Jeb Bush Flip-Flops on Immigration – He Wasn’t Pro-Amnesty Enough

Apparently Jeb Bush is another one of those Republicans who either has a death wish for his party or can’t do simple math. As I have said before and will say again and again until it sinks in, immigration restrictionism is the only position that is compatible with the future existence of the Republican Party as a viable force at the national level.

But this spectacle is too pathetic for words. Jeb’s book, which went to press in Dec., was supposed to move the debate in the GOP in the direction of liberalization by proposing legalized residence for illegal aliens but without a path to citizenship. Now that the innumerate* caucus of the GOP (McAmnesty, Grahamesty, Rubio, etc.) have gotten out in front on a path to citizenship, Jeb’s position seems downright reactionary. Hence the groveling apologies.

Would somebody please implant these mathmatical illiterates with a pair of testicles. They are both IQ and testosterone deficient, and their humiliating public attempts to court favor with the PC Thought Police is shameful.

* unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods (courtesy of the Yahoo dictionary)

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

12 thoughts on “Jeb Bush Flip-Flops on Immigration – He Wasn’t Pro-Amnesty Enough

  1. Pingback: CPAC Shilling for Amnesty – Freezing Out Immigration Restrictionists | Conservative Heritage Times

  2. Matt Weber

    If the Republicans can’t figure out how to appeal to immigrants/nonwhites then they are history anyway. Likewise if immigrants/nonwhites possess some innate resistance to “conservative ideas” (I’m skeptical, but this is taken for granted on much of the right). Does it matter greatly whether it happens today or then years from now?

    Legalized residence without citizenship isn’t really a bad deal if they could pull it off. Non-citizens can’t vote, and how many current illegals really want to be citizens just to vote? Giving legalized residence would allow them all the economic benefits and stop the crying from the left about the poor undocumented workers, but keep them off the voting rolls.

  3. Savrola

    You really need to make up your mind about this “one nation indivisible” versus “i’m a good old rebel” deal, Red.

  4. RedPhillips Post author

    Matt, there is the anchor baby problem. All the kids they have while they are here will be US citizens based on a misreading of the Constitution.

  5. RedPhillips Post author

    Sav, I believe I am starting to get a handle on where you are coming from, although no thanks to you since you seem to have some allergy to actually presenting your case in a straightforward manner.

    I think you believe that immigration may be a positive thing because it will increase ethnic consciousness among all groups and lead to increased balkanization and the creation of smaller virtual nations within a larger failing nation state.

    I am a proud Southerner, and I would like to see the US devolve into smaller more human scale units. But as I said around election time, I reject the notion of some that worse is better. That by hastening the demise of the Regime we can more quickly get on with our project. While this is theoretically possible, it is reckless brinksmanship IMO. Any such catastrophic collapse will by its very nature be unpredictable. There is no guarantee that what emerges on the otherside will be an improvement. In fact, it is much more likely that worse will actually be worse rather than better. Didn’t we chide the neocons for their embrace of creative destruction? Didn’t we warn that the results of toppling a strong arm dictator were unpredictable and we might not be happy with the forces that we unleash? The worse is better crowd is the anti-Regime equivalent of the creative destruction neocons.

    It is wiser to work to halt the slide and then work to implement your project from there than to cheer on the demise of the Regime in the naive hope that come the financial armagedon or the balkanization that everyone is suddenly going to turn into a Ron Paul supporting Constitutionalist. How do we know that the lesson that the masses are going to take from the financial armagedon is going to be that the Fed is bad? Might they not rather conclude that Big Daddy Government didn’t do enough for us?

  6. Matt Weber

    The kids yes. Well, like I said, either the Republicans curry some favor with immigrants/nonwhites or they are dead in the water.

  7. RedPhillips Post author

    “either the Republicans curry some favor with immigrants/nonwhites or they are dead in the water”

    Or, they halt the current demographic trends by restricting immigration, overturning birthright citizenship and procreating at greater than replacement rates, and get larger shares of the white population to vote for them. The Republicans would be unbeatable on the national level if whites in Mass. voted like whites in Alabama. (The procreation thing and whites in Mass. voting like whites in Alabama would actually require a mass Christian revival and is beyond mere politics.)

  8. Matt Weber

    I am skeptical. Let’s look at the four things you mention:

    Restricting immigration — no-go. Even assuming that you managed to get a immigration restriction bill passed and signed into law–an Olympian feat–would you then trust the government to actually implement and enforce it? I think the lesson of the last 20 years is that they won’t.

    Overturning birthright citizenship — would likely require a constitutional amendment, so another no-go. Will not happen short of a revolution or devolution or some other large shake-up.

    Increase procreation — Another no-go. How exactly would you ensure that only Republican white people increased their procreation while everyone else didn’t? Like you say this is outside of politics anyway.

    Convince more whites to vote Republican — This can be done, and the Republicans should do it, but why make the appeal explicitly racial? Why not just try to increase their vote counts in general? Again, I’m skeptical of the idea that there is something in immigrant/nonwhite blood that prevents them from voting for ‘conservative’ ideas. Actually I’m skeptical that anyone, immigrant/nonwhite or no, actually votes based on anything so abstract. The Republicans need an image change, to be sure, but I see no reason to limit it to appealing to white people.

  9. Savrola

    We’re entering a post-political, post-party era, so these questions are purely academic.

    The Republicans can easily get emmigrant votes. They just need to stop running homosexuals, shopkeepers, and plasticized types.

    The type of emmigrant most likely to vote Republican doesn’t like being pandered to.

    This is all pointless though, because as I have said, we are entering a post-national era.

  10. Sempronius

    Two points:1) We have ALREADY granted de facto citizenship to our invaders by allowing them to remain here in such large numbers over a fairly long period of time. What our tyrants seek now is the de jure recognition of this state of affairs. 2) The only way to save the nation is through some sort of cessation of territories that will preserve it’s racial and cultural integrity, such as it is.

  11. Savrola

    There is no culture left to preserve.

    And from race comes culture so what are we to infer from that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>