Jeb Bush: immigration and more
Former Florida governor, brother of George W Bush, son of George HW Bush, and a very strong supporter of both illegal and massive immigration. Involved with the Hispanic Leadership Network, which is part of the American Action Network.
See the posts below for more information on his immigration positions and more.
One of the talking points used against Donald Trump is that he isn't a "Real Conservative"; examples at . That talking point might be counter-productive and it exposes yet again that being a "real conservative" isn't actually all that popular.
The video below shows University of Nevada at Reno student Ivy Ziedrich ranting at Jeb Bush over the Iraq war. The confrontation has received notice from the New York Times (nytimes . com/politics/first-draft/2015/05/13/college-student-to-jeb-bush-your-brother-created-isis/), CNN, and others despite (or perhaps because of) it solving little or nothing.
TheTeaParty.net supports immigration reform, secretly met with Jeb Bush (Herman Cain, Home Depot, Teaparty Express, TPNN) - 05/17/13
Over three years ago I asked if the Teaparty movement will stumble us into amnesty, and before then I pointed out that supporters of amnesty include those in the Teaparty sphere.
RNC's Bush-linked Growth and Opportunity Project: GOP is "scary" to voters, must pass amnesty, Caring Conservatism - 03/18/13
Who better to solve the GOP's demographic problems then acolytes of the people who created the problem in the first place?
In the Wall Street Journal, Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick offer "Solving the Immigration Puzzle" (link).
I'll provide excerpts followed by a discussion of how they're misleading and promoting bad policy.
Mel Martinez: Romney won't support attrition as president ("self deport", Jeb Bush, Kobach) - 08/28/12
The video below (cached) shows Mel Martinez - a member of Mitt Romney's Hispanic Steering Committee - commenting on Romney's immigration position if he becomes president.
Asked if Romney will stay with his last-known position in support of attrition - aka "self-deport" - Martinez says:
Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam offer "A better welcome for our nation's immigrants" (link). It's part of a push for amnesty mentioned here about a year ago. In the piece, they mislead about assimilation and consistently fail to to be intellectually honest. They start with this:
On our national birthday, and amid an angry debate about immigration, Americans should reflect on the lessons of our shared immigrant past. We must recall that the challenges facing our nation today were felt as far back as the Founders' time. Immigrant assimilation has always been slow and contentious, with progress measured not in years but in decades. Yet there are steps communities and government should take to form a more cohesive, successful union.
Consider what one leader wrote in 1753: "Few of their children in the country learn English. The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages. . . . Unless the stream of their importation could be turned . . . they will soon so outnumber us that we will not preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious." Thus Ben Franklin referred to German Americans, still the largest ethnic group in America. A century later, Midwestern cities such as Cincinnati and St. Louis were mostly German-speaking. So worried were their native-born neighbors that Iowa outlawed speaking German in public and even in private conversation.
Now, see immigration tradition fallacy for what they're engaging in. Drawing lessons from the past has to be done carefully because the situations between then and now are different. For instance, it would be exceedingly difficult for Iowa to outlaw speaking Spanish in public nowadays. Bush and Putnam fail to note that one possible reason why German-speakers are confined to small pockets in the U.S. is because of such laws and because of societal pressures that don't exist anymore or that are much attenuated.
Proponents and opponents of immigration agree on one thing: Learning English is crucial to success and assimilation. Yet learning a language as an adult is hard, so first-generation immigrants often use their native tongue. Historically, English has dominated by the second or third generation in all immigrant groups. Most recent immigrants recognize that they need to learn English, and about 90 percent of the second generation speak English, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. Research by sociologists Claude Fischer and Michael Hout published in 2008 suggests that English acquisition among immigrants today is faster than in previous waves.
Fewer immigrants of Mexican origin than of any other major origin group say they speak English very well (16%).
Nearly three-quarters of Mexican immigrants (71%) say they speak English just a little or not at all. That is also the case with 64% of immigrants from the Dominican Republic; 62% from Central America; 57% from Cuba; and 44% from South America. Among Puerto Ricans, 35% report that they speak English just a little or not at all. (Figure 10)
...One reason for the low share of Mexican-born immigrants who speak English very well is that Mexicans are the least likely among the major country-of-origin groups to have graduated from college...
