Tim Cavanaugh notes that immigration is just the latest issue where George W. Bush no longer looks like El Jefe Maximo.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
Crimneys, Bush is getting buried more times than Melquiades Estrada these days.
Thank you! Oh, and since Andrew Card just resigned, I think Tim should take credit, since this piece was obviously the straw that broke the camel's back.
Pro Libertate | March 28, 2006, 11:12am | #
The Top 100 Things I'd Do if I Ever Became a Libertarian President#50 - No second term, because nothing good ever happens in a second term.
joe | March 28, 2006, 11:30am | #
That quote by Dobbs is infuriating.And what, exactly, did Ted Kennedy do to earn the charge "street demogogue?" Point out that not all immigrants are from Mexico?
Dr. Kenneth Noisewater | March 28, 2006, 12:19pm | #
And what, exactly, did Ted Kennedy do to earn the charge "street demogogue?" Point out that not all immigrants are from Mexico?It seems to me you're misreading the sentence in question:
"The immigration controversy is escalating in stupidity if nothing else—a struggle between Kennedys and Sensenbrenners, border vigilantes and street demagogues, Lou Dobbs and La Raza."
Tim was presenting three different sets of contrasting archetypes who are known for their stupidity, not clearly identifiying two sets of three. If you try really hard, I suppose you draw the conclusion that he's loosely grouping Kennedy with street demagogues and La Raza, but I think his larger point is that the politics at work have now attracted those who will shed more heat than light on the subject.
TLB | March 28, 2006, 12:30pm | #
Calling Lou Dobbs "anti-immigrant"? Isn't that, you know, a lie?Is Tim willing to bet that terrorists won't infiltrate via the southern border? The 9/11 perps came - duh - before 9/11. Since then we've (more or less) tightened visa procedures, the same procedures they used to come here.
The 9/11 Comm. Staff Rep0rt described exactly how terrorists have used our immigration system to infiltrate the U.S. and discussed how those from terrorist-sponsoring countries have brought people from Mexico.
A Mexican official was even caught helping Hamas-linked people get into the U.S.
Trust Tim, or trust the 9/11 Staff Rep0rt? A difficult choice indeed.
BTW, what happens if those foreign citizens who are marching in our streets don't get what they want?
Will they riot?
If they riot, will Reason finally admit that an open borders policy is extreme folly?
And, did you know that the Georgia march was organized by a former Mexican General Consul?
So, basically, president Bush has allowed millions of foreign citizens to come here, and there's the possibility that their government is now agitating them inside our country.
It's not just terrorists that have infiltrated our southern border.
The government of Mexico has political power inside our country.
The government of Mexico has a physical presence inside our country.
Should you really trust anyone who's supported policies that have gotten us to this point?
I'm not particularly doubting this "political power of Mexico inside our country", seeing as how we hold borders and talks and policy discussions and what-not, but would you expand on how "The government of Mexico has a physical presence inside our country."? I mean, if it doesn't have to do with their troop excursions ending up on ranches and whatnot.
Steven Crane | March 28, 2006, 12:50pm | #
76, you have to suspend disbelief enough to believe that the people who have fled Mexico to seek their fortune, etc, in the US -also- want to see the southwestern US returned to Mexico. Just -why- they would want to do such a thing, seeing as how they ditched Mexico in the first place, is rarely explained.JK | March 28, 2006, 12:58pm | #
Steven:I don't know either, but see here.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-me-maywood21mar21,0,4897086.story
Now, some in the community are pushing to rename one of the city's elementary schools after former Mexican President Benito Juarez ...
Pig Mannix | March 28, 2006, 2:02pm | #
76, you have to suspend disbelief enough to believe that the people who have fled Mexico to seek their fortune, etc, in the US -also- want to see the southwestern US returned to Mexico. Just -why- they would want to do such a thing, seeing as how they ditched Mexico in the first place, is rarely explained.Well, if this was Vulcan, and everybody behaved with the impeccable logic of Mr. Spock, they probably wouldn't. Unfortunately, people's political ideals appear to be as much of an article of faith as their religious ones. No matter how badly their principles fail in practice, they blame the implementation or the implementor, not the principles themselves.
