Bush immigration plan will bring new clarity to American politics

There may be one very welcome consequence of Bush’s amnesty-in-all-but-name-for-illegal-aliens plan: it will separate the sheep from the goats in the conservative movement. Given the truly radical nature of the proposal, it will be impossible for anyone supporting it to go on plausibly pretending that he is a “conservative.” The debate over Bush’s hare-brained scheme will thus expose, once and for all, the fraud of a mainstream “conservatism” which is in fact an adjunct of liberalism. This would represent a clarification of American politics that many of us have long wished for.

So I say to all those mainstream, establishment, and movement “conservatives” out there who are tempted to endorse this plan: Make my day.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 07, 2004 07:54 PM | Send


Put David Horowitz in with the frauds. I just saw this at frontpagemagazine: “The President’s immigration reform announced today is rational, sound and a step in the right direction. It recognizes that there is an economic need for labor that America’s labor force is not meeting; it recognizes that borders are important, and that control of borders is essential. It recognizes that citizenship is a great privilege and not a right; it recognizes that it is dangerous and utlimately suicidal to reward illegal entry with citizenship and thus dissolve our borders. This is not a solution to the immigration mess, but it is a step forward — something we have not had since 1964.”


Posted by: paulccc on January 7, 2004 8:52 PM

I am truly surprised by the news about Horowitz. A couple of years ago he indicated to me that he was in favor of a drastic reduction of immigration. Why his turnaround? One doesn’t need to look far for the answer: it is simply that it is Bush who has proposed this radical scheme, and, under Horowitz’s post 9/11 dispensation, Bush must be supported in everything he does, so as not to divide the conservative movement in the face of the anti-American left. Also, conservatives must show their liberality in order to attract people in the center and maintain a majority in favor of the war on terror. So Horowitz, who once opposed affirmative action, declined to criticize Bush’s amicus curiae brief endorsing “diversity” in Grutter v. Bollinger in January 2003; he declined to denounce the Grutter decision itself and Bush’s endorsement of it in June 2003; he zttacked as “bigots” any Christian conservatives who were serious about opposing the homosexual liberation agenda. And now he supports what I just called in another thread the most radical proposal made by any president in U.S. history.

If there had been no 9/11, and if this legalize-the-illegals bill had been put forward by a Democrat instead of a Republican, I suspect that Horowitz would have opposed it.

Still, his support for it is shocking.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 7, 2004 9:03 PM

No immigration policy can be effective in this country as long as illegals can simply walk across the border. I think the question of what to do about those already here can only be addressed once the border is effectively closed, and that would take an enormous commitment that no politician seems ready to make.

Posted by: thucydides on January 7, 2004 9:16 PM

Mr. Horowitz’s contention that “that there is an economic need for labor that America’s labor force is not meeting,” aside from being the big myth anyway, begs the question: What about all of the American citizens who are still out of work and looking for employment? The false assertion converges with that stark reality right here: It’s the wages, stupid!

Posted by: Joel LeFevre on January 7, 2004 9:38 PM

Today is perhaps the first day the common, apolitical citizens of this Country, along with the conservative base of the Republican Party see that the elites in business, media, and politics don’t work for their interests. They may also learn that though this support for illegals is broad, and almost uniform at the top level of society, it does not run very deep. We all knew a day like this was in the cards for some time; so it is no surprise, nor should we fear it. If we can defeat this, and then hurt the base support of the Republican Party for Bush and his ilk, we will live to fight on another day.

Posted by: j.hagan on January 7, 2004 9:43 PM

Mrs. Schlafly released her latest column online just before the President announced his betrayal.

Her last statement underscores Mr. Hagan’s point: “… it’s time for Members of Congress to hear loud and clear from the two-thirds of Americans (according to the Zogby poll) who believe that foreigners residing illegally in the United States should not be allowed to stay.”

TWO-THIRDS!! What does Mr. Bush even mean when he talks about ‘democracy’? Where does the will of the People enter into this?

