PDA

View Full Version : Its not an amnesty program; it's a worker program



SnakebyteXX
11-22-2004, 07:28 AM
Bush Renews Migrant Pledge
President tells Mexican leader Vicente Fox that he plans to push ahead with a measure to give illegal immigrants guest-worker status.
By Peter Wallsten and Richard Boudreaux, Times Staff Writers


SANTIAGO, Chile President Bush vowed Sunday to push a plan that would allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States as guest workers even though it appears less likely to win backing in a Congress that grew more conservative in this month's elections.

Bush made the commitment during a half-hour meeting with Mexican President Vicente Fox in the Chilean capital, where the two leaders are attending the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference. But neither Bush nor his aides could offer any details of where the plan stood on Capitol Hill.

"I told President Fox that I had campaigned on this issue," Bush told reporters as he sat with Fox in the Hyatt Regency hotel in an upscale Santiago neighborhood with views of the snow-capped Andes mountains.

"I made it very clear, my position that we need to make sure that where there's a willing worker and a willing employer, that that job ought to be filled legally in cases where Americans will not fill that job," Bush said.

The encounter brought the two neighbors full circle on the most complex and contentious issue between them. Bush and Fox began their terms within months of each other, promising reforms to ease the flow of migrants across their more than 2,000-mile border. But the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, quickly pushed immigration off a Washington agenda that came to be dominated by security concerns.

On Sunday, Bush conceded a point that Fox and his aides have been making: Legalizing the flow of large numbers of immigrants would free the U.S. Border Patrol to concentrate on terrorists, drug smugglers and other security threats.

"We share a mutual concern to make sure our border is secure," Bush said. "One way to make sure the border is secure is to have reasonable immigration policies."

He said he was undeterred by congressional opposition and intended to change minds by "working it."

"I'm going to find supporters on the Hill and move it," he told reporters Sunday night, during a news conference with Chilean President Ricardo Lagos at the presidential palace.

Asked about a letter sent to him by nearly two dozen lawmakers claiming the plan amounted to an amnesty program for undocumented workers, Bush said he was unfazed.

"I get letters all the time from people that are trying to steer me one way or the other when it comes to legislation," the president said. "But I'm going to move forward. In the letter, I noticed that they said, well, this is because they're objecting to the program because it's an amnesty program. It's not an amnesty program; it's a worker program."

A senior U.S. official, who briefed reporters on condition that his name not be used, said the Bush administration had begun "consultations up on the Hill, and this is going to be part of the president's legislative agenda for this coming session of the Congress."

Bush's plan, not yet written into a bill, would be the first overhaul of immigration rules in 18 years. It would allow three-year work visas for an undetermined number of the millions of illegal immigrants living in the U.S.

Guest workers could then apply for permanent legal status, but their applications would have to include letters from employers stating that the migrants were filling jobs that could not be filled by U.S. citizens.

Bush announced the plan in January, when it appeared that states with heavy Latino populations Florida, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona would be crucial to his reelection. Campaign strategists hoped that having the president back a moderate immigration policy would boost his support among a fast-growing bloc of voters.

But the plan quickly came under criticism from within Bush's party. Rather than alienate his conservative Republican base, the president did not pursue the issue in Congress and mentioned it only occasionally during the campaign, mostly to Latino audiences.

Exit polls showed the strategy might have worked Bush won 45% of the traditionally Democratic Latino vote, a 7-percentage-point increase over his 2000 figure.

Conservatives and labor union officials oppose Bush's plan because they believe it will help immigrants take jobs from U.S. workers. Immigrant advocates fear that the plan will give too much power to employers in deciding migrant workers' fates. And some congressional Republicans also worry that it would encourage more Mexicans to cross the border into the United States.

Rep. Thomas G. Tancredo, a Colorado Republican and one of the leading GOP critics of the Bush plan, said this month that "without first securing our borders from the mass flow of illegal immigration, any guest-worker proposal is totally unworkable."

Mindful of such opposition, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told Mexican officials this month that progress on immigration issues would depend as much on the new Congress as on the administration.