...Most Mexicans (56%), Cubans (60%), Dominicans (52%) and Central Americans (51%) say they speak only Spanish at home. By contrast, 32% of Puerto Ricans and 42% of South Americans speak only Spanish at home.
...On the job, Mexican and Cuban immigrants are the most likely among the major origin groups to speak only Spanish—a third do. Half of Mexicans speak only Spanish or mainly Spanish at work, the largest share of any major group. At the opposite end, most Puerto Ricans (51%) speak only English or mainly English, the sole major origin group to do so.
The above is especially important since Mexicans and Mexican-Americans are the largest group within Hispanics. Bush and Putnam fail to ask whether we'd be doing better if most Hispanic immigrants were from South America; obviously, asking questions like that is not in any way politically correct. But, if they aren't willing to discuss that, how should we trust their opinions?
Residential integration of immigrants is even more gradual. Half a century ago, sociologist Stanley Lieberson showed that most immigrants lived in segregated enclaves, "Little Italy" or "Chinatown," for several generations. This segregation reflected discrimination by natives and the natural desire of "strangers in a strange land" to live among familiar faces with familiar customs. Only with suburbanization, encouraged by government policy in the 1950s and 1960s, did the children and grandchildren of the immigrants of the 1890s and 1900s exit those enclaves. That many of today's immigrants live in ethnic enclaves is thus entirely normal and reflects no ominous aim to separate themselves from the wider American community.
Obviously, there's a huge difference between small enclaves and the current situation in, say, Los Angeles where ethnic enclaves stretch for mile after mile. That's not "normal" if your point of reference is small ethnic enclaves.
They then discuss intermarriage; if anyone has studies that make the contrary point please leave a comment. Then:
Moreover, the aging of our population places a premium on young, productive workers, many of whom must come from immigration.
The problem is that they're lumping all types of immigration together. Speaking generally, immigrants from some countries or with some backgrounds are going to be more productive than those from other countries or with different backgrounds. Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam aren't intellectually honest enough to point that out.
Then, they offer their suggested fixes:
-- Provide low-cost English classes, in cooperation with local civic and religious groups, where immigrants build personal ties with co-ethnics and native-born Americans. These connections foster assimilation and help newcomers navigate our complex institutions.
-- Invest in public education, including civics education and higher education. During the first half of the 20th century, schools were critical to preparing children of immigrants for success and fostering a shared national identity.
-- Assist communities experiencing rapid increases in immigration, which is traumatic for those arriving here and for receiving communities. Schools and hospitals bear disproportionate costs of immigration, while the economic and fiscal benefits from immigration accrue nationally.
The problem is, again, we aren't living a century ago: times are different. Nowadays, the far-left has more power and many of those "civic and religious groups" will oppose assimilation with a small number of them being radical. Most Hispanic organizations work to oppose immigration enforcement and, in order to obtain more power, are not keen on assimilation. Would Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam put the National Council of La Raza in charge of "foster[ing] assimilation"? Whether they would or not, that's what would happen. The same applies to the schools: there are too many examples of far-left teachers and school boards opposing immigration enforcement and assimilation. As for the economic benefits that "accrue nationally", see the immigration economics posts for what they aren't mentioning.
They end on this naive note:
But we ought not to airbrush our ancestors' difficulties in assimilation, nor fail to match our forebears' efforts to help integrate immigrants. Government, churches, libraries, civic organizations and businesses must cooperate to address this challenge, as they did a century ago.
That's great. However, far-left and racial power groups have different ideas, and they'd be in charge. And, Jeb Bush and Robert Putnam offer no clue as to how they'd do anything other than give those groups even more political power.
ADDED: Regarding assimilation and the schools, recall Arizona's recent attempt to make sure that those teaching English can speak the language. That received light pushback from the Washington Post (link), heavier pushback from the Obama-linked Center for American Progress ("Arizona Expands Its Discrimination: Teachers With Heavy Accents Can’t Teach English, Ethnic Studies Are Banned", thinkprogress.org/2010/04/30/arizona-teachers) and overall what they're trying to do wasn't presented as a no-brainer by most of the establishment. Do Bush and Putnam have a plan to overcome the inevitable pushback their assimilation plans would receive? That would be a good question to ask them at their public appearances.
