A test of my thesis about Bush

I’ve said that President Bush’s position on immigration is not determined by ordinary political calculations but by an irrational drive to transform America. Reader N. says that Bush’s upcoming speech will provide a test of this:

John Podorhetz in The Corner, an open-border advocate, opines that Bush is going to have to give primary focus to border security, because the poll numbers are so bad. Here is a direct quote:

“And that means…he’s got to switch gears and offer support for the idea of the border fence. If not, the speech is a spectacularly ill-considered political move.”

Of course, this assumes that normal politics are involved, doesn’t it? The speech provides a golden opportunity to test hypotheses. If you are correct, then I would expect a speech that spends a lot of time talking about how valuable illegals are to the economy, and how essential it is to human rights, dignity & so forth that amnesty be provided ASAP. I would also expect that border security would be addressed with a combination of lip service towards real security, but the stress would be on “regularizing” the flow of people away from rural areas by opening up ports of entry via essentially a free greencard program. Then some words about building a fence “real soon now”. In other words, a rehash of his previous speeches and comments upon immigration, because everything is so obvious inside his head to him that all he needs to do is repeat himself, and we’ll all slap our foreheads saying “Oh! Sure!” and fall in line.

Now, if the hypothesis is not correct, if Bush is animated by more mundane considerations such as the Business Roundtable’s greed for more cheap and illegal labor, then he may decide it is time to shift his position; political viability ought to be more important than certain donors, and he can fob off those donors with words and promises to relent in a few years anyway.

Reader N. continues:

In “The Corner,” John Podhoretz teased John Derbyshire with a one liner:

What Derb Would Like to Hear Bush Say Monday [John Podhoretz]
“We begin shooting in five minutes.”

Now Podhoretz is harking back to the famous Reagan moment when he tested an audio channel with a bit about declaring Russia illegal, and how bombing starts in five minutes. I do not think that he really believes Derbyshire wants that to happen.

But it does bring up a point; the tendency of open-borders advocates from the President on down to demonize those that disagree with them via accusations of racism. It’s not an argument to call the border watch volunteers “vigilantes,” for example, it is an attempt to de-legitimize opponents and thus to effectively silence them. If President Bush, in his speech Monday night, paints those who disagree with him on illegal immigration as xenophobes, bigots, racists, etc. it will likely cause a lot of American citizens not to bother listening to anything else in the speech, and thus would not help his poll numbers, or his party, in the least bit. It also would be a point supporting Lawrence Auster’s hypothesis.

LA replies:

Frankly, even if President Bush does not repeat any of his obnoxious behaviors, even if he says he’s really, really, really serious this time about wanting to protect the borders, he still has zero credibility. Now if he has decided that there is no way that he can pass his amnesty without demonstrating real border enforcement for a couple of years, and says we’re going to pass the House bill now, and demonstrate to the American people that we’re serious about enforcing it, and then in another two years revisit the amnesty issue, then that would indicate that he’s become relatively rational on the issue (though of course I would still absolutely oppose any amnesty). But if he just says, “I recognize that enforcement is a priority, and we’re really, really, really, serious about really, really, really serious enforcement combined in one bill with an amnesty and guest worker program,” then I have to tell N. that that would not pass the test.

Reader Ben sent a new story that begins.

WASHINGTON (AP)—President Bush, trying to build momentum for an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws, is considering plans to shore up the Mexican border with National Guard troops paid for by the federal government, according to senior administration officials.

One defense official said military leaders believe the number of troops required could range from 3,500 to 10,000, depending on the final plan. Another administration official cautioned that the 10,000 figure was too high.

Then he commented:

I actually felt better when Bush was just stating how he really feels with a complete rejection of any action at all except amnesty. This to me feels like the beginning of a great setup coming. One which conservatives will be silenced with (since they support Legal Immigration so much) or begin cheerleading with. I just do not trust this President.

We’ll know more after the speech but I have a strong feeling that this administration is trying to fake “anti-illegal” immigration foes out to get this amnesty bill passed.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said in an interview. “People are just not going to accept comprehensive immigration reform unless they are assured the government is going to secure the border.”

Like I always feared, he will finally meet their demand for “securing the borders” (temporarily to satisfy them) while legalizing all the illegals here now and increasing legal immigration. Then after a period of time goes by the security will go lax again on the borders again causing more influx. This will result in all the people here now being able to legally bring their family members in here increasing the problem from 10-20 million to 40, 50, 60 70, 80 etc.. million. All being able to vote……which will mean the literal end of America.

I can hear Rush Limbaugh now on Tuesday after the speech coming out in great support of the “strong action” Bush is taking. Rush will say “See folks! Bush is really giving it to them liberals!” “The old Bush is back getting tough on Security!” And all the “conservatives” in the country will go YAYYYYY!

I hope I’m just paranoid about this.

LA replied:

That’s not paranoia. That’s a logical evaluation of events, based on past experience and everything we know about the players.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 12, 2006 11:23 AM | Send