Will Immigration Destroy the Republican Party? Pt. 2

In which we look at a number of other articles.

Ann Coulter's latest seems to indicate that it just might. Or at least the Bush administration.

Instead of a moratorium on new immigration, I'd settle for a moratorium on the use of the expression "We're a nation of immigrants." Throw in a ban on "Diversity is our strength" and you've got my vote for life.

. . . How about this: It's not fair to want to go out with someone just because that person is attractive and has a good personality because it discriminates against people who are ugly with bad social skills! That's our immigration policy.

Press "1" for English; press "2" for a new president ...

Yes Ann Coulter, queen of the specious argument. And of a lot of other stuff come to think of it. Doesn't sound like she's keen on President Bush just now, does it.

Cal Thomas is similarly displeased, although he tries to take a more serious approach.

Throughout his address, the president kept referring to the immigrants and their rights and desires. What about those of us born in America, or who legally immigrated to this country? Do we have a right to preserve the nation the way it was handed down to us, with our English language, our culture and our loyalty to America first with no agenda other than this country?

. . . This is more about politics and votes. It goes to the nature of who and what we are. Current citizens had better make sure this is not an invasion masquerading as immigration.

At this time I'd like to remind you that it was 10 days ago that Mariachi's Mexican Bar and Grill was burned, vandalized and grafittied with anti-Mexican language. I imagine I'll be reminding us of that often in this immigration debate. I have this crazy idea that there might be a connection between hateful rhetoric and hateful actions.

Larry Elder points out that President Bush's policies have been relatively predictable.

As to the issue of illegal aliens, many conservatives consider Bush a sellout and beholden to corporate interests. Here again, what did Bush supporters expect? Republicans wanted the then-governor of Texas to run for President. Why? Governor Bush unseated a popular incumbent governor with 10 percent and 24 percent of the black and Hispanic vote, respectively. Texans re-elected Bush in 1998, this time with 30 percent black and nearly 50 percent Hispanic support. Did Bush's supporters truly expect him to urge an "enforcement first" policy, without dealing with the status of the eleven-plus million illegal aliens here, or without a temporary guest worker program?

It's an interesting argument. As scary as it is to some of us on the left, President Bush isn't as conservative as some people would like. If Conservatives want someone who is going to criminalize Hispanics, they should vote for someone who is going to do just that.

Alternatively, if Conservatives want someone who is going to set us on the path to Christian Theocracy, they should do that.

Or if Conservatives want someone who is going to dismantle three fourths of the government, they should do that.

Of if Conservatives want someone who is going to focus on creating a good climate for American Corporations, they should do that.

Of course it's different Conservatives who want these different things, and it's hard for a movement to go down more than one path at a time. I find myself imagining the Republicans walking up to a crossroads with three different roads labeled "Dominionism," "Traditional Conservatism," and "Libertarianism," and splitting into three smaller and weaker streams. Very gratifying thought.