Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Compassion run amok - Bush's immigration policy

Discussion in 'Legal' started by longeyes, Dec 24, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    Here we go. Compassion commingled with low-ball politics.
    I'm glad La Raza is muy contento. You'd think Bush had never heard that we are in a global war.
    -----------------------------------------

    Immigration Reform on Bush Agenda

    By Mike Allen
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Wednesday, December 24, 2003; Page A01


    President Bush plans to kick off his reelection year by proposing a program that would make it easier for immigrants to work legally in the United States, in what would constitute the most significant changes to immigration law in 18 years, Republican officials said yesterday.




    Lobbyists working with the White House said Bush is developing a plan that would allow immigrants to cross the border legally if jobs are waiting for them. The sources said the administration also wants to provide a way for some undocumented workers in the United States to move toward legal status.

    Bush will try to make the plan more palatable to conservatives by including stricter entry controls, including increased use of technology at the border and steps toward better enforcement of current visa restrictions and reporting requirements, sources said.

    Bush said at his year-end news conference last week that he was preparing to send Congress recommendations for an "immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee." He said he is "firmly against blanket amnesty," or a mass legalization. An estimated 8 million undocumented people live in the United States. At least half of them are Mexican, authorities said.

    White House aides would not provide details of the proposal, but the Republican officials said it draws on, among other sources, a bill introduced by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). It would create a Web-based job registry, to be run by the Labor Department. Employers would post job opportunities that would be available first to U.S. workers and then to prospective immigrants, who would be allowed to come under a new visa for temporary workers.

    The other half of the program would be what Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge referred to earlier this month as "some kind of legal status" for undocumented workers in this country. The sources said White House officials were more skeptical about this idea than about the temporary-worker program, but they concluded that they needed a response to the large population of undocumented workers for the plan to be credible and for Bush to get credit from Hispanic voters.

    The blueprint is the most ambitious of its kind since a bill signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986 that offered legal status to millions of illegal immigrants who had moved to the United States before 1982 and imposed sanctions on employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

    The White House plan is being designed by Bush's senior adviser, Karl Rove, in consultation with the domestic policy staff. Sources said the White House's biggest concern is that the new mechanism not penalize people who had followed the law and reward those who had not. McCain's plan, which was introduced in the House by Reps. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), tries to mitigate that problem by creating a new type of visa for previously undocumented workers who would be allowed to live in the United States legally for three years. Then the workers could apply for the temporary worker visa, which would be the path to a green card, or legal permanent residency. That would amount to a three-year advantage for those who entered legally.

    The Republican officials said that rather than proposing specific legislation, Bush may issue broad principles that would become part of what campaign officials call the "compassion agenda."

    Administration officials said Bush will present his proposal, which is still being refined, in the second week of January, shortly before traveling to Monterrey, Mexico, for a two-day summit of leaders from throughout the Americas.

    The proposal is crucial to Bush's relationship with Mexican President Vicente Fox, which was warm in Bush's first year in office but soured after he postponed any relaxation of immigration laws and Fox opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. The two leaders began repairing the relationship during a meeting in October at an international economic summit in Thailand.

    Bush, who said during his campaign that "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande," had been heading toward seeking an overhaul of immigration laws during his first year in office. On Sept. 6, 2001, Fox said during a White House visit that he wanted broad changes in U.S. immigration law within a year, and Bush said he hoped to "accommodate my friend."

    But the plans were scuttled after the terrorist attacks five days later turned the government's attention toward restricting access to the country rather than easing it. Bush said in October 2002 that some noncitizens had "taken advantage" of America's "generous" immigration rules.

    Some conservative lawmakers remain adamantly opposed to any changes that could be portrayed as encouraging immigration, and some members of the Republican congressional leadership are leery of the idea, making its outlook on Capitol Hill uncertain. But presidential advisers said they believe that Hispanic voters, one of the targets for Bush's reelection campaign, will give him credit for pushing for the changes even if nothing is enacted before the election.

