A betrayal of calculation.
By Paul J Cella Posted in Immigration — Comments (99) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas.” That, reportedly, is what Karl Rove pronounced recently as a defense of his boss’s immigration policy. Mark Kirkorian answers it well here. Mr. Kirkorian bemoans the fact that it is now necessary “to explain why this is an obscene statement”; I agree with him. The Republican Party, under the leadership of George W. Bush and Karl Rove, has come to believe and teach that some work really is beneath us, that the lawyer or financial analyst really is “somehow better than the parking-lot attendant.” It is difficult to imagine an uglier trend in our politics than this.
Read on.
Karl Rove is not alone in his expression of this trend. We have heard its like many times. It is rather horrifying to see this brazen appeal to class interests; and the horror is only magnified by the denigration of some category of honest work. A rather provocative way to state the problem is that the Republican Party, under its current leadership, is advancing a plutocratic theory of politics: an aristocracy of wealth. But even this does not capture the full ugliness of the thing, for in a true plutocracy, no form of wealth is derided. That a man made his fortune by, let us, “picking tomatoes” or “making beds,” does not bar him from entry into power. But here it is indicated that some occupations are dishonorable by nature, and that even success at them is contemptible.
It is noteworthy to me that this position flips the whole “jobs American won’t do” argument on its head. It’s not that there are jobs Americans won’t do: it’s that there are jobs we shouldn’t, because we are better that. Some are born to be served; and some are born to serve.
This sort of arrogance and elitsim, I submit, positively permeates the immigration enthusiast position among political strategists. There are those who are immigration enthusiasts out of a misplaced idealism, an overconfidence in a culture that has lost its nerve, compounded by a complacency with the sedition in the street and treachery in the administration of our laws. But the idealists have a strong and influential ally in the calculators and sophisters, who do not share their admirable idealism. For this latter faction, I do not hesitate to use words like “betrayal,” “treachery,” and even “treason.” They have betrayed the ideals of their party; and the effect of their machinations is to subvert the ideals which are integral to the American political tradition.
I suspect that the betrayal derives from despair or resignation. These men are realists, by and large: they are not possessed of any illusions about the mettle of American culture; they are well aware that the assimilationist ethic has been overthrown; they have seen the failure of such eminently mild things as removing bilingual education, and have read the writing on the wall. Except this writing is not the doom of God’s judgment, but of Mammon’s. They want to get ahead of the wave of the future; plutocracy, servitude, balkanization, the dissolution of the Republic and the dispossession of our inheritance as Americans.
We may not, in the end, be able to defeat their contrivances; but God help us if we join them. If we are to lose this struggle, let us leave a monument for our descendents that, should it survive the scrubbing of history contemplated by the coming regime (a scrubbing already perceptible in our public schools, in our new myths and legends, in the falsification of history our academics peddle), will teach those who care to know that not everyone was lost to despair and false hopes when the Republic was imperiled.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | Do you believe it? — Comments (16) »
A betrayal of calculation. 99 Comments (0 topical, 99 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
an amoral comment voiced without shame or hesitation. Mark Kirkorian's larger point that Rove's worldview denigrates both the illegal immigrant and the American worker is well taken. It bodes very badly for the future of our Republic because it is widespread among our political elites and rampant in both major political parties.
If anything, Paul, you are way too kind on this issue. Today Human Events has reported Hezbollah has penetrated the United States through our southern border. I can't think of an epithet that is strong enough to describe a policy that allows for such a potential catastrophe only because hard work should be beneath citizens of the United States.
I can't think of an epithet that is strong enough to describe a policy that allows for such a potential catastrophe only because hard work should be beneath citizens of the United States.
Treasonable?
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
The word would have to connote an amoral ambivalence that "treason" doesn't really reflect. Sociopathology as public policy is what this is. Maybe we'll have to coin a term.
"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."
"This is why the president's "willing worker/willing employer" immigration extravaganza is morally wrong — it's not just that it will cost taxpayers untold billions, or that it will beggar our own blue-collar workers, or that it will compromise security, or that it will further dissolve our sovereignty. It would do all that, of course, but most importantly it would change the very nature of our society for the worse, creating whole occupations deemed to be unfit for respectable Americans, for which little brown people have to be imported from abroad. In other words, mass immigration, even now, is moving us toward an unequal, master-servant society."
It's such an asinine statement, and you're right, Paul, it goes straight to the heart of the work ethic in this country and what our "betters" think constitutes "work that Americans won't do."
Well, I'll tell you some of the work that this American *would* do to help build America, if anyone is interested. One of the interesting things I did was use a small chainsaw to help clear land at 7 years old, and another was to come home from middle school and pound nails to build the raised flooring for my dad's IBM mainframe. I've painted houses, I've installed carpet for an entire tri-county high school while I was in high school, I've picked vegetables for my grandmother, I've even put in plumbing. I've replaced the engine in the Tiltmaster truck that our family uses as a delivery vehicle. I've nailed up large swaths of sheetrock and I've spraypainted condominiums. I've pulled 220V three-phase power services through conduit. Most recently I refurbished a two-bedroom apartment that my family rents out, and that work included:
*Cleaning, spackling and painting all the interior walls*, *Installing a new bathroom sink and fixtures*, *Installing new blinds and cleaning the old ones*, *Refurbishing a set of tryptich hand-crank windows*, *Installing a new, to-code water heater, dryer vent, and washer drain system*, *Installing and testing an entire house full of GFCI electrical outlets*, *Running Category 5 network cabling to a new set of dedicated jacks*, etc., etc.
And do you know what my fee for doing all those things was? It was ZERO. Because I own the building and I wanted it to be beautiful for my new tenant. I'm a fourth-generation immigrant to this country, but there is no job that I won't do if it needs to be done.
That's the most elitist and incorrect thing I've ever heard Rove say. I think the office is beginning to wear on him.