Anyway, Mrs. Schlafly’s article, as usual, is worth reading: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2004/jan04/04-01-07.html

Posted by: Joel LeFevre on January 7, 2004 10:06 PM

I haven’t posted here before; I’m afraid I’m one of those dreadful “paleoconservative” antiwar types (and a monarchist to boot) so was hesitant to do so. But foreign policy isn’t what you’re discussing now, and the war being over, immigration would seem to be the more critical issue in this election.

Clearly there is already a tremendous amount of discontent with Bush over his new proposal, as expressed on internet forums such as this and implied by the opinion poll mentioned above. Therefore I wonder why there isn’t, or couldn’t be, a serious third-party challenge to Bush focusing on immigration and related issues. Any suggestions as to possible candidates? I would rather vote for someone I actually believed in than either not vote at all or vote for the Democrat simply to punish Bush, currently the only two options I can think of.

Posted by: Theodore Harvey on January 7, 2004 10:36 PM

This isn’t politics anymore. The detestation and contempt the elites feel for the American people has been growing year by year and now they have finally declared war on them.

Posted by: Shrewsbury on January 7, 2004 11:19 PM

Mr. Harvey could check out the “Constitution Party”.

Posted by: j.hagan on January 7, 2004 11:19 PM

I have checked out the Constitution Party’s platform, and it’s great. I would be open to voting for it if I felt it could really make its voice heard, if it could reach a wider audience.
Any suggestions?

Posted by: Allan Wall on January 7, 2004 11:52 PM

I don’t know much about the Constitution Party outside of the fact that they call for immigration restriction. It would be helpful if a high former offical of the American government stood up and called what is happening “Treason”. It is soft treason in the least that we are facing, and it is amazing that not one such person in the elite has stood up in public against this !

Posted by: j.hagan on January 8, 2004 12:12 AM

To Mr. Wall: Good call! I’ve just taken the initial steps to work for the Constitution Party.

To Mr. Hagan: http://www.constitutionparty.com/ustp-99p1.html

Posted by: Joel LeFevre on January 8, 2004 12:39 AM

A sign that could slow down the Bush election in November is the poll data in NH showing General Clark moving up fast on Howard Dean. This is a positive; for Dean would be crushed by Bush, but a stronger Clark may well force Bush back to his consrvative base, which is not happy tonight. Bush needs to have a stronger challenge in November that puts him back on his heels. Like Mr. Auster, I believe it is important that the Republican conservative base beats Bush, like they did his father. That may be the only way to shake the elites up. I say these things as someone who works in the Republican State Party here in NH at a mid-level position. The Party is strong here on the ground, and the conservative activists are excellent, but the Party leaders are worthless.

Posted by: j.hagan on January 8, 2004 12:57 AM

Robert Locke, who used to write at Front Page magazine, sends this:

“So the truth comes out: David Horowitz is just another neocon, no more and no less. As someone who once worked for him, I had my hopes he might represent somthing better, but I now see I was right to quit early last year. Men without real principles all sell out in the end: same old story and it doesn’t ever change. In retrospect, he was never a real conservative to begin with: he rejected the left for killing his friend Betty Van Patten, not because he had any real philosophical awakening.”

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 8, 2004 1:03 AM

Certainly Horowitz’s dramatic turnabout on immigration does suggest that it’s all realpolitik with him. However, I think Mr. Locke is a bit harsh on Horowitz when he says that he doesn’t have a principled opposition to the hard left. Opposition to the hard left, to Marxism, is the ONE thing that Horowitz does have a deeply principled position about. But he certainly has not had any deeply principled devotion to conservatism. He can best be described as a liberal anti-leftist.

But, as we all know, in a radicalizing age, liberals keep moving ever further leftward.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 8, 2004 1:13 AM

Unless the pro-sovereignty mnovement can get ads out, I doubt we can make much of a difference.
We are underfunded. A competent movement would have ran ads right after Ridge floated the trial balloon. Now we are openly fighting the Whitehouse and the leadership of both parties.

