BUSH BACKPEDALING ON AMNESTY?

Michelle Malkin ^ | Feb. 09, 2005 | Michelle Malkin

[JustAnotherSavage]

BUSH BACKPEDALING ON AMNESTY? By Michelle Malkin · February 09, 2005 04:31 AM

At The Tar Pit, Sabertooth thinks President Bush may be backing down on amnesty. That speculation is based on Rep. Tom DeLay's statement in this New York Times article:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 8 - Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, the House majority leader, said Tuesday that conservatives might be able to compromise with President Bush on his proposal allowing illegal immigrants to work in the United States legally.

Such a compromise could entail, for example, requiring illegal immigrants to return to their native countries to apply for the program, Mr. DeLay said.

Mr. DeLay said he talked recently with the president, who has advocated a guest worker program that would be open to workers who are currently in the country illegally as well as to newcomers.

"He doesn't discount the notion, for instance, that you have to apply for it in your country of origin," Mr. DeLay said of the president. "He thought that was a great idea."

Lots of other good stuff at The Tar Pit, including this post about an effort by Sens. John McCain and Larry Craig to thwart Rep. James Sensenbrenner's proposed legislation for federal standards for state drivers licenses. http://thetarpit.blogspot.com/2005/02/could-bush-blink-on-amnesty.html

[Conservative Firster]

Amnesty by any other name

[FITZ]

When did start? More like "where" does this start. It starts with the corruption and social injustice in Mexico. THAT is the real driving force behind the massive levels of immigration from that country. People who 15 years ago were working their own lands, tending their own little ranches and farms are now landless desperate peasants their government wants to be rid of. How many Mexicans would prefer living in their own homeland, working their own few acres versus coming north to be someone's cheap toilet cleaner? Or cheap live in nanny or yard boy?

[FITZ]

And WHEN does it stop? It stops when our government leaders get the nerve to stand up to the corrupt but very wealthy Mexican oligarchs and tell them it's going to stop --- that the USA is not the dumping ground for their endless social problems --- that HOY is the time they will start the reform "HOY HOY HOY" like our famous Vicente Fox is well known for saying --- but he's done zilch --- zero, nada to improve life for the Mexican people. And when our leaders dare stand up and tell them the people dumping is over --- they corrupt Mexican elite know that they either pack their bags or start reforms.

[Dat Mon]

Ill address your post, but first...a repost of mine...

I said.."Personally, I am opposed to all guest worker bills on general principle, as I feel that they can be misused by employers to distort and usurp natural labor market supply and demand.

We have already seen how this has been done in the tech sector using the H1b classification. Do some research, and discover how the IEEE-USA feels about H1b.

Although some try to advocate these policies from a libertarian viewpoint, I feel that they are actually contrary to libertarian principles, insofar as they allow the government to indirectly regulate the labor market, using legislative categories, exemptions and allocations, and thus give an unfair advantage to certain companies at the expense of the general public and other companies. This amounts to indirect government interference in private enterprise.

Now, immigration of desirable people with good job skills is another matter. I am not opposed to increasing immigration quotas, provided that strict criteria are met.

First and foremost, there has to be a demonstrated need for a certain labor classification, skill or aptitude.

Second, the applicant should express a desire to become a productive American citizen. They should also have some minimal facility with the English language, OR be willing to learn as part of their naturalization process.

Third, quotas should be assigned to countries across the board, not just one or two, with preference given to those who have stood by us as allies in the past.

Now, with all this talk of "family values" as they apply to immigrants, I say if we want that as part of our criteria, then we should also be assigning an equal number of slots to Poland, as well as to Mexico.

You will not find a more solid, Catholic country than Poland, with solid family values. Also, they have been a faithful ally in Iraq and elsewhere. I would also give preference to Britain and Ireland."

You said. "Here's your first reality check...troops will never be posted at the borders to stop Mexicans from entering the country illegally, or at least to the extent that you and others advocate."

You may check if you like, but you will not find the term "troops" used in any post of mine...for a reason. I use the term..."manpower".

Manpower can be LEO, border patrol, special FBI, and National Guard in some cases. It is all about technology...applied efficiently, SUPPLEMENTED by manpower...thats what I said. You use smart sensors, aerial recon, computers, etc to multiply your force factor. Right now we are woefully undermanned at the border.

You said..."The program will help secure our borders by the mere fact that it will route movement across the border to the legal points of entry leaving less crossers to control; we know from history that given a choice, the guest worker will return home."

