Posted on 08/31/2004 6:40:29 AM PDT by Aetius
August 29, 2004 A Platform for Immigrants
olitical parties generally like to get through the business of adopting their campaign platforms without too much fuss. But on the eve of their convention, President Bush and his loyal followers had to deal with undercurrents of unhappiness from conservatives about the issue of immigration reform.
Anybody who has watched the Republicans wrestling with this explosive issue this year knew it would be difficult to please both the Republican moderates who realize that the system is "broken" - as Mr. Bush put it in January - and ideologues like Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who has not only opposed easing rules for undocumented workers but has even favored a "time out'' on legal immigration. Mr. Bush will gain more support in that wider middle ground if he sticks with his original proposal to mend the immigration system and begins supporting bipartisan proposals in Congress.
Mr. Bush made a reasonable start in January at untangling the immigration mess - a guest worker plan that he stressed was not an amnesty. There were few details in his proposal, but even this moderate plan provoked a deafening outcry from the conservatives in the "What part of illegal don't you understand?" crowd. Sadly, the president went scurrying back into safer territory. Congress stalled passage of a bill to help 500,000 farm workers, and one to lower costs for immigrants' children to go to college. These bills have the support of Republicans and Democrats, unions and businesses. The president could easily bring them to the floor.
At the same time, Mr. Bush needs to head off less helpful proposals. Some anti-immigrant conservatives want the police or hospital workers to help identify illegal immigrants as a first step in sending them back where they came from. Most police experts and health workers strongly object. If an illegal worker is raped, she might resist going to the police for fear that they will worry more about her papers than her attacker; that leaves the rapist on the streets. No health expert wants someone with a contagious disease hiding from those who could provide treatment.
Mr. Bush's original plan seemed to head in the right direction by promising workable incentives for those who want to return to their native countries after earning money in America. But any plan to create a new class of "temporary" workers raises the specter of the old bracero program, which resulted in harassment, discrimination and abuse of too many migrant workers. The word amnesty is anathema to Mr. Bush's conservative Republican base, but the president has to realize that reform will work only if there is a reasonable way to allow some illegal immigrants a path toward permanent residence and even citizenship.
A party platform has never been a real contract with the voters, of course. But if the Republicans want to court moderates and appeal to minority voters like Hispanics, the promise of legitimate and humane immigration reform deserves to be near the top of the president's agenda for a second term.
1. Tom Tancredo, whose anti-amnesty and pro-immigration reduction views are shared by most Americans, is an 'idealogue.' Those pushing for things most Americans don't want are 'moderates.'
2. They express shock that Tancredo not only opposes amnesty for illegal aliens -- notice though that they use the euphemism 'undocumented worker -- but that he supports a time out on legal immigration. Of course they fail to explain what Tancredo means by a 'time out,' because if they do even most of their readers would probably realize they agree with Tancredo. A 'time out' or 'moratorium' is setting legal immigration at levels roughly equal to the level of emigration, thus resulting in a net level of immigration of about zero. But doing so would allow for legal immigration levels of about 300,000 per year. The Times leaves that out because they know most Americans would support reductions to that level.
3. They use the tired 'anti-immigrant' smear on those who apparently of guilty of nothing but holding what are truly mainstream views on this topic.
4. And in a final show of just how out of touch they are, they claim that an amnesty is one way to appeal to 'moderates', who must also oppose amnesty if the polls have any accuracy at all.
I have given up hope that the mainstream media will ever cover the issue of immigration fairly -- without smearing their opponents with bogus charges of xenophobia and bigotry, w/o knowingly mischaracterizing what are the true mainstream views of Americans on the matter.
"'What part of illegal don't you understand' conservative", thats me.
ping
If you want a a laugh..take a look at the front page image ..the actual image of today's paper..they have a unique view of the world...
The problem is that those people don't want to solve the problem, instead, they want a solution that's neither feasible nor practical, so we're stuck in a quagmire that does not allow for progress on the issue because it eliminates incremental steps toward working on a solution, and would settle only for the desired results without taking into consideration that those incremental steps they opposed, were the road to the solution they desire.
As far as Tancredo's idea of a moratorium on legal immigration, he needs to spend a little time paying closer attention to the decreasing employee-retiree ratio in the U.S., and how the accelerating pace of baby boomers retiring impacts our economy.
Our administration has failed to put AMERICANS FIRST.
Unacceptable.
Here's an amnesty that I would support:
Employers or individuals hiring illegal persons have 90 days to cease and desist from hiring, aiding, and abetting any person known to be in the United States illegally. Beyond that 90 day period, any corporation or person knowingly hiring, aiding, or abetting illegal aliens may be fined up to seventy-five percent of their total financial assets and/or imprisoned for ten years without parole.
Again, moratorium does not mean no immigration. It means setting it at a level equivalent to emigration. That is about 300,000 per year, which would still be the most generous immigration policy in the world, at least on an absolute basis.
As to the employee to retiree ratio; I don't think it is a particularly good idea to use one bad public policy -- unending mass immigration -- to prop up other bad ones like Social Security. Soc Security and Medicare need real reform, not an unending massive infusion of immigrants to try and keep them afloat, which is something I doubt they can do anyway.