Speaking as a progressive, I would hope that we can all agree that there is honor and dignity in any work. The trend of looking down upon "menial" work is a disturbing trend that runs across the political spectrum.
It is truly unfortunate that what should be a straightforward discussion about having controlled, verified immigration, gets wrapped up in what I think are irrelevant side issues (English as official language, the political advantages to be won from shifting demographics, worries of loss of cultural identity...etc)
I also don't thing the things you consider to be irrelevant are irrelevant. I consider all of them to be extremely important, crucial issues:
1) My family was raised by my Grandfather to be American: meaning that almost nobody except for one of my Aunts speaks Polish. English was our official language.
2) The political advantages to be won by shifting demographics are perhaps the single largest area of concern among political scientists today, and certainly among politcians themselves. It's horribly disingenuous of you to claim otherwise.
3) Cultural identity is a little tougher to ascertain in a polyglot America, but that doesn't make it unimportant to try to define it and defend it. I'm absolutely not into "cultural equivalence" or the idea that one culture isn't better than others. Quite the contrary.
OK, maybe secondary to the argument.
To me, the immigration debate is simple, it just gets deliberately cluttered by those with an agenda: secure the borders, and set legal immigration to level we need to keep a robust economy. Why the need to debate "amnesty"...et al?
As to your points:
1) Let the market decide. If McDonalds wants to advertise in Spanish because they think it's good for business, fine. If Burger King doesn't want to advertise in Spanish because they think it's bad for business, fine. Learning and speaking English is key to upward mobility in this country. To those who choose not to, their loss.
2) Of course there are advantages to be won (and lost) in shifting demos. I don't think it right that politicians' position on this issue is dictated by possible demo shifts resulting from immigration. Plus, no lawmaker should be advancing anything with the term "illegal" in it.
3) Defend what? The culture of America is as fluid as the faces of Americans, whatever their background. Every immigrant group that came after the original settlers has been attacked for supposedly lowering/altering/destroying America's culture.
a culture. It has absorbed many things from other cultures, but it is distinctive and immigrant groups have assimilated to it.
The current group of immigrants will assimilate if given time, but if they keep coming in in such vast numbers then there is no need for assimilation.
Then you will have two nations occupying the same space, a recipe for disaster. Just look anywhere around the globe and you can see that.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Re: The current group of immigrants will assimilate if given time, but if they keep coming in in such vast numbers then there is no need for assimilation.
This is the biggest problem, IMO. We have no problem assimilating the folks who come here from overseas. And the (Anglo) Canadians who immigrate to the US are so alike to us in culture that it doesn't matter. But the endless wave of Mexicans continually reinforces itself so that even if the third or fourth generation does assimilate, there is always a vast pool of newer arrivals who have not. Moreover it's very easy for them to maintain their connections at home (unlike the overseas immigrants) and thus all but immunize themselves from assimilation.
But I think you're discounting the fact that there have been immigrant groups throughout our history that have maintained a distinct identity for long periods in America, including keeping their native tongue. (Cajuns, PA Dutch, Chinatowns...) Plus, Hispanic/Latino culture is not monolithic.
American culture is basically whatever we say it is. (Cue Schoolhouse Rock "Great American Melting Pot") However, American principles are clear and concise. The important part is for immigrants in America to believe in and respect our principles.
American principles are clear and concise
Any attempt to articulate them bogs down in heated dispute, and this is within the confines of Red State. I don't like to think of where we'd go if we tried to include the progressive view of things.
Maybe your clear and concise principle is "Dissent is American", but thats not a principle you can ground a country on.
I would think the ideas espoused in the writings/speeches of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Lincoln would be a good place to start.
To me, the less homogenized America becomes, the closer it gets to the ideal, the ultimate meritocracy.
Would you care to try to establish the relationship between merit and heterogeneity which you seem to believe exists?
Would you care to try to make the case that America's ideal is a "meritocracy", whatever that may be? Some cites from the Federalist Papers would be handy. Without intending to, I'm sure, you are proving my point here. First, by presenting a definition of American principles which I disagree with, and second, by presenting as your unifying principle - diversity!
Let me just observe that the whole world can be considered to be united in that odd sense.
Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Lincoln
I'm pretty sure that a great many people in America have little time for one or even both of those gentlemen. In many instances that probably includes you. I doubt you are in agreement with TJ's views on the Supreme Court, for example.
Diversity is not a principle. It is a descriptor of the relative makeup of our society.
Many Americans a likely indeed ignorant of the ideas of Mr. J and L. But the Constitution, which was inspired in part by Jeffersonian thinking, is still the law of this land.
So you do not believe that America is or should be a merit based system?
The relation of merit to heterogenity is: as the importance of traditional qualifiers diminish, the more merit becomes the only available measuring stick in our society.
from the Constitution, or the Federalist Papers, or the writings of Lincoln or TJ to back that up, then no, I don't have any idea of where you are getting this merit based system stuff from. I suppose we can infer something of Jeffersons views on merit from his views on slavery.
as the importance of traditional qualifiers diminish, the more merit becomes the only available measuring stick in our society.
I don't know what you mean, and I'm not sure you know what you mean either. What is "merit" anyway? And who are the people who will do well and who the people who will do poorly under your "measuring stick"?
I'm going to guess in advance that your concept of "merit" is at least as arbitrary as the traditional qualifiers you would like to diminish.
If traditional areas of segmentation become less important, how do you then organize in our society? If not merit, what? I understand that you are saying merit can be arbitrarily and clumsily imposed.
Maybe merit is a narrow term. But would you agree that the right to promote one's talents and abilities to their greatest extend is not a common theme of the DOI and Constitution...?
George Will noted that the more diverse our country becomes, the more likely it spells the death knell for affirmative action. As our society becomes less defined in black and white (literally and figuratively) it becomes much harder to separate out any one certain group.
...that going forward is futile unless my diversi-phile opponent is willing to read George Washington's Farewell Address ("Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections.); Federalist Number II ("Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs"); and Jefferson's Notes on Virginia ("But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?")and tell me, precisely how our allowing the nation to become multicultural and diverse would please the founders.
