Posted on 12/15/2003 9:45:11 PM PST by kattracks
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:11:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
President Bush yesterday ruled out granting "blanket amnesty" to as many as 12 million immigrants illegally in the United States, but said he supports a policy that benefits American business owners and immigrant job seekers.
"We need to have an immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee," Mr. Bush said in a news conference yesterday.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
"Islam is peace" and the Bush administration does not want to make citizens of millions and millions of ILLEGAL aliens here and more millions on the way. No, they just want to make them legal -- then they can fill out a form, get amnesty and become citizens! I bet.
Naturally it would not be fa-a-a-a-air to ask elderly relatives and children of the workers to work. Naturally employers could not be "competitive" if they paid their now legal workers enough to care for themselves and their elderly relatives and children. Naturally we could not let the elderly and children go without housing, food, medical care, education for the children, plus many of the goodies of a middle class lifestyle. Naturally the government via taxpayers will have to pay, pay, pay. . . .
So.. who are among the biggest dependents upon mommy government? BUSINESSMEN!
To be fair, maybe by cutting government regs, etc. the "socialist" businessmen could afford to pay more for labor -- but with a glut of cheap labor don't bate your breath. With billions to chose from there's plenty of labor.
The last major legalization program in 1986, when more than 2 million illegal immigrants were granted blanket amnesty, was a failure.
Isn't there something about making the same error over and over again? Is it insanity or, in the case of politicians and business, just a matter of putting self ahead of Country? As usual. Democrats too, of course.
Again, to be fair. Some say the millions and millions and millions of immigrants are needed to pay future taxes -- else young Americans will be expected to pay 80 percent of the incomes as taxes. Fat chance and politicans will be without taxes to support their royal lifestyles. Meanwhile the immigrants will have political power and demand exemptions from taxes to support Americans. I bet.
Craven politician...One term administration.
I'm against any sort of worker program if there are US citizens who could do the jobs. It's really uncomfortable that the average US worker has no sense of job security, investment security, stability in our culture, or a sense that things will get better.
The employers should be paying for the medical, education, and social services these guest workers bring. The other issue is housing. We hear so much about a low to moderate income housing shortage. Well, that wouldn't be the case if non-citizens were sent home. So now, subsidized housing and homelessness is another expense.
I would submit that if employers looked at all...in poor rural communities, in inner cities, on indian reservations, and among retirees there would be no shortage of workers. Employers just do not want to meet the expectations of the US worker, until he/she expects less.
Summary...send all non-citizens home and start over. First step...English lessons for all who are already citizens.
FYI...Dennis Kucinich is opposed to WTO, NAFTA, and wants trade deals based on workers getting decent work and conditions at home. I don't think he's opposed to immigration, but his programs at least would be a start protecting the US worker and having conditions where workers could make a living wage in their homelands.
|
|
That's Los Angeles County.
I have a hard time believing that. I'd bet that there's more.
That's Los Angeles County.
That's my neighborhood!!
| President Bush yesterday ruled out granting "blanket amnesty" to as many as 12 million immigrants illegally in the United States, but said he supports a policy that benefits American business owners and immigrant job seekers. "We need to have an immigration policy that helps match any willing employer with any willing employee," Mr. Bush said in a news conference yesterday. "It makes sense that that policy go forward. And we're in the process of working that through now so I can make a recommendation to the Congress," said Mr. Bush about the politically dicey issue - made more urgent by his planned attendance at the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey, Mexico, next month. But the president reiterated a stance he has enunciated often: "This administration is firmly against blanket amnesty." The president did not spell out his preferred policy. A handful of options are floating around Capitol Hill, including one co-sponsored by several Republicans who propose giving legal residency to illegal immigrants through work. Senior White House officials have expressed support for such a temporary-worker program that would let some workers become legal immigrants, but so far the administration has not backed any single piece of legislation. Yesterday, a White House official said Mr. Bush's comments represent no change from previous administration policy. The president's comments come a week after Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge expressed support for giving legal status to immigrants. In Miami, Mr. Ridge said: "The bottom line is, as a country we have to come to grips with the presence of 8 to 12 million illegals, afford them some kind of legal status some way, but also as a country decide what our immigration policy is and then enforce it."
|
We need to deport every single one who has chosen to break our laws and ban them from applying for citizen for 10 years.
Also, if granted any type of "legalization" would that include employers paying them at least minimum wage or will the employers just hire "new illegals" to do the jobs the "old illegals" did?
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.