    Kolbe said in a telephone interview that "there's a mood for the first time since 9/11 that we have to take a look at this problem rather than just hardening the borders." He added, "The president's involvement will be critical."

    A House GOP leadership aide, who insisted on anonymity, said the leaders are willing to work with Bush but think it will be a hard sell for rank-and-file members who are concerned that the plan could take jobs away from constituents. "The economic piece of it is now much more of a problem than your traditional xenophobia-type objections," the aide said.

    Cecilia Muñoz, vice president for policy at the National Council of La Raza, a civil rights organization, said the danger is that Bush will propose something "that's going to sound vast and historic but that he knows can't get enacted next year."

    "If what the White House proposes is credible, there's likely to be a warm response," Muñoz said. "As long as we get results, we're not going to be picky about the motive."

    The proposal planned by the White House has much in common with plans that have been offered by some of the Democratic presidential candidates, most of which provide for a route to legalization for undocumented workers who have been in the country for five or six years, have a work history and can pass a background check.

    Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.) calls his the Earned Legalization and Family Reunification program. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) has called immigration reform "another broken promise" by Bush. Former Vermont governor Howard Dean told the Arizona Republic's editorial board that he favors earned legalization for undocumented workers who have been in the country for some time and have committed no crimes, but he sounded a note of skepticism about a guest-worker program like that proposed by McCain.

    The Democrats have frequently highlighted their immigration plans in debates. A leading Bush adviser said that, given the crucial swing vote Hispanics could provide next November, "the White House feels it's got to get its irons in the fire now."
     
  2. Jonesy9

    Jonesy9 member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Messages:
    405
    Location:
    MA
    so Bush flip flopped on blankey amnesty in an election year, otherwise he would have passed it for his cheap labor conservtive supporters.

    Do you commies have something against using illegals to boost profits? Do you hate capitalism? Remeber, these are jobs you'd never do so why not open the spicket for illegals? With good english you can be a greeter at Wal Mart.
     
  3. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,803
    Or, how bush may have just lost my vote.

    I read about this on the front page of my local paper, but couldn't find it on their website to post here.

    I cannot believe this....this is sickening.... :cuss:
     
  4. HBK

    HBK member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,430
    Location:
    A liberal hellhole: Olympia, WA.
    Ridiculous. The first thing we should've done after 9-11 was close our borders. We have enough people here already anyway. Illegals shouldn't be given one red cent of taxpayer money. I don't know if it is enough to make me not vote for Bush, though, especially if it means that incompetent loser Howard Dean is running our country.
     
  5. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,803
    Communist. You mean communist.

    And an incompetent loser as well.
     
  6. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    I sense a political miscalculation is afoot.

    Bush wants to "deal" with the issue. He wants a guest worker program. He also wants latino votes. I don't think any reasonable American could disagree with the premise that something should be done. Problem is we already have laws in place. The problem is government at all levels is actively breaking the law. So now we can fix a problem of lawlessness by enacting new laws.

    No, the isse is two fold. Bush and other democrats want the latino vote, pure and simple pander politics.

    Second, for some reason Bush thinks he has to suck up to V. Fox. I can't think of any reason other than cheap labor and oil as being the reason. Mexicos largest export is labor. The country gets more currency from wages flowing from the US to Mexico than it does from the selling of Mexican oil. Leave it to V. Fox to turn welfare into a cash crop.

    Don't get me wrong. We live in a country where the birth rate of its residents does not reproduct itself. If we are to avoid the fate of the UK and France and to some extent Chermany we must get the birth rate up or inport warm bodies. The economic ladder is a reality and we must have people willing to step on the lower rung. No problem with the reality of economics.

    Where I get my BVD's wadded up is I can't tell where the truth stops and lying starts from Bush and his fellow corporatists. I don't trust him to deal with the problem illegal immigration because I sense he will slip the US voter the weenie in one form or fashion. Bush wants amnesty but he doesn't dare use the word, so he will do a Clinton.