Posted by: Ron on January 8, 2004 2:49 AM

Ron is correct that we lack the funding to get our points across. That is one of the reasons I have been talking up someone like Lou Dobbs on CNN who has a one hour prime time news show that he has converted into a pro-sovereignty, pro-American worker showcase night after night. Talk radio and the internet are forces that we need to use, along with letters to the editor in the local press if we are to have a chance of fighting this thing. I don’t want to come across as all happy-talk here; we are in deep touble on this issue, but enough resources are here to sink this if it is done right, and we get a little lucky.

Posted by: j.hagan on January 8, 2004 3:21 AM

Talk radio is a hugely important forum for these issues. It looks to me as though Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt are siding with the Administration, Michael Savage and Laura Ingraham with the American people.

Posted by: Bill on January 8, 2004 9:57 AM

Bill is right, and the kingpin of talk radio is still Rush Limbaugh. Even though VFR-type conservatives are often scornful (I’m guilty) of Limbaugh, we should think seriously about how to make the anti-amnesty case to him persuasively. Despite his reflexive Busholatry, he is unsure about the wisdom of this amnesty proposal.

Are there any well-connected VFR types who have access to him, or know of someone Limbaugh respects who could get to him and make the restrictionist case? I am not talking about trying to convince him during an appearance on his show, but meeting him privately. I presume it would have to be someone he knows, and someone he would consider reliably Republican. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 8, 2004 10:38 AM

Check out The Corner at NRO. Apparently everyone there is opposed to the Bush plan. This is certainly a heartening sign.


Meanwhile John Podhoretz at The New York Post is all for it. He says it’s all about the bad, hostile GOP of the past which opposed immigration, versus the good, compassionate GOP of the present which supports it. He doesn’t even mention the fact that this is about ILLEGAL immigrants. The only reason or motive he attributes to people who oppose Bush on this is “hostility toward immigrants.”

Of course, the pro-immigration line used to be: “I’m for legal immigration, but I don’t like illegal immigration. Anyone who opposes the great American tradition of legal immigration is hostile toward immigrants.” But now the pro-immigration line (at least in John P.’s handling of it) is: “I’m for legal AND ILLEGAL immigration. Anyone who opposes the great American tradition of ILLEGAL immigration is hostile toward immigrants.”

In any case, according to John P., many of his own establishment conservative colleagues are bigots. Does this guy even bother to think about what he’s saying?


The editors of Lucianne.com liked Podhoretz’s column so much that they quoted this sentence from it on their main page today:

“(Bush) believes deeply, and correctly, that a Republican Party that continues to lean toward a position of hostility toward immigrants and immigration is a party that will not prosper and prevail in the 21st century.”

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 8, 2004 12:19 PM

Just a further tidbit on how the battle for hearts & minds of conservatives is playing out in Teddy Kennedy’s backyard vis a vis Bush’s Amnesty proposal. It may surprise some of you to know that the radio shows dominating afternoon drive time (3-7 pm) are both vociferously speaking out against this. Jay Severin’s “Extreme Games” on 96.9 FM is reportedly the most listened to talk radio show in New England (at least within a 50 mile radius of Boston). Jay is extremely articulate & has been a stalwart supporter of increased immigration restriction since his show began in 2000. Howie Carr, on 680 AM, is more of a man-on-the-street, blue collar type - at least that is his style. Howie has been raising the alarm occasionally about illegal immigration. Yesterday however, he sunk his teeth into this issue with an as yet unheard vigor. His main points focussed on the strain placed by illegals on medicaid/medicare and their propensity to criminality. From 7 pm, Laura Ingraham follows Jay Severin, continuing to argue against the Bush Amnesty. Likewise Michael Savage follows Howie Carr on 680 AM. Anyway, it is ironic indeed that the radio waves in Kennedyland are doing a good deal to alert people and help defeat this latest Bush Hispandering charade asap.

Posted by: Chris on January 8, 2004 12:30 PM

Meanwhile, a talk-radio fan (I don’t listen to it myself) tells me that Rush Limbaugh, after having said some very critical things yesterday about the plan (he even said it “stinks”), is now defending Bush, saying this plan is an exercise of real leadership.