"We don't want to over-promise," Powell said.

Members of Congress who support immigration reform say that no change is possible without strong presidential leadership.

Asked Sunday about the strength of Bush's commitment, Fox told CNN: "He is willing to lead and conduct ahead with the appropriate political timing. He has the will in trying to work this thing out."

Fox, who supports legalized status for the estimated 4 million undocumented Mexicans living in the United States, said he hoped to travel to Washington as early as February to "finish off some of these issues we've been discussing, perhaps putting them in the shape of some form of agreement."

The Mexican leader hopes to influence the details of any U.S. legislation to emerge from Bush's plan. He has said he wants to make sure that it benefits as many Mexican immigrants as possible and does not lead to increased harassment and expulsion of others who live illegally in the United States.

"We are not after amnesty" for illegal immigrants, Fox said. "We don't think that's what should be done now. It's basically to legalize the work that Mexicans are doing in the United States, with dignity, with productivity, and making that economy more competitive."

Fox has made U.S. immigration reforms his top foreign policy priority.

Despite warm ties after the former Texas governor moved into the White House in 2001, relations between Bush and Fox soured after Mexico refused to support the invasion of Iraq. The two leaders did not discuss Iraq at their meeting here.


Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bushfox22nov22,0,2947224.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Popcorn
11-22-2004, 07:53 AM
quote
""I made it very clear, my position that we need to make sure that where there's a willing worker and a willing employer, that that job ought to be filled legally in cases where Americans will not fill that job," Bush said."

How do you define that?


Problem may be, that business that never hired illegal's before now will want to hire the new legals. They will quickly move from those jobs no one wanted to the better jobs, taking jobs from Citizens. You will see people with moderately skilled jobs being replaced by the new legales and paid less. I can't see it not happening. Why would they settle for working in some field when they can now get the better jobs and the employers can legally hire them?

eg8r
11-22-2004, 10:11 AM
If anyone is not upset at Bush yet, this plan should do the trick. I cannot believe he is doing this. In my opinion, the plan encourages illegal immigration.

eg8r

highsea
11-22-2004, 11:15 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Popcorn:</font><hr>Problem may be, that business that never hired illegal's before now will want to hire the new legals. They will quickly move from those jobs no one wanted to the better jobs, taking jobs from Citizens. You will see people with moderately skilled jobs being replaced by the new legales and paid less. I can't see it not happening. Why would they settle for working in some field when they can now get the better jobs and the employers can legally hire them? <hr /></blockquote>I think there are pros and cons. Yes, there may be some added competition for certain jobs, but the wage for that field worker would go up accordingly due to supply and demand.

Businesses that did not hire illegals still would not hire them. But businesses that hire illegals will be caught out. If the worker has legal status, he will have to pay taxes, social sec., etc. Employers will have to pay them the same wage they would pay a legal worker, because these people will go on the books, instead of under the table. All the labor laws, minimum wage, etc. that apply when an employer hires a US citizen will apply to the legal immigrant. This takes away the financial incentive for an employer to hire an illegal. It also provides incentive for the illegal to get legal status, because his wage will go up. This levels the playing field between the illegals and the legals, and the former illegal will start paying taxes on his earnings.

US Citizens would still have preference on jobs, because the employer still has to show that he can't get a US citizen to fill that position. Rather than losing jobs to illegals, citizens would have a better chance of retaining those jobs, because the employer has to pay the same wage to both workers.

Cueless Joey
11-22-2004, 11:51 AM
It'd be an ineffective law if carried on.
I don't expect them to go back to Mexico when their visas expire.
But, it will generate more government revenue.
Why don't we just make it easier?
Grant amnesty to all illegals for a fee. Then we use that money to dig a 40-foot wide and 40 foot deep ditch along the borders.
Let's face, illegal immigration is a problem that will NEVER be solved.

