Bush Betrayal Flushes Out Neocon Nogoodniks


What is that

John Podhoretz
,

Jonah Goldberg
,

David Horowitz
,

Tamar Jacoby,


Suzanne Fields
and David Brooks have in common?

They are all
neoconservatives, and all—unlike most conservatives
of other identities and backgrounds—support President
Bush`s amnesty plan for illegal immigrants.

What does that tell us?

What it tells I will consider
momentarily, but first, let us listen to the harmony of
neocon voices warbling happily in contemplation of the
coming inundation of the country by amnestied

Third World immigrants
.

Tamar Jacoby in the

Wall Street Journal
intones that the president`s
plan is

"a historic beginning, truly not unlike Richard Nixon`s
trip to China,"
an analogy that might bear
comment in itself.

David Brooks, the New York
Times`
token neocon, writes that Mr. Bush "has
moved the Republicans a long way on this issue

[immigration], and he will probably have to move a
little more."
He praises the "work and drive and
creativity"
that "millions" of illegal aliens
bring us. [Workers
in the Shadows
, By David Brooks, NYT,

January 10, 2004
]

Mr. Horowitz sings that the
president`s plan is

"rational, sound and a step in the right direction,"

while Mr. Goldberg, a bit more tortured in his
reasoning,

concludes
that the plan is "not an ideal
solution"
but does "deal with reality in a
constructive way."

Unlike Mr. Bush, none of these
backers of the amnesty plan denies that it is in fact
amnesty.

Their arguments for it vary, but in
general most seem to share a common assumption—in Mr.
Goldberg`s words,

"But
what`s the alternative? Some voices on the far right
suggest simply

rounding up
millions upon millions of illegals and
sending them packing. Well, that`s simply

not going to happen.
First of all, most of these
folks are already working here. Suddenly yanking them
from their jobs isn`t a great economic policy. Even less
realistic is the expectation that an already
overextended government could do it if it wanted to. And
even less realistic than that is the notion that

any politician
would even try."

Leave aside the fact that Mr.
Goldberg thinks it is "far right" to demand that

laws be enforced
and persons illegally in this
country

deported
, a position that also happens to be the

legally mandated
official (if not

systematically enforced
) policy of the U.S.
government. The common assumption Mr. Goldberg shares
with his neocon comrades is that because so many
illegals are already here, it`s impossible to deport
them and keep others out; therefore, let`s legalize
them. 

By the same argument, it`s equally
impossible to arrest all

murderers
,

muggers
, and
rapists
; therefore, let`s just have amnesty for all
the above.

Like many neocon arguments, those
marshaled in support of amnesty rest on dubious and
inadequately examined assumptions, but the flaws of this
particular argument are not of much interest. What is
interesting is what the argument tells us.

Ever since the

9/11 attacks,
neoconservatives, who had generally
supported mass immigration without reservation, have
been

a bit more muted.
The dangers and problems of mass
immigration suddenly became clear to many Americans, and
the neocons realized they needed to get on board with
the new interest in more effective immigration control.
They started muttering softly about "responsible"
immigration reform and endorsing a few modest reforms
and restrictions—"reform
lite,"
as some called it.

They also began to preach to—and
smear—those who had been warning about immigration for
years.

Mr. Goldberg himself wrote in a
column in the

Los Angeles Times
in 2002 that "paleoconservatives
and neo-nativists"
who favored "white supremacy"
(he named me,

Pat Buchanan
and

Peter Brimelow
, founder of the immigration control
website VDARE.COM, on which this column appears) had
"marginalized the entire debate about immigration at the
exact moment that the issue needs all the intelligent
discussion it can get."

Quite frankly, I was not aware of
any "debate" about immigration with the
neoconservatives. How can you have a debate with people
who simply call you

ugly names
?

Nor was I aware of any

"discussion"
of immigration, intelligent or
otherwise, from neoconservatives in general or Mr.
Goldberg in particular.

I was willing to be instructed, but
upon inquiring I learned that no one else knew of
anything he or most other neocons had ever written on
the issue, aside from

unbridled endorsements
of virtual open borders.

But now I am instructed. I know
what Mr. Goldberg and his neoconservative buddies mean
by "intelligent discussion" of the immigration
issue.

They mean amnesty.

And what that tells us is that

neoconservatives
never had any interest in real
immigration reform, control or discussion.

Their

pretense
that they did was as phony as their whole
claim to being conservatives at all, and what they want
today—open borders—is exactly what they have always
wanted—and what the president`s amnesty is designed to
give them.

COPYRIGHT

CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

[Sam Francis [email
him] is a nationally syndicated columnist. A selection
of his columns,

America Extinguished: Mass Immigration And The
Disintegration Of American Culture
, is now available
from

Americans For Immigration Control.

Click here
for Sam Francis` website.


Click

here
to order his monograph
,
Ethnopolitics: Immigration, Race, and the American
Political Future and
here for
Glynn Custred`s review.
]