Roll Over, Dubya! Here Come The Professional Panderers!

Way back on July 20, 2001, in the
first VDARE.com article I ever wrote about the Bush
Administration`s immigration obsession, I

predicted
:


"Even in the short run,
however, opening the floodgates ever wider is likely to
be a losing strategy because the Democrats can always
out-pander the Republicans. They`re experts at it.
Republicans are amateurs.


“The sheer shamelessness of
Bush`s sucking up to the Fox-Castaneda administration
and their plans to dump more of their poor people on us
may have temporarily caught the Democrats flat-footed.
But the Democratic Party has not yet begun to pander!"

Now,
right on cue, the Democrats have begun to pander.  The
Congressional party, led by Ted Kennedy, celebrated

Cinco de Mayo
by

unveiling
its rejoinder to George W. Bush`s open
borders proposal, known here at VDARE.COM as “The
Bush Betrayal”
—the SOLVE Act ("Safe, Orderly,
Legal Visas and Enforcement ").

I wish I
were as accurate at prophesying

stock prices
and winning lottery numbers as I am at
foretelling the inevitable foul-ups of this Bush
bugaboo!

As I
explained on

August 14, 2001
:

"My
prediction: rather than a political masterstroke,

[Bush`s immigration trial balloon] will be a
disaster. It will fall apart in Congress because the
Democrats want to put more immigrants on the road to
being voters, confident that the majority will vote
Democratic. The more intelligent Republicans understand
that and don`t want it."

By early

September
of 2001, Bush`s amnesty had indeed fallen
apart in Congress. But by making amnesty for illegal
aliens look so absurd that Bush had to shelve his plans
for

years
, the

immigrant terrorists
of 9/11 paradoxically saved him
from an embarrassing and decisive defeat.

So, like the

Bourbons
in the French Revolution, Bush learned
nothing and forgot nothing. He dusted amnesty off again
in January of this year.

Well, maybe the President did learn
one thing: that Congressional Republicans

hated
the idea of millions of illegal aliens
becoming

voters
. So, in his

politically disastrous
January 7th proposal, he took
the absurd course of making clear that these immigrants
were to be disenfranchised helots—and then (supposedly)
kicked out of the country after some unspecified number
of years.

As I commented on Feb. 1 of 2004:

"But Bush`s new Machiavellianism automatically cedes
the

rhetorical high ground to the Democrats,
who are
already pushing for `earned
legalization
` (i.e., giving illegals the vote). Bush
is left contradictorily sputtering about how

wonderful immigrants are
and how we don`t want them
to become our fellow citizens."

And, as I forecast, the Democrats
have duly offered to not only give all illegal aliens
amnesty, but also to put them on the road to
citizenship…and, thus, to being good little Democrats.

The whole thing offers the Dems
some slam-dunk soundbites. For example, Rep.

Bob Menendez
, one of the bill`s sponsors,

said
Bush`s proposal "is a pathway to
deportation. This is a pathway to the American dream."

Touché!

Compared
to Bush`s self-hoisting petard, the Democrat`s plan is a
modern smart bomb, accurately targeted to appeal to what
immigrant voters actually care about. That`s not too
surprising. Top Democrats simply

know more Latinos
than do top Republicans. The vast
majority of

Hispanic politicians are Democrats
(24 of the 27

Latino members of the California legislature
, for
example).

Unlike
Bush, the Democrats understand that Hispanic voters
don`t want more random immigrants from more random
countries. (As Harvard economist

George Borjas`
important new

study
documents, mass immigration drives down the
wages of Latinos more than those of any other ethnic
group.)

Which is
why, as I`ve

argued before,
the Pew-Kaiser

poll
of registered Hispanic voters in 2002 found
that 48% thought there were too many immigrants in this
country, vs. only 7% who thought there were too few.

But Hispanics do tend to
like legal immigration, because it gives them control
over which of their
relative
s get to come here.

Accordingly, the Democrat`s SOLVE
plan will dramatically speed up

"family reunification."
And that offers another
rhetorical victory over Bush, because who could possibly
not put a high value on family unity?

(Well, other than the immigrants
themselves—who, if they really cared that much about
family unity would have

stayed home
with their

relatives
.)

Needless to say, these relatives
have other relatives, who will then become eligible to
move here, and so forth and so on…spawning more
Democratic voters every step of the way.

The most radical element of Bush`s
plan: opening up the American labor market to anyone in
the world who has a minimum wage job offer from an
American employer. In that regard, the Democrats are
more moderate, a.k.a. sane.

Michael Riley of the Denver Post

reported
:

"While Democrats say they want a plan that provides
immigrant workers who have lived and worked here for
years a chance to stay permanently, they also proposed
tighter restrictions on the entry of new,
employer-sponsored workers. The number of those workers
would be capped at 250,000 a year, and employers would
have to pay a prevailing wage based on Department of
Labor data."
[Dems have plan for illegal
residents| Ideas woo key Hispanic voters
By Michael
Riley,

Denver Post

 May 04, 2004]

Only one thing was missing from the Democrats`
carefully-orchestrated rollout of the SOLVE Act
(demonstrations in 30 cities!): their biggest name,
presidential nominee John F. Kerry.

Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Ronald Brownstein of the LA
Times


headlined
[May 5, 2004]:

"Kerry
Hesitates as Democrats Promote Immigration Plan."

“His campaign is said to
be wary of backing bills that could be `picked apart` by
the GOP."

Both Kennedy`s and Bush`s amnesty plan would do

wonders for the Democratic Party in the long run
.
But Kerry needs to win this year. He evidently wants to
signal to Latinos that he favors amnesty while hoping
that nobody else notices.

Pretty sleazy—but at least Kerry shows a better grasp than
Bush of the simple fact underlying what VDARE.COM
insists on calling


“the Sailer Strategy”—
that
in 2000, whites

outvoted Hispanics by 15 to 1.

Amnesty is clearly a net vote loser in 2004. Why does Bush
insist on shooting himself in the ballot box?

Perhaps because he can`t quite make himself believe that we
still have a one man-one vote system. Perhaps he`s
internalized the media`s message that all voters are
equal, but some voters (minorities)
are more equal—meritorious—than others (whites).

Perhaps, as I`ve speculated, he`s
sacrificing the GOP because he thinks an

Anglo-Hispanic Bush dynasty
can lord it over a
sprawling NAFTA

latifundia
.

Whatever he`s smoking, put your
money on the professional panderers.


[Steve Sailer [email
him] is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and


movie critic
for


The American Conservative
.
His website


www.iSteve.blogspot.com
features his daily
blog.]