SpiderMan
11-22-2004, 03:12 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
US Citizens would still have preference on jobs, because the employer still has to show that he can't get a US citizen to fill that position. Rather than losing jobs to illegals, citizens would have a better chance of retaining those jobs, because the employer has to pay the same wage to both workers. <hr /></blockquote>

Are you sure? Suppose minimum wage happens to be a little over $5 an hour. Consider a stockboy job that normally pays $7.25 an hour, but an employer shows that no Citizens applied by his hiring deadline. So, he hires a legal immigrant. Will he pay the same rate that he's given the last four Citizens, or does the value of this job take a hit?

Not saying I'm for or against this new policy, as we don't really know the particulars (no bill has been drafted), but I don't think it will have zero impact on compensation and who keeps the jobs.

SpiderMan

highsea
11-22-2004, 04:50 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Are you sure? Suppose minimum wage happens to be a little over $5 an hour. Consider a stockboy job that normally pays $7.25 an hour, but an employer shows that no Citizens applied by his hiring deadline. So, he hires a legal immigrant. Will he pay the same rate that he's given the last four Citizens, or does the value of this job take a hit? <hr /></blockquote>If no citizen wants that job, why shouldn't the employer give it to a legal migrant that wants it? In your example, the migrant did not "take" the job from anybody.

I think what popcorn was implying was this: Say that job pays 7.25, but the employer knows he can get a migrant to do it for 6.25. Will he lowers the pay scale so that only a migrant will take the job? Well, yes he might, but doesn't that then define what that job is worth? The citizen still has the first choice on the job over the migrant.

I have a friend that owns several fishing boats in Alaska. He has a very difficult time getting crews, because the work is tough work, and pay is based on a percentage of the catch, no guarantees. But he cannot hire crewmen from south of the border, because the job "can be done" by an American. It doesn't matter that no Americans want the job, they "can" do it, so the owner cannot hire migrants. Instead, he either lets the boat sit or reduces his catch.

I do not think there is zero impact, and wasn't trying to imply that. What I do think it will do is generate tax revenues where right now there are none, it will force employers who hire illegals to raise the wages of those jobs to a legal minumum (or higher depending on demand), which opens that job up to a citizen, and will improve the labor market for some industries (like my friend with the fishing boats, for example).

A lot, if not most, of the Mexicans in my neighborhood work in construction, as house painters, etc. They make around 10-12/hr. under the table. They wire most of the money down south each week, and pay no taxes, nor do their employers pay employment taxes, L&amp;I, etc. on those workers. There is no incentive for that employer to seek out an American to fill that position, because he would incur a tax burden that he currently is avoiding. By legalizing his workers, the government is forcing him to pay the taxes on them, which would help to open up those jobs to Americans.

As Joey pointed out, the problem of illegal immigration will be with us for a long time. I happen to believe that forcing employers to pay a migrant the same wage as an American will improve the situation of jobs being lost to illegals, because it removes the financial incentive, and the job will go to the most qualified or willing worker. And if no American wants the job, like in my friend's case, why punish the employer?

Besides that, these people's kids are in school here, they get low income/minority health care benefits, etc. Why not get some tax revenues from them?

Gayle in MD
11-22-2004, 05:57 PM
Just what we need, more people looking for jobs! The 9/11 bunch had (Correct me if I am wrong) 67 drivers licenses among them. This is a great time to promote more illegal aliens flowing into our country.

As it is right now, if I drive to the Bethesda ChevyChase area to shop, I can't find anyone who can speak english. Cheap labor leads to more drain on our social services, and the lower wages expand upwards.

Did anyone see the CNN program about the loss of jobs in the Ohio area when Hoover moved out, and how it impacted on the families?

Wonder what Bush has against jobs for Americans?

They should not be allowed over here unless they have a visa and a responsible citizen to vouch for them. They're criminals. Those who hire them illegally should be prosecuted.

It is as if we are rewarding coruption and criminal behavoir.

Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Barbara
11-22-2004, 06:47 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> As it is right now, if I drive to the Bethesda ChevyChase area to shop, I can't find anyone who can speak english. Cheap labor leads to more drain on our social services, and the lower wages expand upwards.

<font color="blue">Gayle, this is called "gentrification". People move into neighborhoods, and people move out. If employers are paying their taxes for their laborers, how does this drain on the social services?</font color>

Did anyone see the CNN program about the loss of jobs in the Ohio area when Hoover moved out, and how it impacted on the families?

