FOX: Bush worried America becoming "nativist"

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://nation.foxnews.com/george-w-bush/2011/02/02/bush-worried-america-becoming-nativist

On January 24, Former President George W. Bush spoke at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, where his presidential library will be located, and weighed in on immigration. "What's interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some 'isms' that occasionally pop up -- pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism. So if you study the '20s, for example, there was -- there was an American first policy that said who cares what happens in Europe?...And there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued we had too many Jews and too many Italians; therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point is that we've been through this kind of period of isolationism, protectionism and nativism. I'm a little concerned that we may be going through the same period."

[Riggo-toni]

Oh crap, I have to agree and even applaud W..... damn, he's actually enlightened and right about something.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Oh crap, I have to agree and even applaud W..... damn, he's actually enlightened and right about something.

If there is one part of his Presidency where he was "right" it was certainly his view that America needed a more global perspective.

His attempts at comprehensive immigration reform and his language he used when speaking about Muslims in particular reflected that.

This is one more item

[Corcaigh]

I think we can agree that in hindsight we did allow in too many Jews and too many Italians.

And way too many Irish.

[manleyistheman]

Oh crap, I have to agree and even applaud W..... damn, he's actually enlightened and right about something.

Makes me wonder if he was 'enlightened' about many things all along but couldn't show it due to the risk of alienating the base.

[thebluefood]

Makes me wonder if he was 'enlightened' about many things all along but couldn't show it due to the risk of alienating the base.

I always thought Bush wasn't an idiot by any stretch of the imagination. Incompetent, perhaps; and he had terrible counsel; but the man himself didn't strike me as an idiot.

[Burgold]

and he had terrible counsel;.

I think that is the key and he was loyal to a fault. Being exceptionally loyal and having a bad team is a really bad combo. Reagan at least fired everyone left and right.

[Madison Redskin]

I always thought Bush wasn't an idiot by any stretch of the imagination. Incompetent, perhaps; and he had terrible counsel; but the man himself didn't strike me as an idiot.

I questioned or disagreed with many of Bush's decisions, but I think Bush is fairly intelligent (if inarticulate) and he's probably a fairly decent man.

In any case, I absolutely agree with the quote in the OP. Both parties are pandering to isolationist, protectionist, and nativist groups. It's regressive and deplorable IMO.

Somewhat random note - Last night, I watched an episode of "I Shouldn't Be Alive." A guy was lost in the desert near the Mexican border and he was extremely dehydrated and close to death. A truck came along and the man who was lost thought that he was close to being rescued. Unfortunately, the truck was occupied by two dumb ****s who mistook him for an illegal immigrant. Seeing that the man was near death, one of the men opened up his canteen, took a big swig, spat in the man's face, and began mocking him for being a "dang illegal." The two men in the truck then took off, leaving the man to die in the desert of dehydration. Unfortunately, in these tough times, these types of people grow in number.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Wait, I'm agreeing with George W. Bush? Hold up....surely I must have read that out of context, because it seems very similar to things that I've said before.

When I think of this "nativism" that Bush is speaking of this is the guy, at least in film, that I think of most.

[mardi gras skin]

he was loyal to a fault.

I hope they write that on my tombstone.

[Burgold]

I hope they write that on my tombstone.

It's a good quality in MOST situations. In some, it can really mess ya up.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I hope they write that on my tombstone.

I hope they write "Was loyal to Christ", being loyal to a fault is just that...at fault, it means that your loyalty ended up being a detriment.

Anyways, back to what Bush was saying....

Yes yes yes!!! Comprehensive Immigration Reform, enough of Nativism....is that even a word?

[Fergasun]

What's he attacking again? I don't see any indication nativism, protectionism, or isolationism are being pursued as policy. Furthermore, what the **** is wrong with an "Americans first" policy? If government policies don't exist for the benefit of Americans, for whose benefit do they exist? (Oh, the multinational/global corporations who use our country and policies to rent-seek which should be an abomination to capitalism!).

Shorter Bush: "I support global corporatism/crony capitalism".

Extrapolate this policy to every country, they don't have governments that exist to serve the people, they have governments that exist to... do what exactly? Serve special interests? We have enacted policy in this country that has gutted middle class manufacturing jobs, and then give them all to China and other countries which don't have the same standards as we do, which poses a threat to our self-sufficiency, but to criticize those policies is "nativist" "protectionist" and "isolationist".

[AsburySkinsFan]

What's he attacking again? I don't see any indication nativism, protectionism, or isolationism are being pursued as policy.

Even if it's not being pursued as policy do you deny that it's an issue that pervades on the persona levels.

