April 7, 2014

GOP savior Jeb Bush shows yet again why the phrase “GOP savior Jeb Bush” is plain silly

Reuters, “Jeb Bush says illegal immigration often ‘an act of love'”:

Jeb Bush, a potential Republican presidential candidate in 2016, said on Sunday that illegal immigrants who come to the United States to provide for their families are not committing a felony but an “act of love.”

In comments at odds with the views of many in his party, Bush, the son of the 41st president and brother of the 43rd, said of the divisive immigration issue: “I think we need to kind of get beyond the harsh political rhetoric to a better place.

“I’m going to say this and it will be on tape and so be it,” Bush said in an interview with Fox News host Shannon Bream in an event at the Texas presidential library of his father, George H.W. Bush.

“The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally … and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work, to be able to provide for their family, yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony.

“It’s an act of love, it’s an act of commitment to your family.

Bush, 61, added: “I honestly think that that is a different kind of crime. There should be a price paid, but it shouldn’t rile people up that people are actually coming to this country to provide for their families.”

No.  Better to rile up the base, which believes in our country’s inherent sovereignty, in the government’s duty to uphold laws its own lawmakers have passed, and who are tired of either having to foot the bill for the increasing number of benefits being claimed by low skill workers, or compete for jobs against illegal immigrants in an environment that has seen 10 million workers simply disappear from the work force over the past 5 years.  Right, Jeb?

After all, you’re compassionate, whereas  all the nativist garbage you have determined need a big government (with you at its helm, presumably, in a best-case scenario) to run their lives for them are not — so why shouldn’t you have a say in what kind of lawbreaking is “different kind of crime”?

Jim Geraghty weighs in:

What [Bush is] saying is true in some cases… and not true in other cases. Sure, some illegal immigrants come here, hoping to make money to provide for their families. But some don’t. I had to hunt to find a decent survey of illegal immigrants, asking why they came to the United States. A not-reassuring conclusion:

Ryo found that while cost-benefit calculations such as perceptions of job availability in Mexico and dangers of crossing the border do play a significant role in Mexicans’ decisions about whether to enter the US illegally, non-economic factors matter as well.

“For example, perceptions about the legitimacy of US legal authority, the morality of violating US immigration laws, and social norms on illegal border crossings are significantly related to people’s intentions to migrate illegally,” she says…

She also found that the odds of intending to migrate illegally were more than doubled for individuals who believed that Mexicans have a right to be in the United States without the US government’s permission.

Interestingly, the vast majority — 78 percent — of people says it is not okay to disobey the law when one disagreed with it. However, 55 percent says that disobeying the law is sometimes justified.

In short, a significant number of Mexicans do not believe that the United States has the moral or legal authority to keep them out. Their concept of the border is fundamentally different from how it is defined under our laws.

Back to Jeb’s “act of love” comment — you know what that sounds like? Flash back about two-and-a-half years, to another governor who was considered a strong contender for the Republican presidential nomination: “If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no other reason than they’ve been brought there by no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart.”

Jeb’s going to have to be very careful on this, because Perry’s comment was one of the first major missteps of a doomed campaign. A Republican frontrunner cannot echo the narrative of the Democrat-Media Complex, suggesting that opposition to illegal immigration is driven by callous, selfish, xenophobic white hicks who are afraid of excessively spicy salsa.

Generally speaking, Geraghty is right:  “A Republican frontrunner cannot echo the narrative of the Democrat-Media Complex.”  But that presumes Bush is in some way a Republican front runner, when in fact the base is very much against his ascendency, and will likely fight his attempts to allow the establicans install him as the “only viable candidate.” This mindset is I’m afraid part of the problem with the trajectory of our party.  I don’t think Geraghty is attempting to create reality here; rather, I think its a reflection of a reality believed by those who are too close to the centers of power and who don’t have a full idea yet of just how alienated the base already feels.

He continues:

“It’s an act of love”? Okay. Judges and juries are allowed to consider motive when a person is accused of a crime and, once convicted, allowed to consider motive when sentencing. But a noble motive doesn’t invalidate the crime. If you shoplift and say you’re just trying to provide for your family, the store may still press charges. If you rob a bank and say you wanted to give some of the money to charity, you don’t get off the hook.