Wonder what Bush has against jobs for Americans?

<font color="blue">Bush has nothing against jobs for Americans. The lazy, fricking shiftless, "I only need to made a RAP CD and sidle up to my RAP idol to make money" piece of [censored] people out there are against working. And it's the parents today that can't handle the truth to tell their kids to get off their asses and go do something!</font color>

They should not be allowed over here unless they have a visa and a responsible citizen to vouch for them. They're criminals. Those who hire them illegally should be prosecuted.

<font color="blue">Go for it. They're like fish and you can't catch them.</font color>

It is as if we are rewarding coruption and criminal behavoir.

<font color="blue">Yep, damn Liberals and Independents.</font color>

Barbara



Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle in MD
11-23-2004, 06:22 AM
Hi Barbara, and how are you doing?
Although we have not made the effort to arrest illegal aliens in the past, I think it would be a good thing to focus on since we are concerned about another 9/11. The group which is most concerned about this legislation (And against it) BTW, is the "Independent" group of 9/11 families whose efforts (wishes and recommendations) to get to the bottom of our failure to prevent it are being ignored.

In our area, illegal immigrants are the biggest law breakers of all. There are many ways that they take advantage of assistance which is paid for by working Americans. Although those who own property in the Bethesda/ChevyChase area have not left, the renters in that area have vastly changed the safety factor, as crime has risen along with the influx of illegal aliens.

I think most who are against any kind of amnesty for illegal aliens, or the idea of relaxing our laws regarding those who come here from border countries, are concerned with our safety. Have we learned nothing from our loss of three thousand hard working people?

I wish all Americans could have seen what I saw during the investigation of 9/11. I was there, and it wasn't a pretty picture watching all those families being stonewalled by the Bush administration.

Gayle in Md.

Wally_in_Cincy
11-23-2004, 06:31 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Cueless Joey:</font><hr> Let's face, illegal immigration is a problem that will NEVER be solved. <hr /></blockquote>

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> They're like fish and you can't catch them <hr /></blockquote>

I picked out these 2 quotes because they illustrate the reality of the situation. You can't just round up 24 million people and ship them back to Mexico and Guatemala and Honduras and Peru.

The initial knee-jerk reaction is 100% against any kind of amnesty but if you think about it, if all these folks suddenly disappeared how many buildings would not get built? You can't live in a house with no roof and no drywall. How many folks would not be able to find somebody to cut their grass?

We somehow need to get these folks paying some taxes and since it's basically impossible to deport them all something needs to be done. I just fear that it will encourage more illegals to come here

whaddaya gonna do? /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Deeman2
11-23-2004, 07:12 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> As it is right now, if I drive to the Bethesda ChevyChase area to shop, I can't find anyone who can speak english. Cheap labor leads to more drain on our social services, and the lower wages expand upwards.

<font color="blue">Gayle, this is called "gentrification". People move into neighborhoods, and people move out. If employers are paying their taxes for their laborers, how does this drain on the social services?</font color>

Did anyone see the CNN program about the loss of jobs in the Ohio area when Hoover moved out, and how it impacted on the families?

Wonder what Bush has against jobs for Americans?

<font color="blue">Bush has nothing against jobs for Americans. The lazy, fricking shiftless, "I only need to made a RAP CD and sidle up to my RAP idol to make money" piece of [censored] people out there are against working. And it's the parents today that can't handle the truth to tell their kids to get off their asses and go do something!</font color>

They should not be allowed over here unless they have a visa and a responsible citizen to vouch for them. They're criminals. Those who hire them illegally should be prosecuted.

<font color="blue">Go for it. They're like fish and you can't catch them.</font color>

It is as if we are rewarding coruption and criminal behavoir.