BTW, this is not American Exceptionalism, this is about the racist notion that immigrants are bad for America.

[thebluefood]

I have "isolationist" persuasions (my basic foreign policy philosophy is "don't mess with anyone unless they mess with you"), but I know that isn't always realistic and that there comes a time where you need to play ball with other nations. I don't like it, but that's just how it goes.

Illegal immigration is one of those issues I just can't seem to make up my mind about. Yes, there are people coming into this country illegally and that does have social and economic ramifications on our nation. At the same time, I truly believe most of these people are coming here for a better life for themselves and their families, and, to me, that's what America is all about.

Economic issues and foreign policy aren't my strong suit at all, so it's tough for me to make any kind of decision on them. I think the former President's statement are to be considered, though.

[Fergasun]

Quite frankly I think a better principle would be "We have a country based on the foundation of the rule of law". We could mandate the use of e-verify nationwide. I think that should've been done yesterday. We could've used the money wasted on the "virtual fence" that is now canceled to make the necessary improvements to e-verify. To me, the lack of mandatory e-verify is a big roadblock to CIR. Of course some folks want to roll the mandatory e-verify into CIR... you don't have to hold nationwide e-verify hostage or use it as a bargaining chip for CIR, its a no brainer.

Link to Chipotle story.

Chipotle just faced up to its first immigration audit in Minnesota and was forced to hand over I-9 documentation for all 1,200 employees working in the state. When the government came back with a long list of employees it suspected were not authorized to work in the United States, Chipotle met with the people individually, gave them a chance to produce new documents, and then terminated anyone who couldn't do so, bestowing on them all payments, bonuses and unused vacation they were due, as well as a letter that reiterated why they were being let go...That sentiment wasn't enough to save Chipotle from a group of protesters, who descended on Minnesota restaurants, lambasting the chain for firing the employees and alleging that Chipotle had mistreated 700 of its workers in firing them.

Spokesman said the 700 number was high, so let's just assume it was half that number (~350); that means a quarter of employees were illegal?

ASF,

I think the notion is "illegal immigrants are bad for America." Why has CIR been rejected as policy for the past decade? Because Americans don't like allowing law-breakers to get legal status or on a path to citizenship. If someone doesn't respect immigration laws, what other laws are they not going to respect? Of course again, the abuse is a part of the system where the folks in charge and aware of what's going on don't fix the systems (I'm talking about welfare "scams"... to be certain I bet plenty of Americans and legal immigrants scam the systems as well).

Policymakers need to answer why the don't care their laws aren't being enforced, or why they aren't enforcing the law. I think its obvious they are beholden to special interests... if we had a political party that ran on enforcing half the laws, I bet they could do some seriously good things for the country.

[Bang]

If there is one part of his Presidency where he was "right" it was certainly his view that America needed a more global perspective.

His attempts at comprehensive immigration reform and his language he used when speaking about Muslims in particular reflected that.

This is one more item

I can recall having a discussion with you and others that because the jihad didn't materialize when we invaded the way the radicals had hoped, that these nations and their people were sitting back to see what we were going to actually do in Iraq.

I recall stating that if we do it right and do what we're there to do and nothing else, it could result in the cascade effect of change that we seem to be seeing now.

I believe i even went so far as to say that if that cascade occured and there was true reform in the middle east, that history would remember Bush differently.

I think the events in Iran, Tunisia, now Egypt, Jordan, Yemen.. these are signals that may be happening. I think that the people of the entire region are sick of living under these despots and with ancient rules and constant threat of war, and they want their chance to choose their own way.

In almost every interview of anyone connected with the revolt in Egypt, I keep hearing positive attitudes toward the west. Likewise in Iran during their recent revolt.

I always felt Bush's presidency, while not good, was also beset with extraordinary circumstance. We can all argue all day about how things were handled, but the circumstance can't be ignored. And I've got my fingers crossed that these uprisings and calls for freedom we hear now do signal a start of a new era of finally some peace in the Middle East.

~Bang

[The 12th Commandment]

It was one area I always sided with Bush on and applauded for. How we have gone this long and still not enacted some form of sensible immigration reform is beyond me. Lotta hate out there and a lot supposedly smart politicians pandering to it.

[Fergasun]

Even if it's not being pursued as policy do you deny that it's an issue that pervades on the persona levels.

BTW, this is not American Exceptionalism, this is about the racist notion that immigrants are bad for America.

I don't think it "pervades". Just like my stories about immigrants abusing the system, its just unmeasurable anecdotes. I don't put too much stock in it when I hear about it; but folks seem to have the impression that immigrants know how to maximize benefits welfare system. Maybe you'll point to that as part of the problem. There are others like me whenever we hear folks talking about it who say "you can't tell if they are legal or illegal".