Of course Rush is concerned about seeming anti-Bush or being seen as responsible for Bush’s defeat. But in my view the right thing for Rush would be to say, “Mr. President, I respect you and support you, but I call on you to withdraw this terrible proposal, which is alienating your conservative base.” That would both challenge the president, and keep Rush himself from seeming anti-GOP.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 8, 2004 12:36 PM

Podhoretz’s column contains a passage of snide hypocrisy that is a fine example of the mind of a liberal (neocon variety) at work:

“One of the most peculiar elements of the anti-immigrant intellectual movement is just how many of its members are themselves immigrants - John O’Sullivan, John Derbyshire and Peter Brimelow from England, and George Borjas from Cuba. I once found myself in an argument with a few of these gentlemen at a conference and realized that I was the only person speaking with an American accent.”

Podhoretz presumably wouldn’t dare publicly lampoon the incredibly fractured English that issues from the mouths of so many of our uninvited guests (when they bother to speak it at all), but feels free to comment on the accents of four men with whom he disagrees, all of whom speak perfect English. More to the point, he seems to think it is somehow impermissible for foreign-born Americans - I believe the men he names are all U.S. citizens - to have an opinion about immigration to the United States. At least they are not allowed an opinion he disagrees with.

Mr. Auster occasionally takes paleos to task for ad hominem argument. Podhoretz is pretty good at that game too. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 8, 2004 12:37 PM

Mr. Auster heard right. Rush is selling it. He opened the show with the “Bush is a real leader” bit and emphasized “at least he is not resting on his reelection haunches”.. “what would Clinton have done etc..”

He then emphasized thrice over and in as many ways that “if you think this is bad just remember what the democrats want to do..” “they don’t think the proposal goes far enough..” “they would grant permanent legal status at once..”

I think he senses that Bush is alienating much of his base. Now he (Rush) is beggng we bend over just a little further to assure Bush’s reelection. He’s basically saying “well.. maybe the war didn’t please you and maybe the prescription drug entitlement wasnt exactly an exercise in classic conservatism and maybe you are still reeling from the Grutter thing and.. no Bush doesn’t really support the Second Amendment and yes your First and Fourth amendment rights are being systematically flushed down the toilet under the Bush administration and yes.. this immigration thing basically sucks and I sense your anger but please reconsider voting for Dean if you want to punish Bush because things might be even worse under democratic leadership”.

I hope no one will fault me for wishing I had a better “choice” than this in ‘04.

Posted by: Barry on January 8, 2004 12:58 PM

P.S. I will be voting for DEAN.

Posted by: Barry on January 8, 2004 1:00 PM

On a more encouraging note, Dan Stein was on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal this morning in his capacity as Executive Director of FAIR. His arguments were cogent and devastating. I recommend strongly that everyone here who has the time visit www.c-span.org, click on the WJ link and give it a listen. His articulation of this position is worth internalizing.

FAIR’s website has a ‘Take Action’ section that might be helpful — http://www.fairus.org/

Mr. Hagen mentioned yesterday that the battle will likely begin in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here is a list of the members with contact information: http://www.house.gov/judiciary/members.htm

I will be writing President Bush presently to inform him that neither he nor my wife will be voting for him this year as in 2000, of which I will inform my Republican Congresswoman.

Posted by: Joel LeFevre on January 8, 2004 1:17 PM

It is a shame that the Democrats are so in thrall to rheir multi-culti leftist faction. The impact of illegal immigration on blacks and union members, the Dem’s natural constituents, is profound. The Dems used to claim to be in favor of the working man. If a Democrat were to oppose illegal immigration strongly, I’d vote for him.

Posted by: Gracián on January 8, 2004 2:20 PM

Following on Gracián’s point, Dan Stein today made the case that a continuing flow of immigrants from our southern border is actually quite harmful to the Mexican immigrants already here. He pointed out that the Hispanic population here has shown very little upward mobility, as their opportunities are undercut by the continued flow of immigrants who will still work for depressed wages.