<font color="blue">Yep, damn Liberals and Independents.</font color>

Barbara



Gayle /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="brown"> Barbara and Gayle:

Both of you make excellent points here. What are we to do? I see both sides in wanting opportunity for those Americans already here and providing labor for those jobs most Americans simply don't want anymore. In East Texas, we advertise jobs that pay well for this area for machinists, toolmakers ($11.00 to $18.00 and hour) and get zero applications! Now, if there are people hungry out there, we all know there are, right? Why can't we get them. We will train people if needed but simply can't pay guys who have no interest in working pretty hard to learn a trade. Just an interesting point here to make in regard to some of the other posts I read. We pay our Mexican workers (legal, documented) on average, slightly more than the American workers as they, again, on average, have brought more skills, stay longer to learn the process and are much more productive than the Americans.

You have to be smarter than me to figure out a policy that will repair this without doing much damage to the locals but, in reality, I see the locals drinking at the bars complaining there are no good jobs here. I just don't know the answer. I hope the left and right can come together to work something out but I agree, open borders is probably not the final answer.

This is why open dialog, not just partisan bickering, will be needed or we'll still be fighting this in 8 years. I usually have at least a good guess at an answer but people on border states and those in the other parts of the country may see this problem differently but Gayle's post shows it is not just regional. Barbara made some excellent points but what are we to do? Pardon me, but it saeems the kids don't want to be anywhere other than working at Taco Bell and living marginized lives in many cases. This trend of jobs going overseas started 40 years ago with the textile industry and is creeping by occupation and social class through manufacturing, high tech and now, everything is fair game. Can we legislate this out of the way? I don't think so. How do we make oueselves more competitive? That's the only answer in the long run. Twenty years ago, we could just embargo, tarif and stonewall. In a global economy, it won't work. The steel import tarifs saved many steel jobs for the last few years but cost many more in manufacturing! China will play an even bigger role as we go forward and they grow stronger at our expense. However, how many of you are willing to give up Walmart T-shirts and buy them at three times the price to "shop American?"

It's a tough call.


Deeman </font color>

highsea
11-23-2004, 07:28 AM
Geez Gayle, As I read through this thread, you sound like a conservative and I sound like a liberal!

What's this world coming to?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan
11-23-2004, 07:49 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote SpiderMan:</font><hr> Are you sure? Suppose minimum wage happens to be a little over $5 an hour. Consider a stockboy job that normally pays $7.25 an hour, but an employer shows that no Citizens applied by his hiring deadline. So, he hires a legal immigrant. Will he pay the same rate that he's given the last four Citizens, or does the value of this job take a hit? <hr /></blockquote>If no citizen wants that job, why shouldn't the employer give it to a legal migrant that wants it? In your example, the migrant did not "take" the job from anybody.
<hr /></blockquote>
Actually, what I said was that the employer "shows" that no Citizens applied by his hiring deadline. I would imagine that there are many creative ways to exclude the applicants you don't wish to hire. It's done frequently in the rental-housing market, despite being blatantly illegal.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
I think what popcorn was implying was this: Say that job pays 7.25, but the employer knows he can get a migrant to do it for 6.25. Will he lowers the pay scale so that only a migrant will take the job? Well, yes he might, but doesn't that then define what that job is worth? The citizen still has the first choice on the job over the migrant.<hr /></blockquote>
Yes, this does define what the job is worth. That worth is less if the pool of job-seekers takes a sharp increase, while the number of jobs remains fixed. Is this good or bad, I suppose it depends on whether you're an employer or an applicant, but it will certainly change things.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
I do not think there is zero impact, and wasn't trying to imply that. What I do think it will do is generate tax revenues where right now there are none, it will force employers who hire illegals to raise the wages of those jobs to a legal minumum (or higher depending on demand), which opens that job up to a citizen, and will improve the labor market for some industries (like my friend with the fishing boats, for example).<hr /></blockquote>
I don't think all that is necessarily true. Joe's Roofing currently chooses to hire an illegal immigrant over your 20-year-old son. The pay is about the same ($75-$100 a day) in either case, but going with the illegal allows him to avoid a lot of messy tax records, social-security payments, etc. Joe will always have this same choice - why would he make it differently just because his available legal workers now include immigrants? Why wouldn't he still use the illegal? The new "legal immigrant" probably won't appeal to Joe any more than the current "Citizen" worker.
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
A lot, if not most, of the Mexicans in my neighborhood work in construction, as house painters, etc. They make around 10-12/hr. under the table. They wire most of the money down south each week, and pay no taxes, nor do their employers pay employment taxes, L&amp;I, etc. on those workers. There is no incentive for that employer to seek out an American to fill that position, because he would incur a tax burden that he currently is avoiding. By legalizing his workers, the government is forcing him to pay the taxes on them, which would help to open up those jobs to Americans.<hr /></blockquote>
Unless the number of jobs for which employers currently prefer legal citizen workers increases to match the flow of legal immigrant workers, the taxes collected will remain the same. It doesn't matter whether the worker is a citizen or legal immigrant, if there are only "x" number of above-board tax-paying jobs, then there are only "x" number of workers paying taxes. Joe's Roofing will probably still pay under-the-table. However, more money may now flow "down south" because foreign workers are filling legal positions and giving up none of the illegal ones.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
As Joey pointed out, the problem of illegal immigration will be with us for a long time. I happen to believe that forcing employers to pay a migrant the same wage as an American will improve the situation of jobs being lost to illegals, because it removes the financial incentive, and the job will go to the most qualified or willing worker. And if no American wants the job, like in my friend's case, why punish the employer?<hr /></blockquote>
I don't think the incentive to hire an illegal will be removed. If the employer sees the same disincentives (tax records, social security, etc) for a legal immigrant as a citizen, why would he stop using his illegal immigrants?
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>
Besides that, these people's kids are in school here, they get low income/minority health care benefits, etc. Why not get some tax revenues from them? <hr /></blockquote>
Again, if the number of "legal" jobs remains constant and the number of "legal" workers increases, then you have the same amount of tax revenue as before (actually less if the job devalues). But you have higher unemployment and more money leaving the country.

