I think Bush is doing this because he really believes in it. I won’t rehash what I have said in other posts, except to say that Bush has a peculiar love for Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, and we are going to be submerged in his mexi-luv if he has anything to say about it.

Bush’s determination to mexicanize America as much as he can is borne of conviction - maybe the strongest conviction he has. Unlike his pro forma opposition to abortion and homosexual “marriage,” Bush has renewed his amnesty proposals several times and seems unconcerned that the GOP might pay a heavy price for them.

As evidence of his uncontrollable urge to hispander, the Washington Times is now reporting that he is about to announce that he will appoint Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as Attorney-General. There is nothing conservative about Gonzales, just as there is nothing conservative about Bush. HRS

There is a plus side to the Gonzales appointment as AG: it means that this racial-references-supporting Hispanic won’t be nominated to the next opening on the Supreme Court, as everyone had expected. But the following is also possible: Bush sees that Renquist will be the first vacancy. He can’t nominate the callow Gonzales to be Chief Justice. And maybe the other justices have told Bush that their retirement is at least a year or two off. So Bush makes his Mexican sidekick Alberto Attorney General for a year or two, which improves his credentials for when Bush gets around to nominating him to the Court.

Mr. Sutherland’s comment may well be true:

“Bush’s determination to Mexicanize America as much as he can is borne of conviction—maybe the strongest conviction he has.”

Look for Bush to season Gonzales (who is 49 according to the Wash. Times) as AG, then appoint him to the S.Ct. if he has the opportunity. If he can get him confirmed by the Senate as AG (easily done: Senate Dems are not going to oppose a Mexican strenuously and Senate Reps concerned about Gonzales’ liberalism and inexperience are too easily cowed by fear of being called racist to question him), Bush will have a precedent Senate consent when he tries to move Gonzales up.

To make the picture worse, I believe Bush will promote the liberal, intellectually dishonest mediocrity O’Connor to Chief Justice, thereby compounding one of Ronald Reagan’s worst mistakes. (The others are relevant here also: consenting to GHW Bush as his 1980 running mate, without which we would never have suffered any Presidents Bush, and the 1986 amnesty. Never trust a Republican - or a Democrat!) HRS

If Mr. Sutherland is right about O’Connor, boy, talk about affirmative action! This little nothing Hispanic guy (who also happens to be an affirmative action supporter) as AG, and that utter embarrassment, Sandra O’Connor (author of the Grutter decision), as Chief Justice.

These two not only support affirmative action, they are among its principal beneficiaries and symbols.

However, maybe I’m being unfair to Gonzales. There have been other little nothings nominated to the Court in the last twenty years. Think of Kennedy. Think of Souter.

Now I feel vindicated for hoping Bush would lose.

Cold comfort, though.

In a way, I underestimated GWB. Months ago, I predicted that he would lose. I especially thought so after his amnesty proposal last January. I thought he would try and sell it to the electorate this year. He did some babbling in his imimitable way along this line in 2000.

However, Bush didn’t say too much about amnesty during the 2004 campaign. Now that he is reelected, he’s going full-bore for Mexification of the United States. GWB certainly has a sly and devious side to him.

He is putting Gonzalez in Ashcroft’s place and will move him to The Supreme Court when convenient. Members of this Forum should picture the smirk on Bush’s face as he contemplates how he is betraying and will continue to betray the Middle Americans who twice elected him.

It seems to me that Bush looks at his amnesty of Mexicans as a moral act. During his debate with Kerry, when the ONLY question on illegal immigration was asked, he started to say, then stopped, and I paraphrase here: that…why any one worth his salt would try and feed his family coming up here. I take it from what he said that he admires the “pluck” of these criminals that slip over the border. He IS not going to just give up on this amnesty. There is going to be 4 years of constant battle over this issue.

If any kind of amnesty passes, my fervent hope is that the American people won’t stand for it — that some kind of serious revolt will break out in certain areas that will be most affected by it. If things continue the way they are now, a violent resolution will become the only possible kind of resolution. I know that I’ll be out in the streets with a baseball bat.

Mr. Ring,

There will not be any talk like that at this website. I just excluded a poster for writing “die, liberals, die.” If you want to talk about baseball bats, I’m sure there are lots of other websites where you can do that.