Recall also that a Zogby poll done in Mexico showed that 58% of Mexicans agreed with this question: "the territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Other good questions to ask them would be:
1. What specifically do they intend to do about such sentiments?
2. Aren't such sentiments dangerous?
3. Should we allow people to immigrate here if they don't believe that we have a right to parts of our territory?
4. And, what are their contingency plans if things don't work out? What if we allow millions more people to come here and the Bush/Putnam assimilation plans fail?
"I think it creates unintended consequences," he said in a telephone interview with POLITICO Tuesday. "It's difficult for me to imagine how you're going to enforce this law. It places a significant burden on local law enforcement and you have civil liberties issues that are significant as well."
"I don't think this is the proper approach,"
The former governor recounted how, after he gave a speech Monday night in California, he was approached by a Hispanic man who was concerned about the measure leading to racial profiling and unfair targeting of Latinos.
"He said, 'My parents live here, my grandparents live here - I'm Mexican-American,'" Bush recalled, adding that the man said, "'I could be picked up.'"
Assuming that what he describes actually happened, shouldn't he at least have played devil's advocate a bit? That is, in the interest of supporting the Republican Party (because most Republicans in Arizona supported the bill) and supporting the American people (because most citizens in Arizona supported the bill), shouldn't he have pointed out that his interlocutor most likely would never be confused with someone who's here illegally? Shouldn't he have pointed out that all he'd need to do is present a state drivers license or ID card?
Instead of doing that, Jeb Bush acts like a far-leftie. It would be possible for him to oppose the bill and at the same time not help the far-left.
Instead, he did it in a way that supports the far-left's position. On a related note, see the comments about Hoffenbloom here.
Peter Wallsten of the Wall Street Journal offers the misleading "GOP's Demographic Wager: Wooing Latino Candidates" (link). Much could be said about the false assumptions that Wallsten and those quoted make, but I'll save that for another time and just summarize who's involved:
Some high-profile Republicans are adopting a softer vocabulary on immigration and trying to recruit more Hispanic candidates, a response to the party's soul-searching about tactics that many strategists believe have alienated the country's fastest-growing voter bloc...
In Texas, George P Bush, the half Mexican-American son of former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, has founded Hispanic Republicans of Texas, a political action committee to promote Hispanics running for state and local offices...
Former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie, who is coordinating some of the party's internal discussions, called the tandem effect of rising Hispanic population and dwindling Republican support an "untenable delta."
...The Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, a group set up by Princeton University Professor Robert George, a leading intellectual voice among Christian conservatives, plans to spend at least $500,000 spread over a handful of races to help pro-immigration Republican candidates, according to Alfonso Aguilar, a former Bush administration immigration official who runs the group. A key position for the group, said Mr. Aguilar, is legalizing illegal workers...
Another GOP-affiliated group, the Hispanic Leadership Fund, plans to target about three races this year, supporting conservative Hispanic candidates and promoting other Republicans who back more liberal immigration laws.
(Rep. Tom Price of Georgia) said in an interview he began meeting with Hispanic groups in recent months to open a "line of communication so there is a reserve of trust." But he said he wasn't ready to talk about a path to legalization until he was convinced the U.S.-Mexico border is secured.
Jeb Bush: GOP should be like Democrats, except cheap (not just the "old white guy party") - 10/23/09
Jeb Bush - the highly treasured brother of the former highly treasured president - appeared at George Washington University last night and said:
Bush criticized Republicans for giving the impression that the GOP is the “party of no.” He told the group that Republicans are often “too nostalgic” and that the party needs to be more “forward looking” in order to regain national success. Bush reminded the audience that voter demographics are changing and called for the party to become more “youthful” and to abandon their image as “the old white guy party.” “Tone matters,” Bush said, “in twenty or so years our country will have a minority majority.” ...But this doesn’t necessarily mean that the party must move towards the center. When asked by a student if the party platform needed to become more moderate on social issues, Bush replied, “no.” Rather, he stressed that Republicans “need to apply conservative principles to 21st century problems.” Emphasizing “economic prosperity” is an issue which he believes can both unite conservatives from all wings of the party and attract new voters. Bush told the crowd that President Obama was turning the country into a European socialist state and killing innovation.
