Thread: Hey, Jeb, How About an ‘Act of Love’ for the Grassroots?

Hey, Jeb, How About an ‘Act of Love’ for the Grassroots?
By Jim Geraghty
April 7, 2014 8:13 AM

From the first Morning Jolt of the week:

Hey, Jeb, How About an ‘Act of Love’ for Those Who Disagree With You?

The advantages of a Jeb Bush presidential bid are obvious: “As a presidential candidate, Bush would bring a lot to the table, starting with two terms as a popular, tax-cutting governor, a reputation as a national leader on education reform and school choice, and his family’s extensive and deep-pocketed fundraising network.”
But there are these nagging indicators that he’s either not in touch with the mood of the conservative grassroots, or he’s willfully at odds with the conservative grassroots, and confident he can dissuade the grassroots of their opinion. (See his increasingly fervent defense of Common Core, which infuriates parents on the Right more than any other topic besides Obamacare.) And now we’re on to illegal immigration:

“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.”

What he’s 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.

“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.

For what it’s worth, the U.S. Senate has a different idea of what constitutes ‘additional crimes’:

The Senate immigration bill as it currently stands will allow an illegal alien with two convictions “for driving under the influence or driving while intoxicated” to be granted legal status in this country.

But it’s far from a nutty perspective to think, and contend, 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?

http://www.nationalreview.com/campai...s-jim-geraghty

IMO the Bush family tend to be conservative only with their money but there world view is progressive, America can no longer afford this type of "conservative". The America voter must come to understand that a politician with the GOP does not mean a conservative. The GOP has moved left along with Dem's this is one reason the American worker is in decline.

If Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton is the best we have to offer then all is lost.

“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.

So if a homeless man robs a bank or steals from a store so his family can eat, that's ok? No, he would be arrested. No illegal should take a job from an American citizen. Let the Country of the illegals take care of their own.

“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.”

What makes THEIR families more important than the families of our poor citizens? What gives them to right to be treated better and to come first????? If our representatives can't represent the American people, they should search for another job and soon!

Jeb Bush’s Cunning Strategy?

6:21 PM 04/06/2014
Mickey Kaus

Jeb’s Jejune Swoon: Why did Jeb Bush say those provocative, seemingly jejune things about illegal border crossing being “not a felony” but ” an act of love? Obviously it’s what he actually thinks. But, again, why did he say it? Two theories:

1) He’s running in 2016 and thinks he can compensate for giving amnesty to all the illegal border crossers (mainly from Mexico) by cracking down and even deporting visa-overstayers (who aren’t so much from Latin America). It’s a weak attempt to appease immigration hawks–but it’s also a double-pander to many Latinos, who (rightly) resent politicians who talk about building a Southern fence while ignoring the visa-overstay problem. Clever! I don’t think the immigration hawks will be fooled, though, since Bush also endorsed the Gang of 8 bill, which legalizes instantly while postponing enforcement until later.
Or …

2) He’s not running, but he’s making space for Marco Rubio. Look at it this way: The GOP establishment is desperate to suppress Tea Party conservatives and also obtain the immigration amnesty they believe will win Latinos and relieve them of the need to do too much rethinking in other areas. The problem for the establishment is lack of candidates. Rubio was a favorite, but he sabotaged himself among core Republican primary voters with his disingenuous, flip-floppy championing of the Gang of 8′s bill. That left Christie–but then Christie got caught in a traffic jam. That left Jeb, probably the establishment’s original choice–but it turns out that Jeb is still a Bush, and even the Bushes are sick of the Bushes. That leaves … well, Rubio again. Maybe he can be rehabilitated in time for the primaries! How? Hmm.

Well, if Jeb takes a stand way far out in a squishy idealistic pro-amnesty direction, that creates space for his quondam protege, Rubio, to stake out a position that’s seemingly tougher–e.g. “Jeb’s off base there. Saying it’s an ‘act of love’ obscures the very real problems illegal immigration can cause, which is why I am strong on border enforcement, etc.” Of course Rubio would still be for amnesty, and the establishment would know this. But it might help smuggle him through the primaries. ….

P.S.: The need to rehabilitate Rubio–which means avoiding a big immigration fight, at least in 2015 and 2016–would be one more reason the GOP establishment might feel it’s now-or-never for passing an immigration reform bill. That would help explain theincreasingly desperate and sneaky (but possible successful) efforts to keep amnesty alive. …

Update: John Gibson (on his radio show) theorized that Jeb was going for a quick, impressive uptick in poll support among Latinos. Is that a good strategy for the GOP primaries? Only if you think primary voters who might otherwise disdain Bush will vote for him based on electability. It’s not like Jeb needs to impress donors! … Bush’s remarks also seem like an attempt to answer the argument that Republicans will never win over Latinos if they merely assent to a Democratic amnesty–they have to go the Democrats one better! That’s hard to do when a thoroughgoing amnesty is being promoted by a Democratic president and a fully united Democratic party. But one way to do it might be to trump the necessarily cautious Democrats on an emotional level. Unlike his older brother, Jeb can’t try to be the Abraham Lincoln of the Undocumented (he’s not President). But he can try to be their Mother Teresa Marianne Williamson Pope Francis. … Still, that’ not a primary election strategy–it’s a general election or medium term strategy.

(Longer term, it could end when the 17 million new immigrants added by the Senate amnesty bill come on to the voting rolls.) …

Does Jeb think he doesn’t have to worry about winning the nomination? He sure seems worried in his remarks, talking about “crazy” politics, lamenting the need to win the Muscatine Pork Roast. The message seemed to be: ’I'll run if I can figure out how to glide through the primaries in a magisterial procession, like the old days.’ His immigration remarks probably made that even more impossible than it was before. Which he must have known. …

More: Geraghty thinks Jeb may be “out of touch” with the grass roots. That would be an impressive feat of out-of-touchness! …

http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/06/je...ning-strategy/