SpiderMan

SnakebyteXX
11-23-2004, 07:54 AM
Bush revives bid to legalize illegal aliens

By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


President Bush yesterday moved aggressively to resurrect his plan to relax rules against illegal immigration, a move bound to anger conservatives just days after they helped re-elect him.

The president met privately in the Oval Office with Sen. John McCain to discuss jump-starting a stalled White House initiative that would grant legal status to millions of immigrants who broke the law to enter the United States.

The Arizona Republican is one of the Senate's most outspoken supporters of expanding guest-worker programs and has introduced his own bill to offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.


"We are formulating plans for the legislative agenda for next year," said White House political strategist Karl Rove. "And immigration will be on that agenda."

He added: "The president had a meeting this morning to discuss with a significant member of the Senate the prospect of immigration reform. And he's going to make it an important item."

While the president was huddling with Mr. McCain, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was pushing the plan during a visit to Mexico City.

"The president remains committed to comprehensive immigration reform as a high priority in his second term," he told a meeting of the U.S.-Mexico Binational Commission. "We will work closely with our Congress to achieve this goal."

But key opponents in Congress said Mr. Bush's proposal isn't going anywhere. "An amnesty by any other name is still an amnesty, regardless of what the White House wants to call it," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican and chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus.

"Their amnesty plan was dead on arrival when they sent it to the Congress in January, and if they send the same pig with lipstick back to Congress next January, it will suffer the same fate," he said.

With the House and Senate already clashing over border security and deportation provisions in the pending intelligence overhaul bill, some Capitol Hill aides said it's almost impossible that Congress could agree on a broader immigration proposal.

Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), said he "suddenly went from calm to stressed out" after learning of the president's renewed push for immigration relaxation.

He predicted the plan would continue to meet vigorous opposition from House Republicans.

"If the House wouldn't deliver this bill before the guy's election, when he claimed he needed it for the Hispanic vote, why would they deliver it after the election, when their constituents overwhelmingly oppose it?" he said. "Why would House leaders follow the president over a cliff?"

White House officials insisted the move was not "payback" to Hispanic voters who supported Mr. Bush in greater numbers last week than in 2000. Although the president first proposed relaxing immigration shortly after taking office, he mothballed the idea after September 11, 2001, and downplayed it on the campaign trail.