It's important to note that Jefferson sounded the most clear and convincing alarm against unchecked mass immigration and explained why it would be a threat ("In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass.") It seems to me that Jefferson had concerns about maintaining the culture of a nascent nation, but today there are still those who deny that we actually have one.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
My Newest Blog: Global Tepiding?
Again, every group that has come since the founders has been considered unwanted by those living here. Why now, at this time, is the country to be closed to immigrants?
I suggest reading How the Irish Became White by Noel Ignatiev. All of the same worries of cultural degradation, loss of America's identity, were spoken in the 19th century too.
...immigration has somehow been "constant" in this nation. Nothing could be more misleading and further from the truth, but I guess that's what we get when Americans have been brainwashed into this asinine "nation of immigrants" meme. Last time I checked, neither JFK or Emma Lazarus had attained "founding father" status. But some, probably too many, would exalt them to that position in a blatant act of historical revisionism. The real historical truth is that prior to 1965 there had been as many near-zero net immigration years as there were "immigration spike" years. Since 1970, every year has been an immigration "spike year" and each new year takes us further into uncharted territory that surely would have raised the ire of Washington, Jefferson and Madison.
The numbers and percentages of Irish, or of any other single source immigrant group, never approached in percentage or raw numbers what we have allowed since our immigration policy was made hostage to Johnson's "Great Society." What you're asking me to do is compare apples to watermelons and read the works of an avowed socialist who has advocated the elimination of the white race. While he later qualified those remarks, the stench of what he really wants remains powerful.
Your holding up Noel Ignatiev as your soothsayer does, however, enlighten us clearly as to the source of your odd notions and an intent contrary to what a Conservative would consider our best interest as stewards for future generations.
So, yes, pull up the bridge and replace it with the old version that served us better than this multi-lane, double-decker, one-way monstrosity we've let fester in its place for far too long.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
My Newest Blog: Global Tepiding?
I would assume by your post you are not a fan of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. Is it purely the numbers, or is it a change in composition of the immigrants you believe to be the problem?
No, immigration has not been a constant. It has always been a cycle of high immigration, followed by reaction and limitation, then easement.
Look, the "nation of immigrants" is a tired line that is a lame justification for he allowing and acceptance of illegals. I don't think that legal or illegal immigration can be an unfiltered, unfettered pipe, but I'm not ready to declare "lot full", either. I doubt the "uncharted territory" we are headed toward means Shia law or Texas' succession into Mexico.
I'm not holding up Ignatiev as a soothsayer, I just find his writings on the first large scale immigration of non-Anglo-Saxon Protestants to be instructive.
It has always been a cycle of high immigration, followed by reaction and limitation, then easement.
We are forty years into the current high immigration cycle. We are long overdue at this point for some of that limitation you speak of. But what is being proposed instead is increased/i> immigration.
slash i .
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
I would assume by your post you are not a fan of the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. Is it purely the numbers, or is it a change in composition of the immigrants you believe to be the problem?
Both. Hart-Cellar was a travesty enacted behind a veil of lies and deceit, particularly by John McCain's veinous-nosed best buddy across the aisle. I don't believe that all cultures are equal, nor do I believe that all folkways are compatible with temperate republican democracy. Neither did Washington, Jefferson, Jay, Hamilton or Madison. Considering that we've never had as much as 15% of our population being foreign born and that a lot of strife has occurred when we've eclipsed about 10%, I think we should be informed by this history and act accordingly.
No, immigration has not been a constant. It has always been a cycle of high immigration, followed by reaction and limitation, then easement.
Not exactly. There have been two great periods of very low net immigration: 1790 to 1830 and 1924 to 1970 - 104 out of our 230 years. There have been several short spurt periods of mass-immigration that proved unsettling. Until today there has never been a four-decade period of unabated mass-immigration with relatively low repatriation (high-net). Thus, we live amidst a radical change that may well threaten our children's future and the republic itself. Those who casually dismiss such concerns probably don't believe that history is a good teacher. They take comfort in "knowing" we don't really have a culture and that such things are trivial anyway. Such is the mantra of the insipidly pop-culturalized.
I beg to differ.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
My Newest Blog: Global Tepiding?
It's funny how the writing of history never turns out how you think it will. If you look at history text books from even 15 years ago, Hart-Cellar is literally not even a footnote. Call me naive, but I think the quotes from politicians at the time about the (supposed) limited reach of this bill were genuine, although some might feel such dismissals had a more sinister goal of salving any potential worries.
So what how do we determine what the ideal composition is? Is Albania better than Peru?
You use the term unsettling. Why not transformative? Given our history, how can we say now, at this moment, "the bar is closed, go home".
...all the Orwellian gyrations some go through to "prove" that "diversity is our strength," this nation has not yet proved capable of truly assimilating any significant numbers of people from cultures outside its original stock sources. Anyone can point out the exception, as the MSM is so fond of doing. But logically, the exception does not prove the rule and when presented as if it does only makes the case for the contrary even stronger.
Similarly, anyone can point out what seems to be the case with this or that group today, but we have not had a hot war since we jiggered with the formula via Hart-Cellar and cannot be sure where people's deepest loyalties lay until they are truly tested. I have my reservations about our being able to stave off rapid and violent balkanization already, if push ever truly comes to shove. Mexico's stated intent on keeping its bloodlines here in America fully Mexican, and its actions follow suit. Other nations are doing the same.
Conservatism has a rather dim view of human nature, human capabilities and human history when it comes to these things: Those most likely to truly join us, and not remain diaspora, would be those with whom we have a long history of shared folkways, experiences, royal marriages and border wars. In short, our easiest assimilants are those from Western Civilization.
Please understand that when I write of Conservatism, I do not write of it as political ideology; rather, I see it as the intellectual starting point for thinking about the world around us. The Conservative reads John Jay...
This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.