    I just don't think Dubya has a feel for how much hatred there is out there for the concept of amnesty for illegal entry into the US. I could support an amnesty if it was combined with a realistic guest worker program and a serious attempt to gain control of the borders, but at this point I consider Bush to be a liar and every thing he says about illegal immigration is a lie.

    Back to the political miscalculation. Could be by pushing amnesty before the election Bush will hand a crippled democrat party a major issue. I just don't see his amnesty games buying him votes. I see it costing him votes.
     
  7. Drjones

    Drjones member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,803
    Someone on another forum said this:

    And I think he makes a fine point.
     
  8. Art Eatman

    Art Eatman Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    43,851
    Location:
    Terlingua, TX; Thomasville,GA
    Question: If there are indeed eight million illegals here in the U.S., how does anybody suggest we deal with the physical problem of finding them? Holding them within some form of detention? Of--within our laws--expelling them?

    Anybody want to guesstimate the direct costs, plus legal costs? And tell us from what budgets these monies will come?

    Anybody have any idea of the present cost per illegal in dealing with those now caught and sent away?

    Art
     
  9. HBK

    HBK member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,430
    Location:
    A liberal hellhole: Olympia, WA.
    Well, a 100 round box of Winchester 9mm is around 11 dollars. Two shots per each illegal, 11 dollars for 50 illegals. Do the math.

    Disclaimer: Although it is in poor taste, it is a joke. I don't REALLY condone shooting illegals. I think deportation is a much better option. As far as the "they do the jobs no one else will do" argument goes, reserve those jobs for people on welfare. AND CLOSE OUR BORDERS!
     
  10. Coltdriver

    Coltdriver Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,202
    Location:
    Colorado
    I wondered about this lunacy. But I think I know the real reason for it.

    The social security system outlays will have a direct impact on discretionary spending in 2006, that is discretionary spending will be reduced in 2006 because the impact of social security will bite into what is left. It gets much worse every year up to 2012 when nearly 100 percent of all government income is spent on social security and medicare.

    So the politicians are trying to capture all the taxable income they can by letting these illegals have legal status here. And taxing them.

    And I don't believe the number is less than 14 million of them.
     
  11. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    You betcha social security's impending implosion is at the foundation. Ponzi's scheme is ready to collapse. Ponzi schemes work only so long as the base continues to expand. SS's base is money, not headcount.

    The economic advantage of hiring illegals is the employer does not have to pay payroll tax. It is off the books and untraceable.

    Legalizing their status to harvest the revenues will defeat the reason for bidness to hire illegals.

    We are losing jobs in this country precisely because the direct and indirect loading of labor with government mandated "benefits" which drives the cost of US labor well past international competitive rates. Rather than reduce government loading of US labor, Bush and his ilk prefer to wink at the law and carve out exemptions which all corporations to escape government mandated costs.
     
  12. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    There is no inexpensive solution to the illegal problem at this point. And the cost may be more than financial; it may blood and the survival of our culture. We have ourselves to thank for that; a critical mass has developed and grown to the point where all potential solutions have become draconian. Cutting off public benefits along with enforcing employer penalties would at least clarify the size of the problem and tell us what we might have to do next.

    What is most galling is Bush's blatant politicizing of this situation. He is willing to sell out the American people to win the Election. Not a hopeful sign for that second term, which will no doubt witness both a full-throttle go-forward of global corporatism combined with rising dissatisfaction among the American serfs most affected.

    Waitone mentions a very important issue: keeping our work force non-geriatric. Demography rules. Europe and Japan are destined, if current trends continue, to have populations with an average age of over 50 down the road. That means not only the end of the welfare state but probably second- or third-tier status for those blocs. Bush, if he were at least an honest politician, could make an argument for more immigration to lower the average age of our work force. Or he could, throwing caution to the wind, make a public argument for our "native" population to have more children and attempt to provide appropriate government incentives. Instead he does neither; he operates by stealth and b.s. The trouble with the way we are handling the immigration situation goes further: we seem to be unable to come to grips with the need to Americanize our immigrants, not insisting on language skills, culture indoctrination (let me be blunt), or allegiance. What is the point of bringing in new blood if the new blood proves to be an alien nation within your midst.
     