Of course there are other issues like the "dream act" issue. I know someone who came over here with parents, parents waited 8-10 years for adjustment of status and he went from minor to adult. By the law, I'm fairly certain he doesn't have legal status. Perhaps now his parents can petition for him to come over, but how do you do that if someone goes from "legal" to "illegal" right when they turn 22. I'm not even certain this situation was covered under the "DREAM Act". I think if the language of the "DREAM Act" was narrowed to cover these specific types of cases, I would be a larger supporter of it, but the "DREAM Act" appeared to be written so broad that it wouldn't differentiate between the person I know and someone who came over at an older age.

[ACW]

Oh crap, I have to agree and even applaud W..... damn, he's actually enlightened and right about something.

:yes:

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I think we can agree that in hindsight we did allow in too many Jews and too many Italians.

And way too many Irish.

I didn't know John Rocker posted here.

[Stew]

Bush has crazy agility. Do yo uremember the shoe thrower? Bush dodged the first shoe totally, then put his hand over his eyes and peaked through his fingers as the he dodged the second one... a smile on his face the entire time. GW was good at dodgeball as a kid, I suspect.

[DjTj]

I think the notion is "illegal immigrants are bad for America." Why has CIR been rejected as policy for the past decade? Because Americans don't like allowing law-breakers to get legal status or on a path to citizenship. If someone doesn't respect immigration laws, what other laws are they not going to respect? Of course again, the abuse is a part of the system where the folks in charge and aware of what's going on don't fix the systems (I'm talking about welfare "scams"... to be certain I bet plenty of Americans and legal immigrants scam the systems as well).

I think this argument is a strawman. When people use fake IDs and drink underage, do we worry about what other laws they are not respecting? Do we worry that pot smokers will become hardcore criminals? People who break the speed limit?

Most illegal immigrants break the law for a specific reason (usually to find work and support their family), and that doesn't spill over into breaking any and all other laws. There are certainly illegal immigrants involved in organized crime and drug trafficking, but that's certainly not the majority of them.

Of course there are other issues like the "dream act" issue. I know someone who came over here with parents, parents waited 8-10 years for adjustment of status and he went from minor to adult. By the law, I'm fairly certain he doesn't have legal status. Perhaps now his parents can petition for him to come over, but how do you do that if someone goes from "legal" to "illegal" right when they turn 22. I'm not even certain this situation was covered under the "DREAM Act". I think if the language of the "DREAM Act" was narrowed to cover these specific types of cases, I would be a larger supporter of it, but the "DREAM Act" appeared to be written so broad that it wouldn't differentiate between the person I know and someone who came over at an older age.

The issue of children aging out prior to their parents getting green cards was fixed during the Bush Administration with the Child Status Protection Act:

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCkQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.uscis.gov%2Fportal%2Fsite%2Fuscis%2Fmenuitem.eb1d4c2a3e5b9ac89243c6a7543f6d1a%2F%3Fvgnextoid%3D1f0c0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD%26vgnextchannel%3D1f0c0a5659083210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&rct=j&q=child%20status%20protection%20act&ei=M-lKTY_UOsGAlAeQmOEU&usg=AFQjCNGbCqQu4uXyZom6rfr3RwikeB1fVw&cad=rja

I had a cousin who was actually screwed over by this policy. Her parents and her younger brother got green cards, while she is still dealing with temporary visas today. The CSPA corrected that problem for anyone getting green cards after 2002.

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF,

I think the notion is "illegal immigrants are bad for America." Why has CIR been rejected as policy for the past decade? Because Americans don't like allowing law-breakers to get legal status or on a path to citizenship.

For me this is hypocritical. Eliminate 10 million illegals from our country, and watch what happens to the cost of your food. I was on the phone with my state representative yesterday, and he's a Republican and even he understood that our entire tobacco industry in Kentucky is dependent upon immigrant (and yes illegal) labor, and he understood the need, and yet there is a strong push from Republicans to pass an Arizona style immigration law. We can't stand and say that illegals are bad for America and then at the same time rely upon illegals for our food production and harvest.

If someone doesn't respect immigration laws, what other laws are they not going to respect?

That's a non sequitur. If you speed does that mean you're going to rob a bank? If you don't respect our speed limit laws, what other laws are you not going to respect?

Policymakers need to answer why the don't care their laws aren't being enforced, or why they aren't enforcing the law. I think its obvious they are beholden to special interests... if we had a political party that ran on enforcing half the laws, I bet they could do some seriously good things for the country.