Read Willie Greens post. There are three aspects to border / immigrant / guest worker security and enforcement;
Controlling people crossing at the borders
Controlling people already in the country
Enforcement of laws at the EMPLOYER level

You may control the flow of people better at the border if most of the people will participate in this system, provided you have the resources in place to process people, check ID and validate paperwork. That will take lots of manpower...more than we have now. You haven't addressed the other aspects of the problem. Repost from the same Willie Green thread, talking about an illegal homicide hit and run.

"Is this hit and run guy the type you would want as an employee?
NO

Does this person most likely have a job skill and a sponsor who would invite him into the country as a guest worker?
NO

Will this person and others like him come into this country even after a guest worker bill is passed, with the ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM AND SECURITY WE HAVE NOW?
YES"

As far as returning to Mexico...that may have been true for the Bracero program..but as I understand it that program did NOT allow family members to be processed..only the worker. It was posted to me awhile back by someone who was familiar with the Bracero program. I am not.

I am glad you are in favor of Prop 200. Reality check again...you cannot allow other family members to be part of this program as long as you have the present welfare and entitlement system we have in place.

Saying you want to end it is fine..good, but until you do, it is somewhat disingenuous to allow additional people into the country who you know will simply add to this welfare system.

As far as workers becoming American citizens...I favor expanded (within strict guidelnes) immigration quotas assigned across many nations...not just to Mexico. There are alot of good people who want to come here and become productive citizens...they should not be put at the back of a line in order to give preferential treatment to just one country.

[FITZ]

As far as returning to Mexico...that may have been true for the Bracero program..

Mexico after the return of the braceros was not in the bad shape it is today. The exodus of millions of it's citizens is not making any stability. Mexico was far more stable in the 70's --- there existed far more hope for the future there. Neither the USA nor Mexico suffered in the least for the return of Mexico's citizens to Mexico.

[FITZ]

If you're really worried about "militarization" of the border --- you ought to be worried about the militarization going on on the other side:

Mass Kidnappings and Murders Strike Tamaulipas Town and Prison

....
Osiel Cárdenas, the alleged leader of the Gulf Cartel which has traditionally controlled Matamoros, is in one of the Mexico City-area prisons, La Palma. A group of enforcers said to be under his control, Los Zetas, which is comprised of deserted Mexican special forces soldiers, has in the past used large numbers of men to carry out daring prison rescues and lethal operations against competing drug traffickers.

Call to Militarize the Border

Between the time of the Soto La Marina and Matamoros killings the state of Tamaulipas had already called on Mexican defense forces to take over anti-crime vigilance in the state.

http://www.nmsu.edu/~frontera/

The border already is heavily militarized ---that's a fact --- but not with an honest military run by a non-corrupt government.

So --- cattle cars, train box cars, and unventilated semi trailers fill with Mexicans stuffed in like sardines is a wonderful thing as long as they're coming from Mexico that way. Air-conditioned comfortable Grayhound style buses headed the other way is inhumane.

Military on the border is only bad if it's America's military, military on the border if it's Mexican military --- Los Zetas for example --- no problem.

[Freedom Dignity n Honor]

Hmm President Bush asks for the earth, sun, moon and stars yet when it's over with he'll settle for the earth and sun.

Just like when he wanted $6 trillion for something yet asked for $12 trillion and finally got Congress to settle for $6 trillion.

Yep I wouldn't play poker against him.

[Poohbah]

It will take a terrorist act across the southern border for him to slam the hammer down.

Which explains why so many folks seem to take onanistic glee in that prospect.

He could declare martial law and create a dead zone on our border in 12 hours.

Absent the condition you set forth above, he'd only do so if he wanted to be impeached in 13.

[judgeandjury]

Hey bayourod, if you don't mind answering a personal question, are you a Latino? The only reason that I ask is that you seem to get very upset whenever FReepers post any kind of derogatory comment about Mexicans. If you are a Latino, then I'd understand you wanting to defend "your people" on this forum.

[pissant]

"The Delay plan must say the illegals have to live in their home country for one full year before they can apply for a guest worker visa".

____________________________________

A full two years would be even better.

[television is just wrong]

So when are these guys going home???

[pissant]

When Congress moves its rear on Imm. reform. Could be awhile.

[inquest]

I call your bluff then. In order for you to say that then you'd have to conclude that Bush didn't properly make the case for war to the American people, since most Americans who supported it didn't have the foggiest understanding of the logistics involved.

[television is just wrong]

I don't think that congress will act. They are afraid of Mr. Fox.

[bayourod]

"are you a Latino"

No, I'm as about as WASP as a Texan can be and my roots go beck to pre-revolutionary war times. I don't hire illegals, don't know any illegals that I know of, am not an immigration attorney or lobbyist; I and don't have any financial or personal interests in any Hispanics, immigrants or Mexico

I've stated my agenda several times.