...then intellectually takes his words to be prescriptive, prudent and imbued with a wise sort of prejudice that needs to taken very seriously.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
My Newest Blog: Global Tepiding?
the less homogenized America becomes, the closer it gets to the ideal, the ultimate meritocracy.
New York and Los Angles are about as "less homogenized" as it is possible to get. Would you claim that they are meritocractic in some sense? That they embody the American ideal in its highest form? If so, that would be odd, since a great many of the people living there are indifferent or even hostile to America.
New York and Los Angles are also much like the other polyglot cities around the world. Are London and Berlin also closer to the ideal Americanised meritocracy, closer than, say, Peroia?
LA is not nearly as diverse as NYC. LA has one fairly dominant minority ethnic group. NYC has a multitude of ethnicities, religions, cultures... so much so that none can really dominate.
I can't say many in NYC are hostile to America. More like they are hostile to anything that moves. As for those that are hostile, get out. If you do not respect the rule of law this country is founded on, go somewhere else. It's like spending $200 to go to a concert just to boo the performer. Don't bother. In London, those looking to institute Shia law, they are in the wrong place.
And yes, I think NYC is the ultimate meritocracy. Everyone is a capitalist. When 50% of your income is devoted just to housing, you better be trying to climb the latter.
Considering the following passage, what do you think would be Mr. Lincoln's opinion of an entire immigration policy constructed upon disrespect for our laws?
Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor; -- let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap -- et it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; -- let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
...less ambiguous! ;)
I can't believe we're actually having to argue the primacy of enforcing our laws. The nuts and bolts of this republic appear to be a bit loose. I fear as parts fall off people may mistake it for pure democracy and there will be too few left able to explain the difference between our ancestors' works and those of the French Revolution.
If that happens, we're cooked.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
My Newest Blog: Global Tepiding?
I don't think anyone should be in favor of illegal immigration because:
1) It's illegal.
2) The free rider problem. (Some might have a less kind definition.) Since most illegals work under the table, they are not contributing towards the public services that we all consume.
What I reject is the notion that we will lose our cultural identity. Our cultural identity is whatever we say it is.
I don't understand a drawbridge mentality that says "Sorry, seating occupancy for 300 million, we're full."
How you square these statements -- "What I reject is the notion that we will lose our cultural identity" and "our cultural identity is whatever we say it is" -- with agreement with Lincoln's argument is a tangle for a quintessential sophist (say Thrasymachus, who has comment downthread) to unwind.
What if the new "cultural identity" which is, let us say, now ours because "cultural identity is whatever we say it is" embraces the internment of illegals? That's okay, huh, since choice is our master?
_____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Our cultural identity is whatever we say it is.
Because its clear to me, and should be clear to you, that a certain "we" is saying our cultural identity is one thing, and another "we" (which includes you) is saying it is something else.
And as a seperate problem, the cultural identity which your "we" seeks is not a cultural identity at all, but the absence of one, as evidenced by your own remarks. Liberalism is the negation of identity.
How does America "lose" it's cultural identity, when it's culture is so fluid it is impossible to grab? Saying that America's cultural identity is essentially they sum culture of the 300M+ people presently here, how does that lead to an absense of identity? Saying it is undefinable in not the same as saying it does not exist.
Saying it is undefinable i[s] not the same as saying it does not exist.
Can you mention for me several other things which are undefinable, but which are agreed to exist all the same?
it's culture is so fluid it is impossible to grab?
You are stuck in an endless loop here. It is your contention that American culture is fluid, unknowable, undefinable. Constant repetition of that contention does not make it either more true or more logical. A culture, an identity, is knowable and definable by definition. Otherwise how can people identify with it?
Saying that America's cultural identity is essentially they sum culture of the 300M+ people presently here, how does that lead to an absense of identity?
Saying that Europes cultural identity is essentially the sum culture of the 300M+ people presently there, how does that lead to an absense of identity? Or, more accurately, how does that lead to to creation of identity? You can substitute Asia or the world for Europe, it works the same.
The mere fact that X number of people live within an area bounded by certain coordinates on a map does not neccessarily mean that they share an identity or a culture. I'm not sure why I need to state the obvious like this, but it seems to be neccessary.
The mere fact that X number of people live within an area bounded by certain coordinates on a map does not neccessarily mean that they share an identity or a culture.
Of course not. But those X people collectively make up our culture, whether it is shared between them or not. My point is this: how can we worry about losing our cultural identity through immigration, when our culture itself is SO transient and adaptable? If we closed the borders now in perpetuity going forward, in 20 years we would still not be living in the country we live in now.
The farther we move from that notion, the closer we come to the idea that the lawyer is somehow better than the parking-lot attendant, undercutting the very foundation of republican government.
Sad to say, this notion is becoming more and more widespread in America, and in the Republican Party. I've seen several commenters here expressing essentially this view, and acting stunned when called out on it. There was one commenter not long ago who could not contain his contempt for forty year old men who sold shoes for a living. It may well be that this party will require a long time wandering in the desert to learn a little humility. And, hopefully, to learn what free-market ecomomics is actually about.
There's absolutely no place for this in the Republican Party; at least not the Republican Party that I want to be a part of. I forgot to mention that I also worked for United Parcel Service in my sophomore year of college, on the "preload" shift that began at 3 a.m. each day, correcting package addresses so that people would get their deliveries on time. I was also a trained OSHA HAZMAT responder at the facility (it's easier than you think).
That was the only job I've done where I was a Union member, and I didn't enjoy it very much. Way too many conflicting allegiances and pressures. But the job itself was satisfying, and I did good work there.
I'd like to see the motto of the Republican Party become something like this: "There is no job in this country that Republicans can't do better."
Re: Sad to say, this notion is becoming more and more widespread in America
Several years ago I stopped to visit an old college friend who has done quite well for himself (he's a lawyer). I showed him pictures of my house and bragged about the landscaping and garden which I had done on my own, since gardening is a family hobby. You would have thought I was rhapsodizing about the joys of changing diapers or something. He was rather bewildered and cut me off with "We have a gardner who does all our work!"
is about over, if that is what her really thinks and is an accurate quote.