Mr. Hagan wrote:
“It seems to me that Bush looks at his amnesty of Mexicans as a moral act.”

I agree. Bush also said that he sees immigration as “a human rights issue”. What he consistently means by that, it appears to me, is that Mexicans have a moral right to come to America irrespective of the law or the will of the majority.

That is unquestionably the meaning of the Bush comment mentioned by Mr. Hagan. They are doing what they must do, as human beings, to feed their families. Human beings have a right to meet their basic needs. We have an obligation to respect and nurture those rights.

This statement should be understood as part of a concerted campaign by Bush to undermine the laws and sovereignty of the United States. I think in a less liberal era, his statements and actions on immigration would have been seen as grounds for impeachment.

And it was these kinds of Bush positions that made it out of the question for me to vote for him, even against an anti-American leftist appeaser such as Kerry.

If not eventual amnesty, then what? Deportation? I don’t think anyone believes its feasible to deport anywhere from 8-20 million illegals. So it seems that these illegals will stay no matter their status. Why not except this and ask for something in return? Amnesty for 5 year immigration hault. Or, as Savage has suggested, oil for each “legalized” illegal. Amnesty for major reforms within Mexico including foreign investment and their stringent border control?

Remember, it was Gonzales that crafted the arguments that said the Geneva Convention laws didn’t apply to captured terrorists. Ashcroft became a liability in uniting an American front in the war on terror but was nonetheless very affective at combatting terrorism. Hopefully, Gonzales, showing a common understanding about terrorism, will help heal the divide.

Thor’s suggestions are unrealistic, and they stem from the despair triggered by his thought that we can’t deport the illegals here.

As long as we think that it’s a choice between immediately deporting 10 million illegals, and accepting their permanent presence here, we are lost. That is a false choice. The productive way to think about this is not to think about an instant cure, because your inability to achieve that instant cure plunges you into despair. The way to think about this is to REVERSE the current course of things. We begin a pressure on illegals that makes it harder for them to come, and we start enforcing our laws on the ones here. We alter the entire environment which makes them feel welcome. The goal is a net out-migration. If we could achieve that, and sustain it, EVERYTHING would change, because the problem would be getting steadily BETTER rather than steadily WORSE, and because we would be in charge of our destiny again, instead of surrendering, retreating, and despairing.

The campaign to reverse the flow of illegals would need to be waged on at least two fronts:

1) Vigorous enforcement of the law against those who hire illegals, coupled with anti-trust lawsuits against them for unfair competition. There are a lot fewer of today’s equivalent of slave owners than illegals. States could also sue the businesses who hire illegals to recover some of the enormous costs incurred in educating their children, etc. Put a few high-profile criminals out of business, and the others will start to obey the law out of fear.

2.) More Prop 200s. Illegal aliens should not have access to any sort of welfare or entitlement. No acceptance of Matricula cards, no divers licenses, no in-state tuition, etc.

If there were success in these two areas, the flow would start to reverse. Sadly, we have the finest elected officials that money can buy. What is particularly galling about the caudillo of con-men is how he wears the Christian jargon on his sleeve while he facilitates utter lawlessness. For one who professes to regard the scripture as God’s word, he certainly has little problem with completely ignoring the first half of Romans XIII. Refusing to enforce laws is no different than disobeying them.

Perhaps I misspoke. My intention was to point out that stopping the flood of immigrants to the United States is virtually impossible under the system we have. Looking beyond Bush, who in this respect is without a doubt the worst President of all time, does anyone believe that an anti-immigration, pro-traditional-America president will be elected before that traditional America is gone?

The end is already here. It’s likely that even if immigration were to stop this instant, the high birth rates of the Third Worlders combined with the low birth rates of white Americans would be sufficient to undo the country as it exists now.

If our federal government refuses to enforce the immigration laws that are its responsibility, what is a patriot to do? Should we sit by as America continues its slide into multicultural oblivion? I say no. Everyone here would also say no.

This isn’t a paranoid delusion or a far-fetched fantasy. It’s happening every day. Bands of Americans along our southern border have formed militia groups in order to protect their land and property from the invasion that is taking place, and I say God bless them. They have every right to do so.

