Bush Betrayal Flushes Out Neocon Nogoodniks
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
"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
concludes that the plan is "not an ideal
solution" but does "deal with reality in a
Unlike Mr. Bush, none of these
backers of the amnesty plan denies that it is in fact
Their arguments for it vary, but in
general most seem to share a common assumption—in Mr.
what`s the alternative? Some voices on the far right
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
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
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
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
lite," as some called it.
They also began to preach to—and
smear—those who had been warning about immigration for
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
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
They mean amnesty.
And what that tells us is that
neoconservatives never had any interest in real
immigration reform, control or discussion.
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
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
Americans For Immigration Control.
for Sam Francis` website.
here to order his monograph,
Ethnopolitics: Immigration, Race, and the American
Political Future and
Glynn Custred`s review.]