I hope both are incorrect.
If not, it may explain some of the non-sensical postions the WH ahs taken regarding the borders.
Would have rejected that line of thinking completely.
We are a "collection of souls." Unfortunately, the GOP is viewed as a "collection of elites."
"Brevity is the soul of wit."
is also coupled with the underlying idea that if these imported peoples were not there to drive down wages, then the American worker might actually be able to support himself at one of these jobs that Mr. Rove believes are beneath us. The thing that upsets me the most about illegal (or relaxed levels) of immigration is that it completely prevents hard working Americans to earn a decent wage and support their families.
for sure, but the article underlying it makes the mistake of lumping all people who support any and all forms of immigration reform into the same camp, and I am not sure this OP is much better. Certainly, there are a great many people who want to secure the border, punish employers (harshly) for hiring illegals, and accurately manage the flow of immigration into the country, while yet supporting some reasonable solution to the immigrants who are already here. The genesis of the desire for that reasonable solution need not have anything to do with not wanting to pick tomatoes or make beds, and the exposed elitism of Rove should not be imparted to everyone who disagrees with the Immigration Reform Caucus.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
In fact, his differentiation was the first thing I noticed:
There are those who are immigration enthusiasts out of a misplaced idealism, an overconfidence in a culture that has lost its nerve, compounded by a complacency with the sedition in the street and treachery in the administration of our laws. But the idealists have a strong and influential ally in the calculators and sophisters, who do not share their admirable idealism.
You may disagree with Paul's analysis of underlying motivation, but I would note that he's hardly conflating the two camps.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
Between people like Rove who actively want Americans to avoid tomato-picking and those who, while favoring closed/firmer borders, also support a pragmatic and humanitarian solution to the immigrants who are already here - and I don't think that it's correct to say that the two camps are shooting at the same target from different initial locations, either. And I don't think that it's any secret that I'm talking about Brownback here, who has consistently voted for every barrier fortification, every increase of human border patrols, and every increased sanction for employers that has come down the pipe. There is a mile of difference between someone like him (and I) and Rove, both in terms of their "idealism" and in terms of what their preferred policy would accomplish.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
But the target of my post of the Rovian faction; and since the quotation comes from the leading strategist of the GOP, I feel that I am authorized to embrace a wider group with my indictment.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Rove is a strategist for a guy who's not running for election, ever again - and, as I'm sure you've noticed - isn't having a great deal of success pushing much of anything through Congress these days.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
The humanitarian solution would be to give these illegals an amnesty, meaning we will not throw them in jail, if they leave and return to their country of origin.
...and a sandwich and a Coke. A picnic lunch even.
We already went down the path of accommodation in 1986, which was made necessary by the guilt impressed upon us in 1965. At some point, the rule of law has to start meaning something again or we'll find ourselves back here with an even worse problem in 20 years and a fractured culture incapable of resolving anything.
I have to note that had there not been the restrictions of 1924, this all probably would have happened far sooner. Or, perhaps, we'd be speaking German and Japanese today because we would have balkanized ourselves so well prior to WWII that diasporization would have paralyzed us in 1941; I don't see how we possibly could have overcome the intransigence of large, unassimilated masses of Germans and Italians when the time for waging war against their homelands was upon us. Fortunately, we had more than a generation to assimilate what became a shrinking contingent (thanks to repatriation) of foreign-born who weren't historically or sociologically far removed from us in demeanor.
Here's the serious point: It's likely we're talking about 20 million people or more this time. "Accommodating" such a mass eventually equates to "family reunification" and a five-or-more-fold additional increase in immigrants. How a nation stays a nation is beyond me when more than one in four holds no familial attachments and none of the corresponding stewardship obligations shared by the original core of their hosts' ancestry. I don't need to go all the way down to the essential artifacts of who we are, language and culture, to make the case against making weak-kneed accomodations today. To anyone who is being honest about the numbers we're talking about, they must recognize that the core of who we are is put at risk by unceasing mass-immigration unprecedented in number beyond any reasonable comparison to the past.
I think Jefferson had just this sort of scenario in mind when he wrote Query 8 of Notes on Virginia. It is very much in line with what I learned from my family as a child, and fits cleanly with the things I learned to value as a member of the Children of the American Revolution.
Maybe it's my oddball nature, being only the fifth generation removed from George Washington's Masonic Lodge Brother and next door neighbor, that gives me a different viewpoint on all of this. I know that in all the generations prior to mine, the importance of heritage was passed on. And it was expected. Sadly, somehow we've lost part of that. I don't think we'd be conflicted at all about what to do if we had kept it.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
My Newest Blog: Global Tepiding?
the exposed elitism of Rove should not be imparted to everyone who disagrees with the Immigration Reform Caucus.
I didn't impart that elitism to everyone who disagrees with the Reform Caucus. For instance:
There are those who are immigration enthusiasts out of a misplaced idealism, an overconfidence in a culture that has lost its nerve, compounded by a complacency with the sedition in the street and treachery in the administration of our laws. But the idealists have a strong and influential ally in the calculators and sophisters, who do not share their admirable idealism.
The problem I have with those who, in addition to serious enforcement, "support some reasonable solution to the immigrants who are already here" is that those who move our policy on immigration have not shown much willingness to make any real concessions on enforcement. I would be happy to make an alliance with those in the Leon Wolf camp, were it not for the settled distrust I have for their allies, as exemplfied by Mr. Rove here.
_________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
then this is indeed a small-minded thing for Rove to say.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Just got a job as a dishwasher/busser at a local restaurant. Hopefully he'll survive this un-American experience to become a real American.
The longer we dwell on our misfortunes the greater is their power to harm us - Voltaire
...my mom makes beds in a hospital, my uncle works in contruction, and my dad cleans up after fires & water damage (hard, filty work). Just regular Americans doing work that "American's won't do".