Part of Bush's message is one of extreme vapidity: very few people are truly strong fiscal conservatives. They might say they are, but try to take away their Social Security and see what happens. Above a certain level of "economic prosperity", social issues are more salient. Would most religious people trade an extra saving per month in exchange for widely-available abortions? How much would religious people pay per month if, for instance, they could avoid Planned Parenthood clinics being as omnipresent as McDonalds'? By concentrating on financial issues, the GOP would only be slightly more popular than the Libertarian Party, which isn't that popular at all. That doesn't mean that the GOP should become the bread-and-circuses-for-cultural-conservatives party that Karl Rove seemed to think would lure Hispanics to the GOP. It just means that Bush isn't fighting the real battles. He's supporting Gramscian concepts instead of opposing them; he's supporting how the Democrats obtain and maintain power instead of undercutting them.
As for changing demographics, the smarter thing would be to discourage identity politics and undercut far-left racial power groups; Bush is doing the opposite and making the GOP's position worse. His idea of outreach would be like his brother's: speaking to far-left racial power groups that have state chapters that think our border might not be valid, only to be met with disinterest at best. He's making white sound like a bad thing, he's falsely implying that the GOP discriminates against non-whites, and he's basically sounding like a Democrat and playing right into the hands. It would be great if he, his brother, and all the rest did actually flee to Paraguay and give the rest of us a break from their family. Maybe we could get George Soros to pay their way, although he might refuse since the Bushes are doing his work for him.
See also the "National Council for a New America".
Over the past few weeks, Florida GOP Gov. Charlie Crist has found himself being put on the defensive more and more in the primary thanks to the challenge by ex-state House Speaker Marco Rubio. While Crist has financially overwhelmed Rubio to date, there are many Republicans -- particularly those in Flordia that are close to former GOP Gov. Jeb Bush -- who have publicly become more comfortable airing their skepticism about Crist in public. One of those Republicans with close ties to the Bush family, Karl Rove, has signaled his preference with his wallet. Rove confirms to NBC News that he has contributed a $1000 to Rubio's campaign, the donation will be made public when Rubio files his next FEC report (due Oct. 15)... This comes on the heels of Jeb Bush's public signal that he plans to stay neutral in the Crist-Rubio primary; Many believe this is Jeb's way of quietly telling influential Florida Republicans that he'd prefer Rubio but doesn't want to alienate Crist since he's still the heavy favorite in the primary.
Needless to say, Jeb Bush is a strong supporter of massive immigration and amnesty; Rove was probably the "evil genius" (so to speak) behind George W Bush's loose borders and amnesty/guest workers efforts. Neither one of them would support someone who opposes massive immigration and amnesty, strongly giving credence to my hunch that Marco Rubio supports massive immigration, whether of the guest worker or amnesty variety.
On Thursday, a group of putatively moderate Republicans will announce a new effort called "National Council for a New America". While they claim that they're non-partisan, it's clearly a GOP effort. And, the list of those involved that CNN has obtained (link) includes several supporters of comprehensive immigration reform.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush - the younger brother of the president - is weighing a run for the Senate seat currently held by Republican Mel Martinez.The GOP isn't "anti-young person", even if it has a problem understanding modern technology. And, enforcing our laws is not anti-Hispanic.
...A source close to Bush said he'll be thoughtful and methodical about the decision-making process. He will consider the impact a race would have on his family and his business and whether or not the U.S. Senate is the best forum from which to continue his advocacy for issues such as education, immigration and GOP solutions to health care reform.
In an interview with Politico immediately after November’s election, the former governor said the Republican Party should take four primary steps to regain favor with voters: Show no tolerance for corruption, practice what it preaches about limiting the scope of government (“There should not be such a thing as a Big Government Republican”), stand for working families and small business, and embrace reform.
Bush said conservatives should “do the math of the new demographics of the United States,” explaining that the Republican Party “can’t be anti-Hispanic, anti-young person - anti many things - and be surprised when we don’t win elections.”
Note that the word from the source contradicts what a Bush spokesman said yesterday.
George P. Bush ("George Prescott Bush") has (earnedmedia.org/fred1210.htm) joined the Fred Thompson as the National Chair of his "Young Professionals for Fred Thompson" group. This is at least the second link he has to the Bush family.
A group of about 30 conservatives have sent an open letter to the rest demanding that they band together and support the Bush/Kennedy/Kyl massive illegal alien amnesty bill. The letter itself is full of half-truths, such as their claim that "it will make sure that the law is enforced first, before any other provisions of the legislation take effect".