutrality, and leaving your vocal critics still against you but mute.

Apparently, some Republicans have had enough. It’s either Bush is with “us”, the anti-immigration side, or against us. Thanks to americanpatrol.com for providing publicizing this story on their website: http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/january/0127_arizona_illegal_aliens.shtml

“‘The lesson to the story is that the Republican Party needs to take in opinions and information from below and give rank and file Republicans legitimate consideration — as opposed to dictating unpopular policy on an unwilling constituency,’ Durband wrote.

“He continued, ‘The White House had better start listening to the people and re-thinking its position, because a lot of Republicans are saying Bush will not get their vote as things currently stand. The White House can choose this day whom it will serve. If the White House gets behind PAN, Arizona is in the bag for the president’s re-election chances. It’s that simple.’”

The real 800 lb issue driving the apparent relaxed adtitude to our “ilegals” may be a silent hope by BOTH parties(in power or not) that these folks will be the saviour of future Social Security worker retiree ratios.
Reasonable folk know the that the current costs far out reach any hoped future “revenues”. These relaxed border positions seem to work because the “costs” are distributed widely among both state and federal programs. As such, they don’t get presented to the citizens and are really hidden in “plain site”.

I think we have to become single-issue voters. Nothing is more critical to our nation’s future. We need to pass the word to all people and organizations which might be sympathetic to our side to vote Democratic against Bush. And let it be know that that is why we are doing it. We must get some politicians on our side.

Good blog. here is good site too Free adult search engine thank you.

What can i do to get papers to work in the united states if i have just two years in this country.