They all have to compete against illegal workers who keep wages artificially low. THIS is the truth about the debate. It has nothing to do with not having enough workers or Americans being to snobby to take manual labor jobs. After all, if that were true, then how did we ever get along before 12+ million illegals came across the border?
"...how did we ever get along before 12+ million illegals came across the border?"
We didn't abort them all! A great example of US productivity. We replaced 45 million young, primarily poor and minority workers with a mere 12 to 20 million extra migrant workers.
At the risk of raising all of your ire, let say that I would bet large sums that everyone of you agree with Rove to this extent: you might be satisfied that your teenager took a job of making beds and/or picking tomatoes, but you will be very, very, not just very, disappointed if they decide to make a career of it (scottbomb).
Furthermore, kowalski, your statement that you did it for free is specious, at the very best. You did none of these things for free. You did every single task because you wanted to maximize your investment and get the best return possible in renting your property. I'm guessing you are a capitalist, after all. If you did not own the building, how many of those things would you do for minimum wage, forget about free? if you had other options, not many, I would wager.
It looks like most of the posters here seem to think that Rove was denigrating hard work. Not sure how you read that into the comment. He said, "I do not not want my 17 year old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds...". If you disagree with that statement, i.e., you want your son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds...", by all means, tell us all what the poor kid did that made you so committed to his failure. We, as in almost all Americans, have higher hopes and dreams for our children. Or at least, I do. So do the second generation immigrants from where every the the world they are from.
Incidentally, this is not the same issue as border security. I am well aware of that. It is also not paying $5 a head for lettuce, or doubling the cost of hotel rooms because labor costs have driven up those prices. Perhaps there is a middle ground that provides security and keeps lettuce affordable.
At the risk of raising all of your ire, let say that I would bet large sums that everyone of you agree with Rove to this extent: you might be satisfied that your teenager took a job of making beds and/or picking tomatoes, but you will be very, very, not just very, disappointed if they decide to make a career of it (scottbomb).
That's absolutely not true. Nobody in my family has ever preordained anything for me except that I do my best at whatever it was I decided to do. My grandfather started off in life as a pig farmer. I have members of my family who have done everything from teaching (more than 30+ years) to dentistry to repairing automobile engines, and the only thing we've ever done is to say: "do your best at what you decide to do."
You can make a mint in this country as a carpet cleaner if you really want to. I have a friend from high school who left New Jersey for Florida with virtually no money and within 5 years was a millionaire because he buckled down and ran a fantastic carpet-cleaning business that catered especially to Florida's retirees. When I was in high school doing the carpet-laying job I told you about I was actively recruited by the President of the company to stay on in the job -- I would have laid carpet for ten years, sure, but it wasn't so bad. He's also a multimillionaire (not a member of my family, though, sadly.)
And if you'd like to talk about the biggest Capitalist in my family, I can tell you that he's a Democrat. He's worth more than the rest of us combined. But aside from that, I absolutely did do that work for zero cost: I paid for the materials, I bought the machinery and supplies, and I knew how to do the work to improve the piece of property that I own. Would you have rather that I called in the State to do it?
Head to Florida with a lawn mower and some work ethic and you'll make much money in landscaping, especially if you actually show up when promised.
The notion that one's work can make you superior is arrogant as hell.
"There but for the grace of God go I" is a wise phrase indeed.
"That I did it for free" is accurate at the very least. First of all, in order to rent the apartment for the monthly fee I charge, I *had* to do that work. Secondly, I *needed* to do that work to bring it up to code. I could have paid an out-of-pocket expense of about $5,000 to do it, or I could have done it myself.
So I used my labor to enhance my own capital. How's that for slick?
One other thing: I did that labor to improve that apartment with absolutely no guarantees that I would ever see a return on my investment. In fact, if the tenant turns out to be a lemon and punches holes in the walls or leaves the burners on the stove lit, all of that investment will have been for nothing. You can do credit checks, you can meet with the prospective tenant, but you can never really know whether or not they'll wreck the place one night by leaving the sink's drain plugged and the water on, spilling thousands of gallons of water onto the floor and destroying the floor trusses. See: Insurance companies.
Those are the risks you take as a landlord. You have certain rights and certain obligations, but you also take big risks to make very modest gains, in most cases.
What do you think lettuce costs in countries outside America, which do not have an army of migrant and/or illegal workers to pick it? Do you know?
What do you think is the cost of a hotel room in New York, compared to London? Do you think it is cheaper, due to all the "cheap labor" in America? Hint; it is not.
Perhaps there is a middle ground that provides security and keeps lettuce affordable.
Setting aside the fiction that the US actually has cheap lettuce, what is the obsession that certain people have with its cost? Gasoline I can see, but lettuce? It is remarkable to me that people can, with a straight face, discuss the neccessary trade offs between security and the price of lettuce, as if it was some vital strategic neccessity.
As far as the "minimum wage" is concerned, try to find me a contractor in Massachusetts that employs minimum wage workers (except on the sly). Just to get the inspection permits to build a room in a house here costs $200 dollars or more. You don't just go and hire people off the street like they do in Chicago, you know. In fact, I'd submit to you that Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago, perhaps the biggest Democrat in America, is probably the largest employer of illegal immigrants working at substandard wages in this country. But nobody talks about that, because he's a (D) and the flowers sure look nice on Lake Shore Drive.
Yes, it is true, I will suffer some slight disappointment if my children don't get rich and live long happy lives, but such are the vagaries of chance and choice.
So long as they are happy with the work they choose to do, it doesn't matter what career they choose.
That is the way I was raised. That is the way my parents were both raised (one grew up on a farm and the other the son of a civilian contractor for the government doing carpentry work). And that is also the way my grandparents were all raised.