He predicted that immigrants currently here (even illegally) would eventually work to oppose additional immigration for that reason. I have doubts about this, as I am uncertain whether self-interest would transcend the loyalty to _la raza_ — and the desire for greater political power derived from greater numbers.

Mr. Stein also noted that this plan essentially makes wage levels to be determined by immigrants, which hasn’t been the case since 1910 — a very dangerous social and economic policy.

Posted by: Joel LeFevre on January 8, 2004 2:34 PM

Gracian, don’t look now, but Hillary Clinton has said:

“‘I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants,’ Clinton told WABC Radio’s John Gambling. Then, a few moments later, the Democratic Party presidential front-runner added, ‘We might have to move towards an ID system even for citizens.’ … ‘People have to stop employing illegal immigrants,’ she told WABC. ‘I mean, come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties, stand on the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx [and] you’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to go do yard work and construction work and domestic work. You know, this is not a problem that the people coming into the country are solely responsible for. They wouldn’t be coming if we didn’t put them to work.’” http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/2/11/120029

Can you imagine? All the current Democratic candidates have staked out a pro-amnesty, pro-illegal position. So did Bill Clinton. So has George Bush. Now, here comes Hillary Clinton going through a hole big enough to drive a frieghtliner through, pedal to the metal, as they say. Sure, I doubt Mrs. Clinton would actually support our position. But what if she did? Would you vote for her? I would—at the drop of a hat.

Posted by: paulccc on January 8, 2004 2:34 PM

A word about Limbaugh. Rush admires and identifies with Corporate CEO Types. He will often refer to having socialized with such people. They are the ones who will sit him down in private and tell him how things “ought to be,” using an expression of Limbaugh’s. Once I heard him spend almost three hours praising Bill Gates, who is not exactly a Conservative Traditionalist.

Posted by: David on January 8, 2004 2:46 PM

I can only express my agreement with almost all of the remarks made above. Re Thucydides remark on closing the border: This perhaps is now necessary, especially for anti-terrorist purposes, but historically the means of defeating illegal immigration was a swift and effective roundup of those who had already arrived — no matter where they settled. This was the strategy behind the Eisenhower Administration’s successful “Operation Wetback” in the 50s. Although a different strategy may now be needed, it is well to recall, when we are told that nothing can be done about illegal immigration, that it was successfully combated in the past.

Posted by: Alan Levine on January 8, 2004 3:12 PM

Mr. Levine is right to note that this is not an intractable problem. That is a critical point to make, because one of the administration’s excuses for this capitulation is that nothing can be done to control illegal entry. That, like so much else in the amnesty proposal, is a lie.

The problem is serious enough that we need aggressive federal law enforcement on three fronts.

We need to interdict border crossing routes effectively. If this is not a legitimate mission for the U.S. Army, there aren’t any. If the Army needs help from the other services (it shouldn’t), the Marine Corps is ready. The Posse Comitatus Act is no bar to using the armed forces for border defense. Armed incursions by the Mexican Army and Mexican policemen (a common occurrence on the border today) should be met with deadly force until they cease.

We need, as Mr. Levine says, to arrest and deport illegal aliens. As long as it is done humanely, there is nothing outrageous or unconstitutional about removing criminal trespassers.

We need to enforce immigration and employment law against employers of illegal aliens. This requires empowering (and requiring, an exercise of federal power even I would support) state and local police to enforce federal immigration law.

A third-party presidential candidate running on this single issue, with these three planks in his platform, would not win, but might put enough pressure on the major parties’ candidates that they would have to abandon support for amnesties. What we need is a nationally known political figure who will come forward and say that illegal entry is a problem we can control, and here is how…

Once we get this under control, we have to turn to legal immigration. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 8, 2004 3:50 PM

David makes a good point about Limbaugh’s sycophancy towards corporate CEOs. He seems to hold this idea that such people are mostly conservatives, when the opposite is far more likely to be the case. Even a casual glance at the amicus brief in favor or the University of Michigan’s “diversity” program in the Grutter case reveals a long list of corporate types. Gates is a classic example - the epitome of a Gramscian Bobo. Remaining true to form, Limbaugh ignored the issue or a good portion of the hour I was listening today, with an occaisional remark about how we needed to stop being so hysterical as Bush was probably doing another head fake to destroy the Democrats.

