Former President George W. Bush made some interesting remarks on immigration last week that largely fell under the radar. At a Southern Methodist University forum, Bush was asked if he believed that there would be any significant progress on immigration over the next decade. He responded that although he believes that “a rational immigration policy” will eventually be passed, “I think there’s going to have to be some time.” The reason for that, according to Bush, is the nativism that has percolated around the country:

What’s interesting about our country, if you study history, is that there are some “isms” that occasionally pop up. One is isolationism and its evil twin protectionism and its evil triplet nativism.

So if you study the [19]20′s for example, there was an America-first policy that said “who cares what happens in Europe.” Well, what happened in Europe mattered eventually because of World War II. There was Smoot–Hawley which was part of an economic policy which basically said we don’t want trade and there was an immigration policy that I think during this period argued that we had too many Jews, too many Italians, therefore we should have no immigrants. And my point to you is that we’ve went through this period of isolationism, protectionism, and nativism.

I’m a little concerned that we may be going through the same period. I hope that these “isms” pass which would then allow for a more orderly look at immigration policy.

Watch it:

Bush also claimed that “the reason immigration reform died wasn’t just because of one party.” However, while a majority of Democrats voted in favor of the Bush administration-backed immigration reform bill 0f 2007, most Republicans voted against it. Bush also failed to call out his party for being the primary driver of nativism in mainstream politics.

Meanwhile, Bush’s brother, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL), has tepidly criticized his own party’s nativist strain. When asked by Univision’s Jorge Ramos if “Republicans behaved well towards Hispanics and immigrants,” Jeb Bush admitted, “Well, some Republicans have not behaved well in that aspect, some have.” He also advised Republicans to adopt a “civility and tone that draws people toward our cause rather than rejects them.”

However, the Bush brothers don’t appear ready to fully acknowledge the role their party has played in stoking nativism and killing the chances for sensible immigration reform in the near future. In 2009, the ultra conservative American Cause hosted an event aimed at convincing Republicans that “support for border security, national sovereignty, and immigration control rallies the GOP and brings Reagan Democrats back into the GOP.” Many Republicans heeded their advice in 2010 and the nasty immigration landscape we are facing in 2011 is largely a result of that strategy.

During his tough gubernatorial primary against Bill McCollum (R), Governor-elect Rick Scott (R-FL) touted his support for Arizona’s immigration law and proposed exporting the controversial bill to Florida. However, once he nabbed the Republican nomination, he “rarely mentioned the issue.” Even now that he has been elected governor of the Latino-heavy state, Scott hasn’t spoken much about the primary campaign promises he made on immigration up until this past week.

First, Scott told the Miami Herald that he’s “supportive of the concept of stopping citizens to ask them to show identification.” Then, in an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer over the weekend, Scott echoed his previous comments and said that he still supports bringing an Arizona-style law to Florida:

SCOTT: If you’re in our state, in any state, and you’re stopped because you’re violating the law and asked for an ID — just like you and I would be asked — you should be able to be asked if you’re legal or not.

BLITZER: So you like the law in Arizona — you’d like to implement that in Florida?

SCOTT: You gotta make sure there’s no racial profiling, it’s gotta be fair. And, uh, but sure. We have to know who’s in our state. [...] If you’re violating the law you oughtta be asked if you’re legal or not.

BLITZER: You would sign it into law?

SCOTT: Depending on how it’s written, absolutely.

BLITZER: And if it’s written how it was in Arizona, you’d be willing to take the chances of boycotts of Florida?

SCOTT: I’ll make sure that there’s no racial profiling. I’ll make sure that it’s fair to all Floridians.

Watch it:

If Scott plans on signing off on the bill that was introduced by Florida State Rep. William Snyder (R), then it’s hard to imagine how he could possibly prevent racial profiling. The bill exempts all Canadian and Western Europeans from extensive scrutiny. Anyone who can provide a passport from Canada or the mostly Western European “visa waiver” countries will be “presumed to be legally in the United States.” “That language makes it clear that police are targeting only a specific minority,” Susana Barciela of the Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center, told the Miami New Times.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) also vowed not to allow racial profiling to happen in her state when she signed off on the controversial immigration law, SB-1070. However, her word wasn’t enough to stop the state from losing millions of dollars as a result of an economic boycott against her state.

It also wasn’t enough to put former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s (R) mind at ease. The Denver Post recently reported that Bush expressed concerns that “if his children walked the streets of Phoenix they might look awfully suspicious to police.” Bush’s wife and the mother of his children is from Mexico.