SO you are quite wrong in saying:
"you might be satisfied that your teenager took a job of making beds and/or picking tomatoes, but you will be very, very, not just very, disappointed if they decide to make a career of it"
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
Re: He said, "I do not not want my 17 year old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds...". If you disagree with that statement, i.e., you want your son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds...", by all means, tell us all what the poor kid did that made you so committed to his failure
You know, this is almost an argument for national service or a draft (No, I am not advocating those). I rather think young people (and even most not-so-young people) would better off if they did have to do at least some manual work. As I noted above, I do my own gardening, which is hard and dirty and sweaty work (especially now that I live in Florida). But I derive some pride and satisfaction from admiring roses and eating tomatoes that I grew. I have a great deal of disdain for people who will not at least push a lawn mower on Saturdays, assuming of course they are not physically limited in some way and so cannot. I would recommend to any parent, no matter how well off, that they should send their child out into the minimum wage job market for a while at least and let them know what it's like to wash dishes, flip burgers or clean rooms. They'll be better for it.
Working for a moving company is also a good idea. Especially since it helps them learn how to pack and move their own [stuff] i preparation for turning 18.
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
in a hole:
ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove explained the Bush Administration's guest worker program and immigration policy at a luncheon Thursday by saying, "I don't want my 17-year-old son to have to pick tomatoes or make beds in Las Vegas."
The statement appeared on The Corner, National Review's blog, and has been gaining steam ever since.
White House Deputy Press Secretary Dana Perino told ABC News that the White House does not deny that Rove made the remark but claims it has been taken out of context.
Rove was speaking at a Republican women's luncheon and was talking about the President's immigration policy and the need for a system where willing workers get paired with willing employers, Perino said.
Rove talked about how there are so many vacant jobs in this country and how many of them are in low-skill, low-wage sectors of the economy.
Rove was not insulting those people in those jobs, the White House explained, he was, according to Perino, saying that every parent wants their child to have a high-skilled, high-wage job.(Obviously even 17-year-olds. Riiight).
She said Rove addressed the need for a program that helps immigrants be able to come to America and work legally because they have dreams and goals.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/02/white_house_red.html
Well, that settles it.
Quit digging, Karl. And do the Republican Party and perhaps the man you serve a favor and either apologize or resign.
...not all people are CAPABLE of being good scientists or lawyers. Not all people are CAPABLE of being good writers or designers or artists or artisans. Not all people are CAPABLE of being good mechanics. Not all people are CAPABLE of being good CEOs to fortune 500 companies.
As well, not all people are WILLING to drive garbage trucks. Not all people are WILLING to clean houses. Not all people are WILLING to pick lettuce. Not all people are WILLING to slaughter chickens.
There's something important for everybody to do and whatever work is being done should be respected, and whoever is doing the work should be appreciated and accepted and given the opportunity to rise above his station in life through Grace, education and personal effort.
While Karl Rove is speaking truthfully, in that like the rest of us he wants the best life for his kids, the all-too-human quality of arrogance and sense of attainment and superiority is showing through. Like the rest of us he needs to show more humility and equanimity, and that's something I'm sure God'll take note of.
We're all evolving in time and space - we're not all on the same rung of the ladder, we're not all at equal stations in life, we don't all have the opportunity (as yet) to rise above certain conditions.
Still, the socialists want to force us into a pretend equalness by homogenizing the greatest and the least among us and churning out a meek, bland, neutralized worker bee type of human, and a society where a president and a strawberry picker are equal. Well, in God's eyes, they are. But we're not Him and I'm sorry to say this but I think you're not being realistic about human behavior.
We are not divine, yet the most Godless among us seek to make us human gods using the force of hate-crime police and by criminalizing our words and thoughts.
It would be insane to take someone out of a mud hut in the Congo and hold him to a high standard of civilized behavior, but the socialists and diversity crowd would have us do exactly that.
Nobody is perfect and what Karl Rove is being castigated for is a trait in all of us. So before we complain about the mote in his eye, we need to remove the log in ours.
Can I just ask, are you a lefty troll? Because you're castigating Karl Rove so fiercely and I wonder on whose behalf you're doing that? I'm sorry if I don't understand you correctly, but it seems like you protest way too much about that remark of his, which, while maybe tactless, was utterly true.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it would never have to be ultilized except as a last resort." Thomas Jefferson
I want my children to work as teens. Whether that is agricultural or clerical work or whatever doesn't matter.
To call Rove's statement "tactless" is quite an understatement. It is an insult and slap at those who, as you point out, may be unable to do other type work in their post-teen years. And earlier in your own post, you admitted this shows arrogance and worse on the part of Rove.
And, no, I'm not a lefty troll, and further believe Rove deserves much worse castigation than he will receive on this blog. Rove should receive it in the Oval Office shortly before he apologizes or, as his recent behavior and record should dictate, leaves the White House so the president and more importantly the country would be better served.
SpanishIrish, I'm new at posting. If it appeared that I was replying to you, I wasn't. I was replying to Paul Cella's post at the very top of this thread.
The lefty troll question at the end was me being curious about him for going after Karl Rove.
Like you, I want my grandkids to works as teens - in a field if that's all they can find due to the minimum wage hike.
My point was some work is considered menial and below the standards someone may hold for himself; that doesn't mean it isn't honorable work for the somebody who has to do it. Rove was tactless, not criminally liable, not a moral leper, for his remark. That's all I'm saying.
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it would never have to be ultilized except as a last resort." Thomas Jefferson
I have a hard time telling what are replies here at times myself, so sorry for the confusion on my part.
Paul certainly isn't a lefty troll, and I just read a Mickey Kaus column that indicates Karl Rove has made similar statements about hard labor in the past. I'm sorry I didn't copy the link.
"Now frankly," Rove said during a riff on the temporary worker part of President Bush's immigration reform plan, "I don't want my kid digging ditches. I don't want my kid slinging tar. But I know somebody's got to do it. And we ought to have a system that allows people who want to come here to work to do jobs for which Americans are not lining up."