I am a very conservative, loyal Republican and Bush supporter who believes that a small but vocal assortment of individuals and groups with divergent motives and agendas has independently converged to exploit the legitimate issue of immigration reform for their own purposes; and that the avalanche of emotional hysteria created by them is threatening the relationship between Republicans and Hispanic voters; and that unless stopped right now, could keep the Republicans out of the White House for many decades.

First among that group is the Buchanan gang that has been exploiting racism for almost twenty years, originally in an attempt by Buchanan to advance his own political career, then as spoiler to extract revenge on Republicans for rejecting him in favor of "that Bush boy", and finally as a profit making venture. He has formed a partnership with another experienced fund raiser, Tom Tancredo, to exploit the immigration issue for personal financial gain. I suspect that they will follow the Buchanan 2000 model using Tancredo as the "candidate" this time instead of Buchanan, who has lost his credibility as a candidate. There are millions of dollars profit that can be made off of a presidential campaign using federal matching funds, not the least of which is development of valuable mailing lists. The proof will be if Tancredo ends up running as an independent or third party candidate who, unlike the Dem/Rep candidates, will continue to receive matching funds all the way thru the general election.

A second group is the liberal, zero population growth/environmentalist/anti-immigrant/eugenics complex that is behind such "respected" organizations as FAIR, CIS, NumbersUSA and their affiliates who have tacked from opposing all immigration to talking mainly about "illegal" immigration in order to fuel the flames.

A third, and probably the least significant group is the racist organizations such as StormFront, KKK etc... who also have jumped on the bandwagon of exploiting the "illegal" issue.

A fourth factor is the Internet cottage industry of anti-immigrant fundraising sites. Some have even used FR to recruit contributors. One specializes in stories about Hispanic surnamed people accused of rape. They search to nation for such news items and then claim to have reason to believe that the Hispanic perp is an illegal immigrant.

Another group is talk show hosts and columnists who have glumed onto the mob hysteria in an effort to increasevratings and readership. Rush has been flirting with it, but carefully avoids anything negative about Hispanics that could come back on him in the anti-racist backlash purge that will follow. He even slips in a few statement about favoring amnesty or increasing immigration.

Another group is the Immigration Reform Caucus of Congress composed of mainly dead end House members who see a cheap way to distract their constituents whom they view as necessary nuances to the induldgment of their vanities. "Demagogues" is an appropriate description.

Labor unions are an another obvious group that has always fought immigrant labor and now sees an opportunity to co-opt the anti-illegals movement.

Then there is the liberal media that is fanning the flames because they see the issue as a way to divide the Republicans and disrupt the Bush agenda.

Minor players include Municipal Leagues, Hospital associations, social service providers' organizations and government employees' groups whose lobbyists are the ones commissioning the "scientific" studies showing that illegals have an adverse financial impact necessitating increased government funding for their institutions/communities/organizations etc...

But the facts are that our economy is dependent on immigrant labor; not enough are being admitted legally and it is impossible to prevent foreign laborers from entering America as long as we need their labor and they need the money to feed their families.

[Poohbah]

I call your bluff then. In order for you to say that then you'd have to conclude that Bush didn't properly make the case for war to the American people, since most Americans who supported it didn't have the foggiest understanding of the logistics involved.

In other words, you're arguing that most Americans were mouth-breathing morons who ignored the debate completely, and that excuses your refusal to discuss the mission honestly.

[inquest]

Are you going to bet me that the majority of Americans who supported the war had a full understanding of the logistical requirements involved? Please say yes, you'll make my job a whole lot easier.

[Poohbah]

Are you going to bet me that the majority of Americans who supported the war had a full understanding of the logistical requirements involved?

You're going to amazing lengths to avoid talking about the issues I've raised.

Please say yes, you'll make my job a whole lot easier.

Yeah, it's so much easier to detour into irrelevant tangents than to answer questions you've been asked.

Let's get one thing straight: you believe the majority of Americans to be ignorant mouth-breathing goobers. That may or may not be true. However, that is irrelevant to the questions I raised. Your desire to avoid answering them is also irrelevant to me.

How many troops?

What CONOPS?

Where will we get those troops?

I eagerly await your answers.

[inquest]

You're going to amazing lengths to avoid talking about the issues I've raised.

Wrong. I'm showing you the logic of the "issues" you've raised. You're saying that in order for citizens to be justified in demanding that government do its job, they must inform it of exactly how it's to do its job. But for some reason, you don't want to apply that logic to Iraq. Now why might that be?

[judgeandjury]

Thanks for your very well expressed comments in your post #395. I admire the fact that you are very passionate about the issues that you believe in. You and I may not agree 100% on the issue of immigration, but I always find your comments on this subject interesting to read.