This is the absolute last straw for Bush as far as I’m concerned. He has done nothing but continually stab conservatives in the back on numerous issues for the last 3 years. Over and above the immigration betrayal, we have the continued sale of military technology to China, an education bill authored by the Senator from Chappaquiddick, a refusal to fire or discipline the government hacks who were asleep at the switch - including nuerous Clinton appointees, the creation of a monstrous new federal agency with apparently limitless police powers, 15 billion in tax dollars to fund African kleptocrats under the guise of fighting AIDS, a series of disgraceful anti-American remarks given on foreign soil (the African tour), a refusal to fight the left on crucial judicial appointments, renewing the funding of UNICEF and its numerous toxic programs, a failure to even acknowledge the nature of the Islamic attack upon the West, refusing to terminate the feminist-controlled agenda for the military, a total betrayal on racial preferences - parroting a Marxist slogan (“diversity is our strength”) when the Supreme Court trashed the concept of equal protection, a massive new Federal Medicare entitlement, “campaign finance reform” destoying the first amendment, plus coming betrayals or inaction on homosexual marriage, abortion, and reparations for Blacks. I honestly see no difference between the policies of George W. Bush and the announced policies of the Democrats except that the Democrats are honest about what they stand for.

Posted by: Carl on January 8, 2004 4:35 PM

John Podhoretz’s maunderings are bad history, aside from being slimy. Unions were strongly against mass immigration well before the 1920s. I am unaware of any particular limits on the rights of the foreign-born, outside of those imposed on Asians by the Oriental Exclusion Act, which was supported by the Democrats — by far the more “racist” party up to the 1950s or even later.

Posted by: Alan Levine on January 8, 2004 5:38 PM

Carl highlights the most important difference between modern Democrats and modern Republicans: Democrats are open about their liberalism. That is why we have to abandon the Republicans. Their presence on the field as false-flag conservatives hobbles real conservatives’ efforts to come to grips with what ails this country. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 8, 2004 5:50 PM

Podhoretz admitted that he wasn’t able to read more than a few pages of “Lord of the Rings” because he found it just too “boring.”

I guess he’s one of these characters—I find them alien and disagreeable—who live in a world of intellectual, usually economic, abstractions; thus he can only be baffled by opposition to Bush’s proposal for a global labor market. I wonder if there is a single dollar-worshipping drone at the Cato Institute who has made it all the way through even “Fellowship.”

One imagines them doing some sort of primitive dance, perhaps every Friday, chanting “Ba-ba-hee!” in front an idol representing THE MARKETPLACE. And maybe today it has President Bush’s face.

I just don’t get it. Y’know, I am a small businessman (well, actually a big fat businessman) and am certainly characterized by a Fagin-like avariciousness, but I just don’t get why you should want to destroy your nation and your culture for the sake of another 2.3% on the bottom line. That’s not business, that’s obsession - psychosis.

Who are these people?

Posted by: Shrewsbury on January 8, 2004 6:13 PM

An addendum on “conservative” opposition to immigration restrictions. Chester Finn, writing in the Weekly Standard (12/22/03), referred to congressional opponents of the DREAM Act as the “nativist claque” of the GOP. I was astounded that the editors would permit such an insult to what must be a sizable portion of their readers.

Posted by: Bill on January 8, 2004 7:28 PM

Earlier someone mentioned that writers at National Review Online were being sharply critical of GWB on immigration. I’m old enough to remember how National Review publicly “suspended” its support for the Nixon Administration. It was probably in the summer of 1971; the issues had to do with the Cold War and domestic economic regulation (wage-and-price controls). Anyway, Buckley, Burnham, Meyer, Rusher, et al., plus several other nationally prominent conservatives, made their full-page statement in the pages of NR. Is it too much to hope that NR would do something like this today? No doubt.


