May 21, 2007

You hate us, you really hate us

Not everything in the 326 pages of the Kennedy-Bush immigration bill is bad. For example, some of the reforms of legal immigration might be mildly beneficial. By some reports, the number of legal immigrants admitted on a family reunification basis would drop from over 90% under the ridiculous current system to about 60%, with others being admitted on a new Canadian-style point system emphasizing education, work skills, English-proficiency (a system I've advocated for the U.S. since 2001). And visas for the adult siblings of recent immigrants would be cut out. If the point of immigration policy is to benefit current citizens and our posterity (see the Preamble to the Constitution) rather than foreigners who happen to be recent immigrants relatives, these changes makes more sense.

Of course, there are catches: this improved system wouldn't kick in for another eight years, while all the relatives in the pipeline get shoved through, and relatives would still make up the majority of legal immigrants afterwards.

Now, here's the interesting point. You might think that the Bush Administration would have tried to prepare the ground among Republicans before last Thursdays announcement of the Kennedy-Bush bill by letting immigration skeptics know that some actual reforms were coming along with all the sell-outs. Nobody else is very interested in the subject. Reforming legal immigration is a good idea, but nobody except the hard-core immigration skeptics at VDARE, CIS, and a few other places has been talking about it. In the current environment, rationalizing legal immigration seems like a rather bloodless bit of good government wonkery compared to doing something about the national disgrace of rampant illegal immigration. Fixing legal immigration is actually very important -- although the most effective fix would be cutting the number of visas for a lengthy number of years while we assimilate past immigrants -- but it's just not part of the current debate, and, quite reasonably, it won't be as long as illegal immigration is out of control.

Still, you would think that the fact that a few of the ideas of immigration skeptics like me made it into Kennedy-Bush bill (although I'm sure they were put in by Senate Republicans like Sen. Kyl, not the Administration) would have been used by the Bush Administration in an attempt to butter up the immigration skeptic wing to not be so immediately hostile to the bill. That's straight out of Lobbying 101 -- appeal to the ego of potential critics. Tell us we are helping make this a better country through some of our brilliant ideas.

I certainly am not surprised I didn't get a get a phone call from Karl Rove before last Thursday, trying to get me excited about bits of the upcoming package, but, what about, say, Hugh Hewitt or the National Review boys? They've been good soldiers in the Bush Army, except on immigration. So, why didn't they get a call?

The simplest answer seems to be that the Bush Administration is deeply emotional about immigration, trumping even Iraq. They'll deal happily with Ted Kennedy, but if you don't toe the Bush line on the borders, you are a bad, bad person.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

10 comments:

Mark said...

By some reports, the number of legal immigrants admitted on a family reunification basis would drop from over 90% under the ridiculous current system to about 60%, with others being admitted on a new Canadian-style point system emphasizing education, work skills, English-proficiency (a system I've advocated for the U.S. since 2001). And visas for the adult siblings of recent immigrants would be cut out.

Yeah, good luck with that one. Mark Krikorian over at The Corner links to a Washington Post article this morning on all the race agitators who don't like the bill.

The big money quote comes from Eun Sook Lee, who heads a Korean organization:

"If we take out the future family program" that allows sponsorship, she said, "we will be creating another problem. People will continue to come without documentation. People want to be with their family members. It's something you can't kill."

Hear what she's saying? She's saying "Screw you, Americans. We'll re-unite our damn families one way or another, whether it's legal or not."

It's nice to know that our modern, tax-free "civic" organizations are so respectful of the law. That's a quote that more people need to see.

Anonymous said...

Or they fear being called racists. AP has a story about one GOP Congressman discussing internally immigration and saying that opposing it would make the Party appear like the South African Apartheid folk.

Idiocy at the highest levels. I'll also note that the Danish "Little Mermaid" had a burqua put on the statue this morning. No doubt by all those hardworking Muslim immigrants.

It's hardly racist to prefer your own people to foreigners, but such is the power of Liberals and Liberalism that any accusation of racism no matter how bogus has Republicans cowering in fear.

Goldberg is right I think. Republicans abandoned conservatism for Republican go-along-ism and enabling Liberal idiocy. No better picture illustrates that than Teddy with McCain.

floccina said...

Things to keep in mind when discussing immigration:

1. If punishment is too harsh, the law will not be enforced. Ask yourself would you turn your neighbor in if he hired an illegal alien to watch his children - if the punishment was a fine and illegal was sent packing? - if they would have to do jail time?

2. Politicians seemed to have learned that they can pass laws to gain votes without loosing voters to the burdens of enforcing the laws passed. Politicians seemed to have found that if they do not enforce the laws or if they make the laws so complicated that they are unenforceable they can have their cake and eat it too.