You don't have to be a lefty troll to dislike Karl Rove. You just need to be concerned for the future of the Republican party.
Rove was tactless, not criminally liable, not a moral leper, for his remark. That's all I'm saying.
No, I'd say "moral leper" is closer to the mark.
Re: Re: Nobody is perfect and what Karl Rove is being castigated for is a trait in all of us.
The day I stick my nose up and proclaim that honest but manual work is beneath me I hope the Lord takes away my cushy job and sends me to dig ditches. And if seeing the value in even humble work brands me a socialist then maybe I should finally get around to reading Das Kapital after all.
Your arguments contradict each other: "Karl Rove is being castigated for is a trait in all of us" -- presumably a bad, and yet what he said is "utterly true."
you're castigating Karl Rove so fiercely and I wonder on whose behalf you're doing that?
On behalf of myself and those who agree with me, which is in my view a sizeable majority of the country.
You mention God several times, so I would take a moment to point out that the notion that manual labor is dishonorable is a deeply unchristian one.
____________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Democrat's used to want Rove out and now I a conservative want this elitest (I cannot write what I am thinking) out. I cannot believe how this administration has let me down with regards to illegal immigration. I am yet again reminded that the political class really does not care about the people and how they only think in terms of themselves and their power and how unfortunate it is that we have allowed that to happen.
Peace through superior fire power:)
I worked at a fast food restaurant.
I am of the opinion that every teenager should have to work some kind of icky, physical, service industry oriented job. You learn a lot about life, people, hard work, and humility.
Or more likely, the quote was taken out of context. On the other hand, it does explain the horrid Bush immigration position.
Here is the link to the audio at Illinipundit, (I think, but I'm having a browser conflict with it).
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
Since when did being a Conservative require committing oneself to unbridled egalitarianism? Hasn't that always been the province of the left? I'm sorry for the blatant political incorrectness, but I fail to concede that digging ditches is morally equivalent to a job that requires and encourages the use and development of one's mind.
Certainly not everyone can write plays like Shakespeare, lead like Churchill, or philosophize like Socrates. And perhaps society needs its ditch diggers and garbage men more than it needs it playwrights and philosophers, though I would maintain a fully human society needs all these men. But do these facts imply that Shakespeare, Socrates, and Churchill are no better than your average garbage man, provided said garbage man is a nice-enough, God-fearing fellow? Are we really prepared to concede this?
I believe objective achievement matters a great deal, and a certain amount of pride in one's abilities, if it reflects objective facts, can actually spur this achievement. Furthermore as a conservative I am disgusted by any moral system that does not call upon men to nuture their highest faculties. Perhaps a brief spell of menial labor can instill virtues in a developing child, but any parent that would encourage the next Shakespeare or Socrates to dig ditches as a permanent career would be gravely remiss.
I think both immigrants and natives who desire to give their children a better life implicitly grasp much of this.
"But do these facts imply that Shakespeare, Socrates, and Churchill are no better than your average garbage man, provided said garbage man is a nice-enough, God-fearing fellow? Are we really prepared to concede this?"
How are they any better? Can they dig ditches as well as the fellow you are saying is inferior to them? More importantly, do they Want to dig ditches? Do they enjoy that work?
There is nothing that makes one job or another morally superior to another. It is what one Does with that job that matters. If one is to be a ditch digger, then be the best bloody ditch digger one can be. If one is to be a playwrite...
Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:
Jesus Christ and the American G. I.
One died for your soul; the other for your freedom.
I fail to concede that digging ditches is morally equivalent to a job that requires and encourages the use and development of one's mind.
Well, I'll go even farther than that: digging ditches is morally superior to most jobs that "require and encourage" the use of the mind. The most honorable use of the mind is during leisure, not strictly in the service of gainful employment; and while there are certainly some occupations that make honorable use of the mind, there are also many that do not.
But do these facts imply that Shakespeare, Socrates, and Churchill are no better than your average garbage man, provided said garbage man is a nice-enough, God-fearing fellow?
Yes. Very emphatically yes. I have no use for that godless conservatism which denies the inherent dignity of all men. That we celebrate greatness in men does not imply that we judge them "better" men. It is quite possible that the quiet unassuming garbage man is a better man that the great leader or philosopher.
No less a Conservative than Wm. F. Buckley gave us the famous line that he would rather be ruled by the first thousand names in the Boston phonebook than the faculty of Harvard.
I am disgusted by any moral system that does not call upon men to nuture their highest faculties.
I am too: mine is no such system. But the highest faculties of some men may be in some sort of labor. Well for them.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Since when did being a Conservative require committing oneself to unbridled egalitarianism? Hasn't that always been the province of the left? I'm sorry for the blatant political incorrectness, but I fail to concede that digging ditches is morally equivalent to a job that requires and encourages the use and development of one's mind.
Nice straw man, there: "unbridled egalitarianism" of the type pursued by the left is not what we're talking about. Their version of egalitarianism is for reward not to be conditioned on position and accomplishment. Rather, this discussion is of a rather specific principle, that no job should be beneath the dignity of any of us.
To answer your question, that principle became conservative on March 5, 1789, when the government outlined in our Constitution became operational, thus validating the Constitution, Declaration, and related documents as the status quo. Conservatives are prone to that kind of thing.
Certainly not everyone can write plays like Shakespeare, lead like Churchill, or philosophize like Socrates.
On that, we can all agree :-).
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
How do you know Rove even said this? The only evidence provided by your comment is that an anonymous Congressman's wife says he did. In What context was comment allegedly made? Before you lynch one of the best political operatives on our side dont you think you should have more information? I do.
it is in keeping with Rove and Bush's apparent views on immigration.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
it's the Atlanta-Journal Constitition. But I'm sure you have an excuse to cover every contingency.
I suppose "If it's on the Atlanta-Journal Constitition, it must be true" works equally well.
with the employers of illegals that is going to take the Republican party right off the end of the pier.
Is a good post, sir.