My comment was not about provoking violence, but about doing what is necessary since our government refuses to do so.

Thordaddy’s precept (“it is unfeasible to deport 8 to 20 million illegals”) is flawed. As Mr. Auster describes perfectly, it is a mindset. Once you THINK it is impossible, you give up and try to find ways of making it pulpably acceptable. THAT is the fallacy. Amnesties have only begot more amnesties and are a farce—everyone knows that. I was half-expecting Thordaddy to come to the defense of the hotel industry or restaurant industry which both make gazillions off of (illegally) hiring illegals. That is a ploy often used in “squashing” any notion of mass round-ups and deportations. “Amnesty for reforms within Mexico”? “Oil for each legalized illegal”? I think Savage (who is the biggest flip-flopper on talk radio) was smoking something he shouldn’t have been that day. He’s all about ratings.

John Ring’s comments should be taken to heart if for only one reason: no one here believes that an anti-immigration, pro-traditional America president will be elected before the demographics are so radically changed that it becomes impossible to do so. Hence Mr. Ring’s despair and rising sense of violence waiting in the wings. That old time prophet of that old time religion, Jeremiah, rolls out the same truth in Lamentations, “Our inheritance is turned to strangers, our houses to aliens.”

Re the impossibility of deporting the illegals: in Operation Wetback, General Swing got rid of more than a million of them in just a few months, equivalent, as a proportion of the population, to twice that number now. It is not physically impossible, it is a question of the will to do it. About that, I cannot express more optimism than John Ring or Al Rozenzweig.

Mr. Auster thinks it’s a sign of “despair” to question the feasibility of deporting 8-20 million illegal aliens. I think it’s a sign demogaguery not to question the feasibility of deporting 8-20 million illegals whether in short or long order.

When has such an undertaking ever been pronounced and then executed to success? Mr. Auster would agree that a deportation policy would need be announced publicly and emphatically. Who would do such a thing and believe he could win national office? Tancredo? He’s anectodal at best.

How many technically legal “American” children are born or will be born in the period of national deportation? Will this political deportation movement also suggest a revisal in what it takes to be an America citizen? How many breadearning fathers and care-taking mothers will be deported with their children left behind? Will the cure be worse than the disease when millions of Mexican-American children go completely on the state dime?

Let’s sue businesses who use illegal immigrants! Sounds great until one recognizes the resources required by the state (our taxes) and the obvious increased prices of goods and services to cover the settlements. And since Mr. Auster suggests this will be a long-term battle we can only hope that the goliath will only steadily grow bigger.

The bureaucracy involved to undertake the detainment, prosecution and then deportation would be astronomical especially when one considers that there is no real urgency and we have 10-20 years to get the job done as Mr. Auster seems to suggest?

I think it reasonable to suggest that those illegals that are here pursue legal status with consequences while several other courses are entertained such as immigration halt, oil for illegals and opening Mexico to more foreign investment.

David,

You create your own precept and substitute it for mine and then knock it down. I didn’t say it was “impossible” to deport 8-20 illegals, but questioned the feasibility! VFR takes two positions: feasible and the immigration debate is over and lost! I’m taking the middle road. The debate is not lost but deporting 8-20 million illegals needs to be questioned for feasibility!

Thordaddy asks:
“When has such an undertaking ever been pronounced and then executed to success?”

Does Andalusia ring a bell?

Matt,

It rings a bell but not loud enough to compare to the mass deportation of 8-20 million people or perhaps more if “legal” families go with them. You’re not even trying to provide an “incentive” for them to leave. Outright deportation sounds like fantasy to me!

Part of the problem is that Thordaddy is 1) struggling with a straw man here as his description of instantaneous mass deportation bears little resemblance to (e.g.) what Carl wrote above; and 2) he rests his rhetoric on a bald assertion, as if _asserting_ that nothing can be feasibly done to permanently alter the gradient of the National Question makes it so.

Now it may be that Thordaddy is saying that it is not feasible because Americans lack the will to do it. But if that is the case, and I think many here would agree that Americans presently lack the will, then that - a lack of will - is the *only* show-stopping reason. Reversing the tide of illegal and legal immigration from the South is far more feasible - for a country that has the will to do it - than using the American military to establish liberal democracies populated by Moslems in the middle east.

