Posted on 01/08/2004 8:03:21 AM PST by PhiKapMom
The Bush proposal
Linda Chavez
January 8, 2004
President Bush announced a sweeping new immigration reform proposal this week that could become a hot-button issue in the November election. For months, insiders have hinted that the president would propose a new guest worker program aimed at allowing more foreign workers into the country on a temporary basis. Widely favored by the American business community, a guest worker program would allow employers to fill jobs in industries that routinely experience shortages of workers willing to do the often difficult, dangerous jobs Americans shun -- at least at wages that allow employers to remain in business.
But the guest worker provisions won't be the most controversial part of the administration's new proposal. Although some groups that want to limit immigration altogether -- such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) -- oppose guest worker plans, even such staunch restrictionists as Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) are on record supporting the idea of guest workers. The real battle will be over what to do with those millions of illegal aliens who are already here.
Some 8-12 million illegal aliens reside in the United States now -- up three- or four-fold from a decade ago. An estimated 60 percent of these are from Mexico alone, and it is no accident that the Bush plan was announced in anticipation of the president's meeting with his Mexican counterpart, President Vicente Fox, next week. The White House announced less than a week before the Fox meeting that millions of illegal aliens from Mexico and elsewhere will be allowed, over time, to earn legal status in the U.S., so long as they have been working continuously, paid taxes and not broken other laws. The plan will impose some penalties on these workers -- most likely fines similar to those proposed in legislation sponsored by Republican Representatives Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe and Senator John McCain, all from Arizona.
These proposals may not offer perfect justice -- who can blame those who resent rewarding "line jumpers" with legal status while millions of other would-be immigrants wait patiently to enter the country legally. But "earned legalization" is probably the best solution to a largely intractable problem. There is no way that the United States can find and deport 8-12 million illegal aliens in this country, and even if we could, we would do more harm than good.
The American economy depends on these workers, who, along with legal immigrants, contributed significantly to the economic boon of the 1990s. If FAIR could wave a magic wand and make these illegal aliens disappear overnight, the rest of us would suffer by having to pay more for everything from the food we put on the table to the houses in which we live. Our office buildings wouldn't get cleaned, our crops wouldn't get picked, our meat wouldn't get processed, nor our tables cleaned when we go out to eat.
Sure, we could double wages to attract American-born workers to some of these jobs, but at even twice the salary it would be difficult to fill the nastiest of these tasks, like processing poultry. But why would we want American workers, who we've spent trillions of dollars educating for 13 or 14 years, on average, to perform jobs that require only the most minimal skills? Even if we got rid of all illegal aliens in the U.S., these jobs would likely go to foreign workers, like it or not.
What sense does it make to insist that we get rid of the very people doing these jobs now in order to make way for other foreign workers to take them under a new guest worker plan? It makes a lot more sense to figure out how to get those illegal aliens already employed at these jobs to come in from the shadows and become part of the legal system. They should pay a penalty for having broken the law in the first place by sneaking into the country or overstaying their visas, but it is better for all of us if they earn their way toward legal status than remain in the illegal netherworld where they now hide.
Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a Townhall.com member organization.
It tells me hotel industry workers are underpaid. If the hotels need them to stay in business, they will have to raise the wages. Of couse they now have a pool of illegals to draw on and exploit.
I was one of them myself ,last time around. Voting someone into office, and then complaining to someone else in lower office, when it goes wrong gets you no where.
There have been far too many left leaning policies out of this administration. With each of these liberal tactics he is eroding the Base of Conservatives who did show up and gave him a chance, as well the moderate Republicans who don't like the trail of bad policies these last few years.
Bottom line, who does this proposed amnesty benefit? It is not you or me. It is not America, unless we are a Socialist nation now, concerned with giving handouts to all people in the world who are just trying to "feed their families".
Where does it end? Do you want to pay for all of the starving people of the world? Should we tear up the US Constitution because everyone in the world deserves a chance at the American Dream? And should everyone in the entire world have a say as to who our President will be?
