2006 August 19 Saturday
Will US Failure In Iraq Lead To Immigration Amnesty?

Will the Iraq debacle lead to a change in the balance of power in Congress that makes immigration amnesty and increased immigration more likely?

Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative's performance has fallen sharply. Traditionally, voters may express disapproval of Congress as a whole but still vote for their own member, even from the majority party. But 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties.

"That's dramatic," said Republican consultant Ed Rollins, who was White House political director under President Ronald Reagan.

Steve Sailer has summed up the foreign and domestic policies of Bush and the neoconservatives as Invade the world! Invite the world!. Bush's failed "Invade the world" policies in Iraq may cause a loss of Republican control of the House of Representatives. That will bring Open Borders Democrats in control of that part of Congress and remove the House as a brake on efforts to pass a huge amnesty for illegal aliens. So "Invade the world" will lead to "Invite the world".

Washington K Street lobbyists already are making moves in anticipation of the fall of Republicans in Congress.

Washington lobbying firms, trade associations and corporate offices are moving to hire more well-connected Democrats in response to rising prospects that the opposition party will wrest control of at least one chamber of Congress from Republicans in the November elections.

In what lobbyists are calling a harbinger of possible upheaval on Capitol Hill, many who make a living influencing government have gone from mostly shunning Democrats to aggressively recruiting them as lobbyists over the past six months or so.

Immigration restrictionists would be better off if the US Senate fell into the hands of Democrats. The Senators of both parties are already so far gone toward treason against the American people on the National Quest that it doesn't matter much which party controls the Senate. But the majority of House Republicans are taking restrictionist positions on immigration because they fear the wrath of their voters. That majority of Republicans (and not a majority of the total House) is what stands in the way of the ruling class's attempt to replace the American citizenry with a new populace of malleable clients to corrupt upper class patrons.

Fredo Arias-King explains how the ruling class in America see a replacement of the white majority with a Hispanic majority as a way to undermine the restraint that citizens have on the governing class.

Of a handful of motivations, one of the main ones (even if unconscious) of many of these legislators can be found in what the U.S. Founding Fathers called "usurpation." Madison, Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and others devised a system and embedded the Constitution with mechanisms to thwart the "natural" tendency of the political class to usurp power—to become a permanent elite lording over pauperized subjects, as was the norm in Europe at the time. However, the Founding Fathers seem to have based the logic of their entire model on the independent character of the American folk. After reviewing the different mechanisms and how they would work in theory, they wrote in the Federalist Papers that in the end, "If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America …"4 With all his emphasis on reason and civic virtue as the basis of a functioning and decentralized democratic polity, Jefferson speculated whether Latin American societies could be governed thus.5

While Democratic legislators we spoke with welcomed the Latino vote, they seemed more interested in those immigrants and their offspring as a tool to increase the role of the government in society and the economy. Several of them tended to see Latin American immigrants and even Latino constituents as both more dependent on and accepting of active government programs and the political class guaranteeing those programs, a point they emphasized more than the voting per se. Moreover, they saw Latinos as more loyal and "dependable" in supporting a patron-client system and in building reliable patronage networks to circumvent the exigencies of political life as devised by the Founding Fathers and expected daily by the average American.

Republican lawmakers we spoke with knew that naturalized Latin American immigrants and their offspring vote mostly for the Democratic Party, but still most of them (all except five) were unambiguously in favor of amnesty and of continued mass immigration (at least from Mexico). This seemed paradoxical, and explaining their motivations was more challenging. However, while acknowledging that they may not now receive their votes, they believed that these immigrants are more malleable than the existing American: That with enough care, convincing, and "teaching," they could be converted, be grateful, and become dependent on them. Republicans seemed to idealize the patron-client relation with Hispanics as much as their Democratic competitors did. Curiously, three out of the five lawmakers that declared their opposition to amnesty and increased immigration (all Republicans), were from border states.

Also curiously, the Republican enthusiasm for increased immigration also was not so much about voting in the end, even with "converted" Latinos. Instead, these legislators seemingly believed that they could weaken the restraining and frustrating straightjacket devised by the Founding Fathers and abetted by American norms. In that idealized "new" United States, political uncertainty, demanding constituents, difficult elections, and accountability in general would "go away" after tinkering with the People, who have given lawmakers their privileges but who, like a Sword of Damocles, can also "unfairly" take them away. Hispanics would acquiesce and assist in the "natural progress" of these legislators to remain in power and increase the scope of that power. In this sense, Republicans and Democrats were similar.

Because of the immigration issue I no longer see the ruling class of America as morally legitimate. They are at war with the character of our nation and seek to change it in ways quite hostile the interests and loyalties of the vast majority of Americans.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2006 August 19 06:35 PM  Immigration Politics


Comments
Stephen said at August 19, 2006 8:38 PM:

Randall said: "I no longer see the ruling class of America as morally legitimate"

Care to provide an objective definition of the people who constitute that class? Just asking because I don't want to be first against the wall when the revolution comes.

From the article you cite it seems to be anyone who stands for elected office. That seems a trifle broad (or maybe too narrow if you take John Bolton's view that the morally illegitimate ones are all those who are on the public payroll because they busy themselves creating aggression to make themselves indispensible - sorry John if I misrepresent you, that's not my intention).

John S Bolton said at August 20, 2006 12:37 AM:

My position is that are always two factions; one which wants to increase the level of aggression in society, and the other, which is resistant to that.
There is serious moral illegitimacy in almost the entire government, in that they expressly disavow loyalty to the net taxpayer of this country, over against the foreigner.
They have fallen below the minimum necessary loyalty to the citizen over against the foreign aggressor within the borders.
Trying to primp their image for pro-diversity, tolerance of terrorism and capacity for hatred against the majority, the administration now stands highly vulnerable to Watergate-type hearings for several years, if Reagan democrats put commitee chairmanships back to the democrats.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©