Consider the speeding laws and the marijuana laws. Periodically middle class youths have the marijuana smoking demonstrations. Police are often present but they do not arrest everyone and mostly do not arrest anyone.

There needs to be something to be some ensure enforcements of the laws.

Although some would argue that farm/ restaurant/construction wages would rise, and they would, completion from other fields and from imports would ensure that at least some business that use immigrants would fail. This is a cost people might not like this cost and change the laws but at least we would know what the costs are today the laws are just ignored.

IMO we need to think about how to get the existing laws enforced and not call for new laws.

Anonymous said...

Commerce Secretary Carlo Gutierrez is an agent of Mexico. He should be tried for treason.

All Chertoff really cares about is "...is it good for the Jews?" That is the principle that undergirds his view of border enforcement. He is a hypocrite ethno-centrist.

Stephen Steinlight's article The Jewish Stake in America's Changing Demography spells it all out. Without understanding the importance of open borders to the Jewish community one cannot understand the immigration debate in America.

And La Raza is on the inside of the Amnesty negotiations?

What we have now is an ethnic free-for-all in Washington D.C. But there are few fighting for white interests. And so white America fades. Auster says today that it's all about making whites a minority and that indeed is the heart of the matter.

Invade the World, Invite the World is not quite accurate, iSteve. Isn't it Invite Mexico? Or Invite Latin America? Or Invite Brown people?

I don't believe Bush really has a soft spot for the world. Canadians, Haitians, Koreans etc are immigration filler. Whites, blacks, and Asians are really not his thing. Whites are persona non grata. And he can't condescend to Asians. Their intelligence makes him feel insecure. And he is also threatened by blacks (aren't we all, including other blacks?). Anyway, they don't make good cheap laborers.

But browns are perfect!

tommy said...

Here is one little forum where you can tell them to stop immigration.

Nancy Pelosi, on Yahoo! Answers, wants to know what should be included in upcoming anti-global warming legislation.

Tell her that immigration restrictions are a must. Tell her that the First World lifestyle of high consumption is contributing greatly to the problem of global warming and that the growth of First World populations is almost entirely a result of the immigration of high fertility Third World immigrants.

tommy said...

Even our old friend David Frum understands what a disaster this bill is.

Anonymous said...

Today, a deeply flawed immigration reform bill. Tomorrow, the North American Community managed by a tripartite (Canadian, US, Mexican) tribunal with authority superseding that of any one of the member states!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:22 -- there is no Jewish conspiracy to undermine American Sovereignty. If anything the dominant thread in American Jewish cultural life is finding refuge in American Identity. Siegel and Shuster (Superman), Jack Kirby (Captain America), Stan Lee (Spider-Man, Hulk, etc) ought to put that lie to bed.

If anything Jews on balance would be like Bernard Goldberg against immigration from Mexico if nothing else because of the anti-Semitic views of La Raza. Too much immigration also destroys the melting pot that offers sanctuary to Jews from a hostile world intent on eradicating them.

Chertoff is a Bush crony hack. Nothing more.

Mark said...

Ask yourself would you turn your neighbor in if he hired an illegal alien to watch his children - if the punishment was a fine and illegal was sent packing? - if they would have to do jail time? - floccina

Well that's sort of a pointless question, isn't it?

Would I turn my neighbor in if he were hiring illegals? Yes I would.
(In fact, my neighbor does hire people I suspect are illegals to do his lawn.)

But then, why bother since we know the government doesn't give a crap? And if the government did actually give a crap, I'm fairly certain my neighbor wouldn't be hiring illegals...

Moral of this story: I'm not gunna turn in my neighbor, 'cause you and me and the tree all know it'd be a waste of time; but it makes me smile inside to know that when they caught the people who broke into his home not long ago...they were illegals. (I'm not making that one up.)

Anonymous said...

On Comcast cable today there is one channel out of hundreds that is having unusual technical difficulties. Guess which one?!

The C-SPAN 2 channel which is carrying the Senate has been a blank screen all day with a LOUD dialtone in the foreground and the audio of the floor "debate" in the background. C-SPAN 1 with the House activity is perfect.

Coincidence? I am a long time C-SPAN watcher and have never experienced this type of tech snafu. Bizarre. After listening for 5 minutes, the LOUD drone tone feels like a dental drill in the ear. It is a challenge to stick with the channel, and I am intensely interested in the debate. Casual viewers will click away immediately.

This tech "snafu" has been going on for at least 5 hours. Are you kidding me?

This is bullsh*t.