LA Times exposes new White House Immigration Plot
July 25, 2005, 05:45 AM
A+
|
a-
Print Friendly and PDF
In a fine piece of political journalism, the Los Angeles Times reported on Sunday that massive funding is being raised by White House lobbyist allies. The purpose: to revive the GWB January 2004 proposal to broaden and accelerate the inflow of immigrants into America.

Immigration Rising on Bush`s To-Do List - The White House wants to build a coalition to court Latinos and marginalize hard-liners -by Peter Wallsten and Nicole Gaouette Los Angeles Times July 24 2005 [Access reguires free registration]:

...the White House is working with political strategists to create a broad coalition of business groups and immigrant advocates to back a plan President Bush could promote in Congress and to minority voters in the 2006 elections...the White House hopes to reinvigorate the drive for new immigration laws — but this time it wants to work in advance to ensure that the president is backed by a broad alliance of business and advocacy groups.

This is going to be quite a gravy train for those who can get their snouts on board:

Corporations and advocacy groups with a direct interest in immigration — including those who need skilled high-tech workers, farm laborers and university teaching assistants — are being aggressively targeted for membership. Those being courted include Microsoft Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and groups representing academic institutions, restaurants, hotels, landscaping firms, hospitals and nurses. Organizers say this is the first time an effort has been made to bring these disparate groups together to focus on immigration issues. Admission into the new coalition costs between $50,000 and $250,000...

(My emphasis.) The ostensible rationale, of course, is the old inanity about the Republican need to get more of the Hispanic vote, so decisively refuted on VDARE.com by Steve Sailer and others. Can there be left a political operative in DC who can maintain , with a straight face, that the way to bolster the Republicans is to import more of a population, about which the only question is how close to the 60/40 landslide benchmark it votes Democratic? If it votes at all.

The Republicans won the 2004 election by the surreptitious adoption of the Sailer Strategy: Get out the white vote. Even some of those who know they run risks saying it have been forthright that the `04 Bush Amnesty proposal infuriated this group.

The LA Times allows U.S. Rep Tom Tancredo to devastate this silly argument:

Tancredo accused the administration of forging an alliance with business executives who view migrants as a path to greater profits "They know this has nothing to do with Hispanic votes...They`re trying to cover what their real motive is, which is to supply [business] with cheap labor, to not close the spigot of cheap labor"

Why is the Bush Administration so determined on this path? There is of course the view that the Bush family and the Texan plutocracy envy the status of the Mexican aristocracy, serenely floating above a sea of exploitable, repressible peasants. They want to merge! Certainly their enthusiasm for transforming America is breathtaking.

What is clear is that many in the Beltway do not believe America is a Democracy.

Consider this gem from one of the key fund raising lobbyists:

There`s two voices right now, and the noisy one is what I call the slam-the-borders crowd...The voice we want to speak with — and the one that will be in unison with President Bush — is the voice that echoes those marvelous words on the Statue of Liberty.To me, the Tancredo wing appeals to the more prurient character of our nature...We want to talk to the better angels of our nature.

(My emphasis.) Disgusting lower-class Americans obscenely interested in the living standards and conditions their children will face! Ugh!

That is former U.S. Representative Dick Armey, Republican House Majority Leader 1995-2003. Apparently in that capacity he did not learn that Emma Lazarus was not one of the Founding Fathers, and that her scrap of verse is not an article of the Constitution.

Here is a more intelligent - and more ominous - comment from Craig Regelbrugge, a lobbyist for the American Nursery & Landscape Association. He fears being shortchanged in this Lobbyist/White House shakedown and said that

Bush would succeed in forging partnerships with business only once he felt comfortable angering some parts of his base. "You`re never going to please them all,...That`s the difficult thing for the White House on this. They don`t want to anger anyone. But the party`s going to have to choose between the closed-minded restrictionists and the business base…. Who`s really the base of the base? Farmers and businesspeople, or the others?"

That is the point of course. Who is the base, a.k.a. the Nation. Citizens, or a miasma of financial interests? Tell Regelbrugge.