  13. Erik

    Erik Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,660
    Location:
    USA
    I agree that we should make it easier for aliens to legally neter the US to work in positions which are hard toplace with legal residents and citizens. (Something which already occurs, by the way.)

    I disagree that we should afford any sort of legal status to illegal aliens.
     
  14. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Obvious solution: fine every employer $100,000 for each illegal alien on the pay roll.
     
  15. WilderBill

    WilderBill Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    544
    Location:
    Texas
    Joensy9, I bet you HAVE a job!!?
    I think we have enough people on welfare to cover most of the hard to fill jobs, if only we could get them to take some of them.
    The cost of doing anything about this problem IS high.
    The cost of doing nothing will be higher.
    There are no easy solutions.
     
  16. QuickDraw

    QuickDraw Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    684
    Location:
    The Great State of California (Bay Area)
    I, like many here will be watching closely.
    I'm already thinking of a "protest non vote" for Pres.
    I'm a 2 issue voter,1.illegal immigration 2.assault weapons ban.
    Time will tell if I stay home in November!

    QuickDraw
     
  17. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    With good english you can spell "spigot." :neener:
     
  18. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    Standing Wolf,

    How about fining them $1,000,000,000 for each one? It'd fix the deficit! Heck, why not behead them? It's no less nonsensical. :uhoh:
     
  19. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    national "re-hab" - a modest proposal

    With the ability to bring in (seemingly) cheap labor at uncontrolled rates thanks to a de facto open border policy and the ability to export jobs abroad thanks to a free movement of capital policy we are setting the stage for what could be a mass "swapping out" of the population of the United States. The old population was a problem, you see, liberty-loving as it was, and recalcitrant to principles of global business. Therefore, the old population is obsolete, worn-out, and needs to be re-built from the ground up. Bush knows this, but dang if he ain't keeping this vision to himself.

    Is there a solution for America's dying middle class? Yes, do what other countries did (and do: GIT! If you are young and gutsy enough, take your brains, your values, your will, and your tools, and go to a backward Third World country and get thee rich. They can use smart Americans who know the way of the world over there. Just make sure they aren't too xenophobic.
     
  20. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Actually in the high tech sector there are stories of Americans moving to India in search of jobs.

    No different that the dust bowl days. Go to where the jobs are.
     
  21. wolf

    wolf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    208
    Location:
    los angeles
    mexifornia..coming to a state near you

    in parts of los angeles (the mayor declared LA to be a "mexican city") you would be hard pressed to be sure you are in the USA..mexican flags..no english heard..shanty towns in open view..yep its a mexican city..just like the country they left..so they can feel at home..

    what did the open border folks think would happen?? millions of uneducated, poor people flood a certain geographical local..blow the wage base out of the middle class..do not assimulate..and in 25 years it becomes the very country they left.
     
  22. HBK

    HBK member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Messages:
    1,430
    Location:
    A liberal hellhole: Olympia, WA.
    That's why we should CLOSE the border. :fire:
     
  23. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    It will take nothing less than a tax revolt to close the borders. If that.
     
  24. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Messages:
    9,325
    Location:
    Hoosieropolis
    Seeing as how the combined military might of NATO and the Warsaw Pact couldn't close the most heavily-guarded border in the history of the human race (which was considerably shorter than our borders,) I suspect it'll take something more than a "Tax Revolt."

    Maybe eldritch magic or a quick re-write of the laws of physics would do the trick.
     
  25. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    I've never been accused of being an optimist but perhaps this was the first time. :D

    I think Bush-Rove is a stubborn man but his fatal flaw is wanting to be loved and thought a bringer of sweetness and light. Massive public rejection might sway him. Either he doesn't know that the majority of Americans are not behind him on this issue or he is guided by an "angelic" vision whose provenance we probably don't want to know about.

    Then again perhaps even a tea party would not avail. We may very well see.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page