Posted by: Wm. Wleklinski on January 8, 2004 10:01 PM

I mentioned that the NRO people were opposed (as seen at The Corner), and I was surprised by the strong tone coming from some of these people, who in the traditional NR manner, as established by its founder, tend to be more laid back about things. They also have a cover story by Mark Krikorian coming out denouncing the plan. It is a positive feeling to know that there are some “respectable” conservatives who are apparently strongly on the same side as ourselves, for once.

Posted by: Lawrence Auster on January 8, 2004 10:09 PM

Is anyone going to CPAC this year?
Immigration was an officially unmentioned issue in 2002, but the grassroots were angry. In 2003 immigration became an issue.
I wonder what will happen in 2 weeks?

Posted by: Ron on January 9, 2004 1:37 AM

In LA the most vociferous voices against Bush and his insanity are ‘John and Ken’. These guys are no rightists, but they are leading the charge. They quite rightly point out that Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly etc are merely Republican infomercials. Rush’s latest line is ‘yeah, but Clinton was worse’ — typical fourth grade logic from El Rushbo. Of course, Clinton wasn’t worse. His sins on immigration were mild compared to this complete open borders policy of Bush — and of course that is what it is, there is simply no limit to immigration if Bush’s ‘vision’ gets enacted as policy.

Posted by: Mitchell Young on January 9, 2004 2:39 AM

Immigration policy is the most important item on the American agenda today, more important than tax cuts, the Middle East, even abortion. Mr. Young’s observations about Clinton v. Bush on the issue are exactly right, which bolsters the conclusion that conservatives must renounce the Republican Party, which is now working a greater betrayal of Americans than even Democrats have done. HRS

Posted by: Howard Sutherland on January 9, 2004 9:32 AM

I caught the final hour of the Rush Limbaugh Show today and its content shows the frivolousness of Rush. He spent most of the hour commentating on and taking phone calls about this weekend’s NFL playoff games. Most of the time not spent on football was wasted on a few minor stories of governmental foolishness. The only caller who did not discuss football reproved conservatives angry with Bush for falling to embrace a “big tent” party. Rush said the conservative anger with Bush is understandable but that conservatives will end up voting for Bush, despite the protestations of some to the contrary. Rush does not _really_ care about conservative values and ideals. What a waste a talent and opportunity!

Posted by: Joshua on January 9, 2004 4:56 PM

So Limbaugh and his zombies are babbling about a “big tent” Republican Party, while that party blithely flushes the American nation down the toilet.

What good is any political party if it doesn’t work to preserve the nation and the culture? Why do we even have to ask this? Is it that most Republicans don’t really give a damn about anything except squeezing every last penny out of the world?

Posted by: Shrewsbury on January 9, 2004 6:15 PM

I personally support much of the Constitution Party’s platform, but unfortunately much of it is out of the mainstream for an anti-immigration party- which could attract both Democrats and Republicans. It works more as a protest vote for people who are upset with the Republican Party for being to liberal. Also, Howard Phillips or the Party seems much more focused on social issues than immmigration. The American First Party (made up of Buchanan Supporters who left eh Reform Party) platform http://www.americafirstparty.org/docs/platform.shtml puts immigration as one of the top priorities. Though I don’t know how much ballot access there would be.

I personally think It would be more ideal to have someone like Former Colorado Gov. Dick Lamm or Tom Tancredo run on an anti-immigration ticket, but unfortunately by this point it may be too late for them to get ballot access or start a campaign.

Posted by: Marcus Epstein on January 10, 2004 2:57 PM

Not all Mexican-Americans ardently support amnesty for illegal aliens. Interested folks can read the San Antonio, Texas press online at www.ksat.com and www.kens-tv.com to get a variety of perspectives on amnesty for illegals. Ditto for the El Paso, Texas newspaper at www.elpasotimes.com

Posted by: Roger Chaillet on January 12, 2004 1:22 PM
Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember info?

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):