I’m among those who conclude that a safer, better America does not necessarily require the deportation of every single Manuel the Busboy who entered the country illegally. Obviously, everyone who’s entered the country and committed additional crimes needs to get tossed out ASAP; anyone who wants to stay has to pay some sort of significant penalty – fines, national service, etc.

But it’s far from a nutty perspective to think, and contend, that everybody who entered illegally should be deported – i.e., this country should enforce its laws as they’re written.

I understand why Democrats and progressives would insist that every immigration restrictionist and anti-amnesty type is driven by racism and xenophobia; they’re trying to discourage anyone from ever expressing that viewpoint in public. But why would a Rick Perry or Jeb Bush make comments that concur with that demonization of their opponents?

It’s a conclusion that makes me think Jim has almost gotten it, but yet he simply won’t allow himself to take that final step in his thinking, which would be this:  if you understand why Democrats and progressives use the tactics they do, then you already understand exactly why big government Republican establishment types, themselves part of a ruling elite who in no way any longer represents constitutionalism or limited government (see Bush on Common Core, eg.), adopt similar tactics to demonize their opponents.  Or even more to the point, why their “opponents” so often today mirror those of the Democrats.

It’s because the difference between a progressive statist and a Republican statist has everything to do with degree and not much at all to do with competing principles.

We are a one-party country engaged in an elaborate fan dance that keeps the “adversarial” money flowing to various campaigns, even though the adversarial aspect of our federal government is now relegated to the degree of progressivism we’ll comfortably embrace.

The Visigoths and Hobbits and xenophobic racisty homophobic haters who hate have seen that — and been articulating their dismay at that state of affairs — for some time now.

Seriously: it’s not hard to find such answers if you look hard enough.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 2:41pm

Comments (21)

  1. Seriously: it’s not hard to find such answers if you look hard enough.


  2. Dense forest
    Brigands roaming
    Act of love

  3. Keep talking, Jeb. Just keep talking.

  4. Legal immigration is often an “act of love” for America.

    Illegal immigration is more like a sexual assault. Anywhere from copping a feel on a crowded bus to full on rape-rape. It is an act having nothing to do with love but about taking something just because you have the power to do so, with no thought for the one it is taken from.

  5. They appear to be trying the Cinderella clown shoes on everybody. Jeb’s the best fit so far.

    What did you expect from Prince Rebus and the Homeboys?

  6. PS: “Second look at Crist?”

  7. How you approach something matters:

    A mathematician and an engineer are placed in a hallway with a bed at the far end and in the bed is a beautiful nude woman who is said to be very fun and friendly.

    The only rules are that one can only move half the distance to the woman every ten seconds.

    The mathematician is angry and says he will leave.

    The engineer says he will play.

    Surprised at the naivete of the engineer, the mathematician “It’s a fools gambit. This is Xeno’s paradox. You cannot reach point b from point a if you can only travel half the distance in each move. ”

    “Suit yourself buddy.” says the engineer.

    After he is quite close to the woman a voice comes over the loud speaker and says “The mathematician was right you know. You’re being a fool. You can’t succeed without breaking the rules. ”

    “Look,” says the engineer, “this is an application, not theory. The theory governs the distance between our centroids, which I don’t need to tell you are dimensionless abstractions, and I don’t need my precise centroid a to reach b such that the difference between them is zero. Both she and I and the bed DWARF those centroids, and I just need to get a close enough to b for PRACTICAL purposes. ”


  8. Jeb Bush and Hillary?

    Didn’t South Park do a take on this with the giant douche versus turd sandwich?

  9. yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony.

    That can be changed.

  10. The only words I have for Jeb is to quote the late John Pinette: YOU GO NOW!

  11. I’m sorry to say it, but I’ve become so cynical about the guys at National Romney/Rove Online that I don’t really believe that Geraghty is opposed to anything that Jeb says. When it comes time to amnesty Manuel the Hardworking Busboy, Geraghty will be right there cheering the GOP on. Jeb’s problem is that he’s not trying hard enough to fool the hobbits. He should be talking about virtual fences and paying fines and going to the back of the line. It’s stuff like that that proves that while you’re for amnesty it’s not really “amnesty” amnesty so no right-thinking reasonable pragmatist could be opposed to it without being a H8ter.