I can't explain why people flee California for Colorado, Massachusetts for New Hampshire, or Illinois for Indiana, and then vote for the same damn policies that made their original state uninhabitable. Yet they do. I've had 4 friends in the last three years, all Democrats, that have moved from Illinois to Indiana to escape Illinois taxes. Now, guess how many have changed their voting habits?
When you can explain that, then you'll have answered your own question.
kwais | March 28, 2006, 2:07pm | #
Steven Crane,I saw a banner on one of the demonstrators that said "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us"
So maybe suspension of disbelief in that one area is not that hard.
That said, I am generally in favor of illegal immigration.
Peter K. | March 28, 2006, 2:18pm | #
I would pay to see a luchador bodyslam Dobbs.Please check out the trailers:
http://www.nacholibre.com/
jp | March 28, 2006, 2:39pm | #
The 2004 speech contained a whopping 52 instances of the word "work," "workers," "working," etc., three references to "terror" or derivations thereof, and a mere five references to "securing" or "security." In yesterday's speech, these figures were reversed, with 26 "works," five "terrors," and 14 "securities." In 2004, Bush mentioned "force" five times (one of those as part of "workforce") and "border" ten times; yesterday, those numbers had gone to 17 and 26, respectively. Both speeches mention "amnesty" only in a negative context, but yesterday Bush took the trouble to denounce the concept four times.Tim, did you really need to subject us to that?
joe | March 28, 2006, 3:23pm | #
I thought Kennedy's event drawing attention to undocumented immigrants from Ireland living in Massachusetts shed quite a bit of light, Dr. Noisewater.If that is your real name.
TLB | March 28, 2006, 11:34pm | #
would you expand on how "The government of Mexico has a physical presence inside our country."?Let's say - just as an example - Alexander Haig organized a protest of all the American ex-patriates living in - say - France and got them to march in the streets demanding things.
Wouldn't France be correct in considering that what is called a "hostile act"?
Wouldn't France be correct in assuming that that was a show of physical force inside their country? That is, a large group of people who could be motivated to, for instance, riot.
Wouldn't France be forced to consider what all those Americans won't do if they don't get their way?
Wouldn't that be considered more or less an infiltration?
Note to Joe: the group Kennedy, Clinton, and McCain met with is funded by the Irish government.
Kahn | March 29, 2006, 12:46am | #
btw, you should also listen to these same Mexican immigrants tell stories about life back home. How the police are so corrupt, and it's impossible to make money because they'll come and steal it if they figure out you've got a dime. They'll steal from teenagers, for Chrissake. It's enough to make you cry.I really, really don't understand their desire to make things here look like back "home". But the desire is there in many of them, as surely as the stories they tell.
joe | March 29, 2006, 10:11am | #
TLB,People assembling for the purpose of peacefully expressing their opinion on a political issue is not considered a "hostile act" towards our government.
Well, it didn't used to be so considered, anyway. The War on Terror and general fear of immigrants have warped some people's opinions.
Personally, I look at a peaceful political march and think of the rights and freedoms that we have in this country. The idea that such an event represents a potential riot or security threat doesn't really play into it, regardless of the nationality or ethnicity or the immigration status of the people involved. I guess it's a liberal thing.
Evil Irishman | March 29, 2006, 6:06pm | #
This reminds me of an old one Tip O'neill used to tell on himself (possibly apocryphal): A group of Irishmen living in Boston approach Tip and tell him how great he has been for them and how they've supported him with their time and votes in the last four elections. They only ask one favor from him. "Sure," he says "anything.""We want you to make us citizens."
Steven Andrew Miller | March 30, 2006, 3:51am | #
76, you have to suspend disbelief enough to believe that the people who have fled Mexico to seek their fortune, etc, in the US -also- want to see the southwestern US returned to Mexico. Just -why- they would want to do such a thing, seeing as how they ditched Mexico in the first place, is rarely explained.Yes, the same people who fled Mexico who had more Mexican than American flags at the rallies around the country the the last week. The same people who chanted "Mexico! Mexico! Mexico!" and held up banners that said "THIS IS STOLEN LAND" at the rally In L.A..
I really had to suspend disbelief to witness all of that.