Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Fear And Fact About The Bush Betrayal
I'm taking my dogs on their early morning romp. Slowly, out of the mist, a black sedan approaches. Two men jump out of the car: black trench coats, black fedoras and black sunglasses.
Flashing badges, they yank me into the back seat. "Come quietly. We want to talk to you," says one.
I knew it! They're G-men— federales!
Since Bush doesn't like to read, I'm probably safe.
Bush, as former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill is now painfully aware, doesn't cotton to contrary opinions. Plenty of others have found out about Bush's intolerance, too.
In a January 4 San Francisco Chronicle article headlined "Quarantining Dissent: How the Secret Service protects Bush from free speech", author James Bovard gives dozens of horror stories of anti- Bush protesters at presidential appearances being shuffled off to remote areas ironically called "free-speech zones."
The official White House reason for segregating protestors is tried and true: it's for your own good. According to Bovard, (author of "Terrorism & Tyranny: Trampling Freedom, Justice and Peace to Rid the World of Evil") Secret Service agent Brian Marr explained that
"those individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their nonsupport that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured."
Curious about his take on "free speech zones," I asked Nelsen if he at any time felt that his passion for immigration reform would distract him to such an extent that he would accidentally wander into traffic.
"No, " replied Nelsen. "But Bush promised me an e-mail he never sent—not that I expected him to."
Craig had asked Bush how many immigrants he proposed to import. Bush was rattled and this was his brush-off. [Watch Craig Nelsen rattle Bush on RealVideo.]
In retrospect, it is interesting to note that Nelsen's questions to Bush about immigration proved that the only thing the president-to-be knew about immigration was that he favored it.
Let me introduce you to the Gandhis (I've changed their names to protect the guilty) who are legally in the U.S. from India. Over the last month, various family members have enrolled my class. Identifying which among the six is an in-law, a cousin, a niece, a nephew, an aunt or a grandmother is an insurmountable challenge.
Grandmother Gandhi, 75, has been in the US for five years. She speaks not a word of English. She attends class only to get out of the house and has not indicated the slightest interest in learning. Since the day she arrived in America, she has been collecting SSI.
Her grandson, here six months, is the only Gandhi to be gainfully employed. He has a job as an evening security guard. He'd like to improve his English—which is pretty good—but can't do it at work since his colleagues only speak Punjabi or Urdu.
His is definitely a job an American could do. Of course, as things stand, the American might have to speak Punjabi or Urdu. Immigration is not merely displacing Americans but, through the sociological phenomenon of network hiring of immigrants by immigrants, ensuring that they stay displaced.
The other Gandhis don't work for a variety of reasons—poor English, incomplete educations, reluctance to allow women into the workforce. Mostly, they just seem to hang out. Despite all the propaganda about hard-working immigrants, this is surprisingly frequent.
Maybe it's because they're content with relatively little. The Gandhis live together as one big happy family, relying on their wages and welfare payments.
The Gandhis are far from the worst immigrants. But their presence here serves no conceivable national interest—and Americans are paying for it.
If George Bush really succeeds in allowing "Temporary Workers" to import their families, the Gandhi scenario will be repeated on an unprecedented scale all across America.
So, what should our policy it be? To answer, let me share a story about my Australian experience.
About twenty years ago when I lived in Seattle, I took my first vacation trip down-under. I loved Australia—sun, beaches, tennis courts and a decidedly Yankee-friendly place.
When I returned, I called the Australian Consulate in San Francisco to inquire how I could become a permanent resident. The following dialogue ensued:
Australian Consulate: Will you be starting a capital-intensive business?
Joe G.: No.
A.C.: Do you have any special skills or talents that will enhance Australian's quality of life?
Joe G.: No—but I'll be working!
A.C.: How old are you?
Joe G.: 40
A.C.: Mr. Guzzardi, we're glad you had fun in Australia, Please come back often. But we're simply not interested in people coming to Australia to grow old on our beaches.
The consulate wouldn't even mail me a form!
I was hurt, but Australia had it right. Immigration should be about strengthening America—not about how many low wage earners we can jam into the country so that WalMart executives will get bigger bonuses.
My column began with George W. Bush and I suppose I must get back to him.
The truth is I can barely type Bush's name without a horrible sinking feeling.
I believe Bush may have miscalculated big time and that Americans won't forget his betrayal.
We may well end up with some equally horrible-on-immigration Democrat as our new president.
But if that happens, we'll have the consolation prize of watching Bush pack up and head off to Crawford.
Joe Guzzardi [email him], an instructor in English at the Lodi Adult School, has been writing a weekly newspaper column since 1988. This column is exclusive to VDARE.COM.