  12. OK, first: It was an act of love for Jeb’s Mexican wife, whom he met when he lived in Mexico. His experience does not apply to the 1 million+ who enter the US illegally every year.

    As for this: “In short, a significant number of Mexicans do not believe that the United States has the moral or legal authority to keep them out.”

    Seems to me that the ones described above also don’t believe that the U.S. has the legal authority to stop them from driving just because they don’t have auto insurance, a drivers license and/or because they’ve been arrested for DUI. Or the legal authority to stop them from using someone else’s identity to obtain a job, register to vote and/or obtain other benefits. Or the authority to stop them from running an unlicensed business that does not pay taxes or comply with the applicable business regulations (see VDH’s columns on the “two Californias.”). And on and on.

    It’s magical thinking to believe that welcoming people who don’t respect our immigration laws – and our national sovereignty – will somehow result in them being good citizens. It doesn’t. Just look at the crime statistics for “sanctuary cities” like Denver.

  13. I really don’t want a government that thinks we should decide issues and policies based on how many squishy feels they give us.

  14. In short, a significant number of Mexicans do not believe that the United States has the moral or legal authority to keep them out.

    They’re less of a problem than the bipartisan elite who agree with them.

  15. Pingback: The Camp Of The Saints

  16. Not so fast there Jeb,


  17. dog whistle/ bushagogo news

    “If you come down to Texas, and you see the conditions where you see photographs that are heartbreaking of bodies, of women and children left abandoned in the desert,” Cruz said. “Because they entrust themselves to transnational global criminal cartels who smuggle them in, who assault them, who leave them to die. This is not a humane system and we need to solve the problem.”

  18. remember to bushies: ” it is an act of love”

  19. And here’s the video:

    If he runs the rest of the field will face a formidable foe.


    Cruz attended high school at Faith West Academy in Katy, Texas,[26] and later graduated from Second Baptist High School in Houston as valedictorian in 1988.[11] During high school, Cruz participated in a Houston-based group called the Free Market Education Foundation where Cruz learned about free-market economic philosophers such as Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek, Frédéric Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises.[20] The program was run by Rolland Storey and Cruz entered the program at the age of 13.[18]

    Cruz graduated cum laude from Princeton University with a Bachelor of Arts from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs in 1992.[2][5] While at Princeton, he competed for the American Whig-Cliosophic Society’s Debate Panel and won the top speaker award at both the 1992 U.S. National Debating Championship and the 1992 North American Debating Championship.[27] In 1992, he was named U.S. National Speaker of the Year and Team of the Year (with his debate partner, David Panton).[27] Cruz was also a semi-finalist at the 1995 World Universities Debating Championship, making him Princeton’s highest-ranked debater at the championship.[28][29] Princeton’s debate team later named their annual novice championship after Cruz.[28]

    Cruz’s senior thesis on the separation of powers, titled “Clipping the Wings of Angels,” draws its inspiration from a passage attributed to President James Madison: “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” Cruz argued that the drafters of the Constitution intended to protect the rights of their constituents, and the last two items in the Bill of Rights offered an explicit stop against an all-powerful state. Cruz wrote: “They simply do so from different directions. The Tenth stops new powers, and the Ninth fortifies all other rights, or non-powers.”[24][30]

    After graduating from Princeton, Cruz attended Harvard Law School, graduating magna cum laude in 1995 with a Juris Doctor.[2][31] While at Harvard Law, Cruz was a primary editor of the Harvard Law Review, and executive editor of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, and a founding editor of the Harvard Latino Law Review.[5] Referring to Cruz’s time as a student at Harvard Law, Professor Alan Dershowitz said, “Cruz was off-the-charts brilliant.”[12][32][33][34][35][36] At Harvard Law, Cruz was a John M. Olin Fellow in Law and Economics.[37]

    Cruz currently serves on the Board of Advisors of the Texas Review of Law and Politics.[37][38]

  20. Oops,

    That much orange should only be used for Halloween (or John Boehner’s tanning booth;).