Whose vote did this secure?
The campaign is interested in grass roots activism for the reelection effort.
Letting the administration know that they have your vote, regardless of their polices ,leaves the door open for them to explore and promise things to everyone to the left of you.
Believe me.. I know President Bush and his team have their ear to everyone nd anyone is saying they will stay home next election. especially in places like Pennsylvania. I know he would like to have my vote and my neighbors vote secured.
I predict that Karl Rove will be hung out to dry on this, and President Bush will back peddle, once he see the mess this has created.
Then I will be glad I spoke up about where my vote is going, because I am not voting for anyone who agrees this proposal is a good thing for America.
I have options this time around.
I am sorry President Bush and his crew did not see that before they opened this can of worms.
What do you mean "so what?". You apparently did not listen very well to the speech, he clearly said that Congress would be in charge of the details. Why don't you check out the Tancredo proposal and then we can debate the issue, you WackyKat : )
These "illegals" were manufactured by unrealistic immigration laws. Had we had that sort of law in place in the 19th century, many of the Irish and Italians - to say nothing of Eastern European Jews - wouldn't have made it through our gates.
We needed cheap labor in those days, for the building of the railroads and Westward expansion, and these ignorant, non-English speaking (even many of the Irish from Western Ireland only spoke Gaelic) laborers were permitted to enter and do the work.
However, even though most of them were legal, I think that if you look back at historical documents, you will find that other people's attitudes at the time were very similar to yours. They regarded these groups as the lowest of the low, vermin who were sure to destroy the nation.
Well, they didn't. And neither will the Mexicans (nor will the large population of illegal immigrants from IRELAND that exists in New York City).
It's time to have some realistic immigration laws for a change, and that's what I see Bush's proposal as being: at least an attempt to take a realistic approach to a situation that served no one's interests, including those of our country.
I do not see that Bush is asking anything of Fox or Mexico in return for this. Bush needs to get Fox to allow Americans to emigrate/retire to Mexico without the current almost-prohibitive Mexican laws against gringos headed south.
None of that will happen
The you know who you need to vote against? Your congressman. None of this will take place without Congress passing the laws to eliminate anchor babies, etc. The plan Bush proposed is sound, get these people paying the taxes that many people complaing they are not paying, requires them to have a job, prevents them from bringing their family unless they can support them, etc... It is a proposal, and a good one. In what form it is passed and implemented is now up to Congress. If it passes without the protections you seek, you need to scream to Congress first. Everyone is talking about voting against Bush (that's real smart; last time I saw that reaction, we got 8 years of Clinton).
I don't agree with everything Bush has done, but he has done a hell of a good job on a lot of issues, and he has my time, my money and my vote in 2004.
Then why not simply go to the employers now to solve the illegal problem? We're being told we must accept this solution because we don't have the resources to go out to all these employers and round up illegals. Yet, your argument is that we're going to do precisely that to find those who don't register under the program.
So the argument is, hey, don't worry. We're going to get serious about our immigration laws after this amnesty by going out and doing the enforcement we don't have the resources to do, which makes this amnesty necessary in the first place. It's one of the most asenine circular arguments I've ever heard.
Is there some particular reason why you are ignoring the lower wages caused by illegals?
Interesting point, but you are right. The chinese immigrants that came in the mid 1800s were used as slaves to build our railroads. In the early 1900s the Irish, Italians, and Jewish were basically slave labor in the factories. Should I even mention CHILD labor, in all those Northern factories, in New York, Pennsylvania, etc., where they would work children anywhere from 7-15 years old sometimes as many as 18-20 hours a day, in some cases until they dropped dead. The abuse of immigrants in the early 1900s created the child labor laws.
Next, I recited a study result that stated clearly that immigrants pay for their social services in taxes they pay. Almost any knowledgeable person who studies the issue says that at its worse, it is a wash. I don't know yet if I like this new policy, but we need to be evenhanded and knowledgeable.
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.