Bush Just Lost My Vote

On January 7, 2004 -- a day that will live in infamy -- Jorge W. Bush announced a plan to amnesty illegal aliens. On payment of a "fee" -- note that, not even a fine for violating our immigration laws -- his beloved "undocumented workers" would be enrolled in a "temporary worker" program. Of course, this "temporary" status can be renewed, so "temporary" is obviously a euphemism for "permanent," just as "undocumented" is a euphemism for "illegal," and "legal status" is a euphemism for "amnesty."

Good ol' Jorge assures us that, after this amnesty, we'll finally get serious about enforcing the law. Yeah, right. That's what they said about the last amnesty. Announcing that we're going to forgive all those lawbreakers will only encourage more lawbreaking, making a bad situation worse, until the time comes around for the next amnesty -- or until we finally do get serious about enforcing the law and securing our borders.

Even worse than that, the post-amnesty "temporary worker" program would be open to all foreigners for free -- and he wants to increase the number of immigrants admitted under our current laws. (Of course, there's no telling how many Mohammed Atta wannabes will get his "temporary worker" passes or extra green cards -- not until it's too late.) So, even though we already have more immigration than we can control, he wants to increase that amount even more. Maybe in Texas they have the idea that when a river is flooding you should tear down the levees.

The motives for this plan are the same ones that have historically inspired pro-immigrant, anti-American policies: pandering to ethnic lobbies, cosmopolitan sentimentalism, and greed for cheap labor. Jorge pointedly made his announcement in the presence of "El Embajador of Mexico" and various other hijos de putas -- a gesture that tacitly recognizes the fact that Hispanics are not Americans and have no intention of being Americanized. He gushes about what wonderful people those foreigners are -- never mind that nineteen of those foreigners killed thousands of Americans, not too long ago. He assures us that the foreigners will only take jobs that natives "won't" take -- not mentioning, of course, the laws of supply and demand: if employers are willing to pay enough for the labor, they will find it here. Importing it will, of course, drive down the price of labor and therefore, native workers' standard of living -- and that's only one of the many ways that immigration screws over native Americans.

One thing he does get right: "The best way, in the long run, to reduce the pressures that create illegal immigration in the first place is to expand economic opportunity among the countries in our neighborhood." But this can't be accomplished by letting Mexico colonize us. The Mexican ruling class has no incentive to reform as long as they can dump their swarming masses over the border.

After this monstrosity, Jorge's next brainstorm is to establish a permanent American presence on the Moon. Normally, I would be enthusiastic about that -- but we can't keep a permanent American presence in America if Jorge's plan gets through Congress. What we need to build now is not a Moon-base, but a line of barbed wire and minefields on the Mexican border. Besides which -- WE'RE AT WAR, which is just about the only reason I (for one) would have to vote for Bush in November. Undertaking such a huge and expensive project in wartime is sheer lunacy.

Now -- how about that war? Well, Afghanistan was a good start. Then, after dithering for two years, we had that spectacular campaign in Iraq -- and now we're just racking up body counts. Though I hate to sound like a lousy peacenik, Iraq really is starting to look like South Vietnam all over again. Syria and Iran are obviously playing the same role that North Vietnam did; when, if ever, are we going to do anything but issue warnings? We only bombed North Vietnam, but at least we had the excuse of avoiding another ChiCom intervention. Who's going to come to the rescue of Baathist Syria or Islamist Iran? Isn't taking out those regimes the logical next step in the War on Terrorism? Are we really at war, or not?

So -- what we have here is a President from Texas who's in favor of mass immigration, the space program, and an indecisive war. And let's not forget: robbing the younger and future generations to provide big fat entitlement programs for greedy geezers. Dammit, we've got ourselves another LBJ.

Back in 1992, I held my nose and voted for Bush I because I figured he would only passively acquiesce in whatever evil schemes the Democratic Congress cooked up, whereas a Democratic President would actively cook up evil schemes of his own. In 2000, I voted for Bush II because he didn't seem to be as bad as his old man, much less the other guy (and I was right. Bush I promised "no new taxes" and broke the promise; Bush II promised to cut taxes, and did. Bush I kicked Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait; Bush II went into Iraq and finished the job). After 9/11, Bush II seemed to rise to the occasion -- for a while. Now, we have a Republican Congress and Bush II is cooking up schemes of his own that are as evil as any Democrat's. So I say: to Hell with Jorge!

2004 by Karl Jahn

Next Page