Well said, Matt. There is reason to believe that if the president and Congress said “Out!”, most illegals would go back on their own volition.

I assume that Thordaddy (above) is speaking to me when he addresses the following (Lest we not get confused about who is writing what, there is another “David” poster; I use my FULL name):

Thordaddy, I accept your explanation— except for the odd line “VFR takes two positions”. I hear a variety of positions on the issue here, not only two or three. I am not “counting”, though, to see how many here at VFR are on the side of deportation NOW! This is not a game to me.

Thordaddy’s says (in defense of his “middle ground” approach):

Good points! But, I believe a bit of the overly fearful side. First, the president and Congress will have agreed that certain Federal laws will have to be changed—hopefully without Constitutional amendments—to “take care” of the children born in the interim. Perhaps there will be some give on our (my) side in allowing those here before a certain time to stay—if they can pass muster and learn our language and agree to assimilate (which they refuse to do). There is also the problem of dual citizenship, which in many minds on my side must be done away with. You are either a Mexican or an American—not both. To answer your ther concern, many millions of illegals and citizens are already on the public dole! How much worse can it get? A well-laid plan for all this (an orderly deportation, much of it self-deportation) has been described at other sites.

The first and most important thing is to deport ALL illegals. Once they are repatriated, they can apply to emigrate to the U.S. in the proper channels. OR, if they wish to work temporarily here, there will be a plan for that as well—once they are checked thoroughly and yes, that will create some bureaucracy. However, they will not be able to bring their families, grandparents, nieces and nephews with them. It will be very much like the Bracero Program of the 50s. In the meantime, hotels and restaurants can, as they should have previsouly, reach out to young adults by offering more than what they were paying the illegals. Mechinization of harvesting equipment will be “rehabilitated”. From what I hear, the Japenese have developed some pretty incredible machines for picking most fruit. There is a great article on a url about this that I will try to recall an locate later.

Those that are allowed to come and work here will be well-checked out for criminal records and disease. Such is not the case for border jumpers. Who knows “who” they are and what they are carrying/planning? The other issues—building a double fence for the entrie Southern Border (as has been extremely successful along the San Diego border)—are already in the planning stages.

On Thordaddy’s other points which he said talk show host Michael Savage made recently on his show—oil for illegals, somehow making Mexico more friendly to investment and “immigration halt”—I think it is mostly hogwash. A barrel of Mexican crude for an illegal? 5 or 10 barrels per illegal? Be serious. Sounds like slavery/”people buying” to me, and the American populace would never allow it. Making Mexico “friendlier”? They are NOT our friends. Period. They are BUSH’S friends, not OUR friends (Neither are the Canadians, but that is another topic). But you MAY have something there…if it looks beneficial to the Mexican government, who knows?

My question to you is: Their government is encouraging it’s citizens to break our Federal laws wholesale. Why should we do business with those kinds of governments? I say “No!”—barring real reforms and changes in the relationship (where Mexico is no longer “dictating” to us what we should do with their Border jumpers and our Federal and state laws).

My apologies to Mr. Auster for the length of this reply to Thordaddy but I felt it was necessary. I hope that using the word “hogwash” was not over-the-line. If it was, I apologize in advance to Mr. Thordaddy.

I think that Michael Savage was being somewhat sarcastic and somewhat sardonic and basically trying to vent his spleen with the “oil-for-illegals” program. In short, he was being typical Michael Savage.
I think that once we start to enforce our laws, we can slowly reverse the tide. Perhpas people with babies born in the US can be given a choice: leave their babies behind when they are deported, to be adopted by Gringos, or take them with them to Mexico.

We don’t have to speculate on the issue of (self) deportation.

After 9-11 FBI cracked down on illegals from Moslem countries. A huge number of Pakistanis decided that they will take their chances in Canada or went home.

Ones you start seriously cracking on employers and deporting all illegals caught in traffic stops, etc, you will see significant outflow of illegals.

As free marketeers say - but don’t believe it applies to immigration, penalize bad behaviour and reward good one and you will get more of the good and less of the bad.