But if that is an argument in favor of unending mass immigration, then we'd probably need even more legal immigration. If that is one's position, fine, I just wish the politicians would be upfront and honest about it. Say to the American people that you think a massive increase in already mass levels of legal immigration is good for the country. At least then we could have a real debate about.
"Our administration has failed to put AMERICANS FIRST"
It has not. Since when has this nation at any time put up barriers to legal immigration? Never!
This country is available to all who wish to abide by the laws and who wish for the freedoms they cannot get in their native lands.
""'What part of illegal don't you understand' conservative", thats me."
That's me too. And that's why I support the Bush immigration reform policies.
It's a great idea and one that will help to formalize the obscene and idiotic situation that exists today.
" Since when has this nation at any time put up barriers to legal immigration? Never!"
True. You make my point nicely.
Our fellow Americans attacked on AMERICAN SOIL, you recall that event about 3 years ago, right?
Yet because the current administration feels a compelling political need to pander to non-Americans, our borders are wide open.
Not only do the illegals cost you and I billions, this policy also allows those same types of "evil doers" (to quote our president) to enter almost at will.
The administration's policy is unacceptable on both legal and moral grounds as well as posing a very real danger to Americans.
Perhaps you disagree. I'd encourage you to search this website for very numerous threads that present the disturbing details of our open borders policy.
I have no argument with enforcing the laws against illegals. You are confusing the issues however. I strongly suggest you review the President's remarks on immigration reform...he's got the right idea.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html
You are confusing the issues.
Not at all.
National defense means protecting AMERICANS from all enemies foreign and domestic.
That defense starts at our borders.
There is no confusion.
As for the president's remarks, they are just that.
Actions, or lack there of, speak louder than words.
I'm not interesting in formalizing the current situation. I want the current situation stopped.
As much as I wish it were not so there is nothing in Bush's proposal that would do this.
Very few immigrants are terrorists. In fact many terrorists are born here and are citizens! Our insane bureacracy needs reform and that is part of the President's plan.
Protecting the nation requires the reforms involving illegal workers. Illegal workers are not terrorists and they need to be allowed to work in jobs that Americans will not do.
Wrong choice of word...what I meant was formalizing in the sense of regularizing those who come here to work in jobs that Americans will not do (guest workers). That way you keep track of them and the costs associated with the revolving door are minimized.
There is no such a thing as a job an American will not do, only salaries employers will not pay.
Even so, I might accept this if the reference is limited to agricultural jobs, which constitute a very small fraction of the work these people are sneaking in to do.
There have been a real lot of discussions about this over the past few years. There are plenty of US citizens to do the work, if the work conditions and salaries are reasonable. What is happening is that the security of jobs for citizens, between outsourcing on one end of the spectrum and foreign labor on the other, has deteriorated horribly over the past four years.
A point of logic. You typed that "illegal workers are not terrorists", and it's probably true that almost all of them are not. It would be best to say that "almost all illegal workers are not terrorists". Even with that, the effect they are having on our economy, social stability, culture, and services is profound. It may not be terrorism, but if this continues it will just as assuredly lead to our demise as a great nation.
----"It has not. Since when has this nation at any time put up barriers to legal immigration? Never!
This country is available to all who wish to abide by the laws and who wish for the freedoms they cannot get in their native lands. "-----
Are you kidding? Even in the midst of a largely accidental, mostly unwanted policy of unending mass immigration we have some barriers to legal immigration. If we did not, then anyone in the world who wanted to legally immigrate (with the usual caveat about not being a criminal) could do so as soon as they had the means to get here. That is not the case. There is a line. Relatives of citizens and permanent legal residents are given a preference, as are certain employee-sponsored immigrants. And most ridiculous of all we have 'diversity lottery' of visas given to underrepresented nations.
And we have a history of putting up barriers and limits to legal immigration. The great European wave of 1880-1920 was cut off by Congressional legislation. That legislation is now often derided as racist, but whether it was or not is irrelevant to its effects. After its implementation, legal immigration went from about a million per year to a little over 200,000 per year, and it stayed at that level for over 40 yrs until a fraudulent immigration refrom bill in 1965 reversed things. That long period of moderate immigration no doubt played a key part in helping to assimilate all the Italians, Germans, etc.
As to Bush's plan, there are several problems, a few of which include;
1. The provision that employers must first make a job available to Americans is meaningless since the employer knows that all he has to do is offer the job at such a low wage/salary that it is very unappealing to Americans, then leaving him free to seek foreign help from people who will be eager to take the low wages he knew Americans would not. In other words, it does nothing to stop wages from being depressed.
2. Like all reforms, it does not even address the twilight zone-like collision between racial preferences (aff action if you prefer) and the importation of people who are eligible to receive them over native whites. This is insane.
3. It is poisonous to future GOP/conservative prospects in its calls for increased legal immigration and likely amnesty for illegals. The simple fact is that most immigrants prefer the Democrats, and this plan would not change that. Reagan went along with an amnesty it did nothing to bring Hispanics into the GOP fold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.