"The president has long believed that reforming our immigration system is a high priority," White House deputy press secretary Claire Buchan said yesterday.

Mr. Stein said Mr. Bush is already a "lame duck president" whose proposal "has no credibility." He expressed astonishment that the president resurrected the plan before pushing other second-term agenda items, like tax simplification or Social Security privatization.

"There's a sense of obstinacy in the face of overwhelming evidence that it's a losing approach," he said. "I mean, the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, expecting a different result."

Though most members of Congress agree on the need for a guest-worker program to fill unwanted jobs, House Republican leaders, including Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Texas Republican, have panned other parts of the president's proposal as an amnesty.

Mr. Bush has not sent immigration legislation to Congress, though seven bills have been introduced by members of the House and Senate, according to Numbers USA, an organization that lobbies for stricter immigration controls.

They range from a proposal to give legal status to fewer than 1 million agricultural workers to a bill that could legalize most of the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. But none of the bills has passed even one chamber.

Mr. McCain is sponsoring a bill, along with Reps. Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake, both Arizona Republicans, that would go further than the president's principles by explicitly allowing those now here illegally to enter a guest-worker program and eventually apply for permanent residence.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the president wants to "provide a more humane treatment" of illegal aliens from Mexico.

"America has always been a welcoming society, and this is a program that will match willing workers with willing employers," he said. "It will promote compassion for workers who right now have no protection."

He added of Mr. Bush: "It's something that he intends to work with members on to get moving again in the second term. It's something he believes very strongly in."

Mr. Powell yesterday insisted that security is an important part of his boss's proposal.

"We must also be innovative in our efforts to stop those who abuse the openness of our societies along the border, who would use this openness to harm our citizens through trafficking in drugs, or trafficking in human beings, or by committing acts of terrorism," Mr. Powell said.

Some on Capitol Hill said Mr. Bush may be emboldened by the fact that he didn't appear to lose support among conservatives in this year's election, and several Republicans who did support guest-worker programs defeated primary challengers, including Mr. Flake, Mr. Kolbe and Rep. Christopher B. Cannon, Utah Republican.

"I think a lot of members around the country saw those results and realized that voters are more interested in a serious solution to this problem," said Mr. Flake's spokesman, Matthew Specht. "So I think that certainly improves the chances for reform next year."

In a 90-minute interview Sept. 22 with editors and reporters of The Washington Times, Mr. Rove said a Bush victory would "be an opportunity" for the president's guest-worker proposal for immigrants, although he declined to call it a "mandate," as he did on such issues as Social Security reform and tax cuts.


Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/national/20041110-123424-5467r.htm)

highsea
11-23-2004, 08:05 AM
You may be right, spiderman. I'm more of a technical guy than a sociologist. But this is the club the migrant has over his employer:
[ QUOTE ]
Guest workers could then apply for permanent legal status, but their applications would have to include letters from employers stating that the migrants were filling jobs that could not be filled by U.S. citizens.<hr /></blockquote>
So if the migrant wants to get permanent status, he has to go above the table. It thins out the workforce of illegals. It doesn't eliminate them, but it thins them out.

And in the meantime, he pays taxes. His kids are in our schools, and theoretically, he wants to stay in America. So he goes legal, and his employer has to find someone else for that job if he wants an illegal.

SpiderMan
11-23-2004, 08:08 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr> Geez Gayle, As I read through this thread, you sound like a conservative and I sound like a liberal!

What's this world coming to?

/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif <hr /></blockquote>

Gayle can see this topic impacting her directly. One of my favorite "eye-opening" quotes:

"A liberal is just a conservative who hasn't been mugged yet" /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

SpiderMan

Fair_Play
11-23-2004, 01:38 PM
No big deal, the plan....
IF there is iron clad security at the borders... not only the mexican border, but aerial ports of embarcation as well. No one is saying much about our asian brothers and sisters.....

LOLuck, Fair Play

Gayle in MD
11-23-2004, 04:48 PM
Hi there kiddo,
Ya know, you guys just won't believe me, I really am not a liberal. I really am just what I told you, I am an independent. You can be against Bush and not be a liberal you know.