They aren't being enforced because the people both legal and illegal don't want them enforced because they have a co-dependent relationship with one another.

[Fergasun]

I said years ago that I'd be more willing to accept CIR if we started doing enforcement first against employers and rolled out mandatory e-verify. Do that for a couple of years, and then figure out who gets amnesty. Limit the number of those who get amnesty to a small number (not all of the 12 to 15 million or whatever the number is).

I don't think I'm willing to give "amnesty" (in the form of legal status) to someone who cross the borders illegally when they were over 18 years old (that is, not a minor). I'd willing to give amnesty to children who came over with their parents; but they have to have been in the country for an extended period of time, as in gone through elementary school and middle school. At some point a line needs to be drawn, and I draw the line at HS. If someone came over at younger than 15 and went through 4 years of HS, I'd be willing to give them some form of amnesty as in legal status. Now the question is "what do we do about the parents"? Deport them? Allow them to stay undocumented? It's not worth using the resources to depot them, we can't even deport all the *felony committing illegal immigrants*. Yet to allow them to have legal status is basically saying "we don't have a border with Mexico", which I don't approve of. My cruel heartless answer is that they are ineligible for any adjustment of status. No advocate on the other side of the issue would agree with that type of solution. However, allowing them legal status will open the door for more.

Thinking through all that, my policy would be "your kids get amnesty, you don't, you get to live in the shadows, which isn't half bad as people say it is, but not as good as people represent it to be either". That's an awful policy! Of course our policy right now is "you and your kids get to live in the shadows, which isn't half as bad as people say it is, and not as good as people represent it to be either".

This is what happens when the laws are allowed to be flouted for so long.

---------- Post added February-3rd-2011 at 10:39 AM ----------

For me this is hypocritical. Eliminate 10 million illegals from our country, and watch what happens to the cost of your food. I was on the phone with my state representative yesterday, and he's a Republican and even he understood that our entire tobacco industry in Kentucky is dependent upon immigrant (and yes illegal) labor, and he understood the need, and yet there is a strong push from Republicans to pass an Arizona style immigration law. We can't stand and say that illegals are bad for America and then at the same time rely upon illegals for our food production and harvest.

We stand and say "illegals are bad for America"; that's why we have an immigration policy that is limited and small in scope! Just because some special interests have been able to shift the cost of their labor onto the public population (see studies on the Cost of illegal immigrants to California), doesn't mean make it "policy"... it makes it bull****.

What you propose is to change the policy and say "once you enter this country and get a job, you can stay in this country". I don't know exactly the details of the 1986 amnesty, but I think that's how it went down, right... the policy was essentially loophole'd to say "once you're in this country for 5 years you can stay in this country". We've essentially co-mingled "labor/jobs policy" with "immigration policy"; however our policy makers are politically unwilling to open up the "labor/jobs policy" because it would cause political outrage, so they simply conflate it with "immigration policy".

"Labor/jobs policy" as stated by law is "employers can only hire legal workers".

"Labor/jobs policy as applied, combined with immigration policy as applied" the law is essentially "employers can hire anyone they want to".

Labor costs are not as big as the producers would like us to believe... again, based on studies. Of course the studies on this are as biased towards their own policy as me and you are (that is to say a study I show which shows that labor costs are 5% of produce costs vs. energy costs which are a larger percentage might not be persuasive). There's a duel of "independent think tank" studies on this issue, and even then I'd say that there could be other factors that could make the immigration factor non-causal.

The reason this issue hasn't been solved is because its complicated. People don't want an immigration policy of "come into the country illegal and eventually you're given legal status". I haven't even touched on the cost and how to completely enforce such a policy (I do believe the best way is via mandatory e-verify); which is to say "impossible to enforce". But if you enforce it by refusing to give those who came in illegally legal status. And then you can put in this law that from now on there will be no more amnesty, so no one should expect to get anything... and make it clear. Heck, I think its pretty clear now... we're being polite enough as it is to even discuss "CIR" without discussing how to enforce immigration laws as a separate issue.

As as I'm concerned this is how I'd describe the attempts to push through immigration reform (they go back to Clinton!). Our corrupt political system allowed this "problem" to happen, and then the corrupt political system has tried to push through a "solution" which really does nothing to solve the problem (in my mind, that is how do we minimize illegal immigration). I don't know where CIR stands, other than it wouldn't get through the GOP controlled House. If the GOP is serious about this issue they need to discuss immigration enforcement strategies and start publicizing that. Given the vigorous way they've done this so far, I have little hope for the GOP seriously looking at the issue (because they actually don't mind the status quo).

Immigration should be treated a bit more than speeding is.