I dare say, some of my beliefs are even on the conservative side. I take things point by point. I still think that higher wages would come without illegal aliens taking jobs away, which would in turn make many of these jobs more appealing to college kids, retirees, others in our population.

What do you guys think is the reason why the number of jobs in this country is falling? I do pay more for a lot of things because I won't buy anything that isn't made right here in the good ol' USA (except Italian cheese &amp; Wine,lol)

We need to encourage the Corporations to keep their business here, There are ways to do that. We are the great consumers, so why shouldn't we work to provide for one another the goods which we must have? If we keep sending jobs out of this country, building up debt, national debt, trade dept, etc. and spending our money bombing and building up other country's, please tell me how that is going to help America? Did you guys see how much money in that budget is going outside our country. We're paying for it you know. Seems pretty simple to me...
Build our debt
Send our jobs overseas
Send our money overseas
Give away the jobs that are here
Lure the criminal element into the country
Then borrow money from our enemies....
JEEZE!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif


We need to get out of debt, attack our energy problems by utilizing American talent and government financed programs, close down our borders that best way we can, and make people save up their money to come to this country. We need to cut the corruption out everywhere it exists, starting with the Senate and the Congress, right on down to the ceo's that are robbing the average guy of his retirement, and it is still happening.

My Grandfather saved his money for years to come over here from Italy, opened a tailoring and cleaning business on North Capital Street in Washington DC. He owned his own home and business when he got here, then saved to bring his brothers over here, put them all to work, until one by one they each moved on to their own businesses.

I am totally against rewarding people who get here by breaking our laws.

Gayle in Md. /ccboard/images/graemlins/frown.gif

nhp
11-23-2004, 05:28 PM
MUAHAHAHA Bush is turning into Darth Vader all of a sudden.

ceebee
11-24-2004, 03:13 PM
My first priority in being a good American, is being legal. If the immigrant wants to become a citizen, through legal means, the immigrant has always been welcome. That is how America was made.

Illegal people and deeds have to be stopped cold, a good society cannot endure this kind of behavior. An illegal alien is no better than a common theif, he or she is commiting a serious crime.

An illegal society is an unjust community. It's a community where only a few succeed and many suffer. It's like the worst case scenario of athlete's foot... left untreated, it may cripple you. Curing a putrid fungus will be difficult, but not impossible.

My brush with these lawless communities, mostly in Texas, prove my words... they are home to drugs, physical and mental abuse, ignorance, thievery, murder and loss of quality lives.

Do you want these kind of problems in your city? Do you want them in your neighborhood? If you don't contact your local, State and Federal government officials to demand they confront the problem now... tommorrow, the problem may move in next door.

The Tulsa Police Chief said that he did not have the manpower or funds to control the onslaught of problems stemming from illegal immigrants.... theft, robbery, murder, drugs, prostitution, gangs, uninsured motorists and on and on and on... Chief Ron Palmer said he would instruct his officers to limit their activities to regular police duties.

We, the American people have always held our hand out to help. We need to retract that helping hand because it is needed to clean up our homeland. If the government doesn't see this problem or doesn't want to stem the tide against this problem, be sure to tell them how you feel.

SnakebyteXX
11-24-2004, 03:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Do you want these kind of problems in your city? Do you want them in your neighborhood? If you don't contact your local, State and Federal government officials to demand they confront the problem now... tommorrow, the problem may move in next door.
<hr /></blockquote>

You make some very good points and have some legitimate concerns. However, I've seen estimates that there are between 8 to 14 million illegal aliens currently living in this country. For the sake of easy math let's assume that there are at least ten million. Imagine the manpower and expense involved in rounding up and deporting ten million people? In addition, as long as our borders are so easy to cross undetected - even if we did manage to deport them all - how would we prevent them from returning?

On top of all that, would they be missed? Do you honestly think those ten plus million illegals contribute NOTHING to our economy? Who would fill the jobs that they left vacant?

Not an easy problem - not an easy solution.

Snake