Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Bush Proposal (Interesting article by Linda Chavez on the Immigration Proposal)
Town Hall ^ | Jan 8, 2004 | Linda Chavez

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; bushishillary; bushisliberal; buyingvotes; commonsense; culturewar; illegalaliens; illegalmexicans; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration; lindachavez; mexico; nationalsuicide; rewardingcriminals; thirdworldcountry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 441-442 next last
To: BushCountry
This makes immigrants a fiscal bargain for our country.>>>>>>

Where did you get THESE stats ??? If this were the case the CA economy would be 'booming' rather than BANKRUPT.
281 posted on 01/08/2004 11:18:03 AM PST by txdoda ("Navy-brat")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: myrabach
***" "Prosecute those who hire illegal aliens and the problem will dry up at its source."


This solution hasn't worked yet... any other suggestions?"***

Yes. We should introduce a new concept - be serious about enforcing the law. People just might start to respect it then. You can never know unless you try!
282 posted on 01/08/2004 11:19:17 AM PST by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle
That includes illegals but probably a larger amount of legals. I am definefly upset at this since I have to pay an arm and a leg for my health care. But if GW starts talking about health care reform, we would probably open up a bigger can of worms with the opposition saying that he wants to kills millions. Damned if he does, damned if he dont...
283 posted on 01/08/2004 11:19:39 AM PST by futureceo31
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: PuNcH
The reason for the 1986 amnesty in the first place was that the illegal immigration situation had gotten out of hand.

We need rational immigration laws, but nobody has dared to touch this matter until now. We can't just go on giving amnesties when the problem gets too severe. We have got to create a new way of dealing with the situation, and I think this is what Bush is trying to do.

Remember, we used to have a guest worker program several decades ago, for agricultural labor, if I recall correctly. This is not a new concept.
284 posted on 01/08/2004 11:19:43 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 221 | View Replies]

To: deport
I am not that thrilled to have myself subject to biometric identification when I have to go to the doctor or anything else. I am already not too happy that every Tom Dick and Harry has my SSN#.
285 posted on 01/08/2004 11:21:43 AM PST by futureceo31
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
The fact is that the US-Mexican border is about 2,000 miles long. Part of it runs through urban areas, but most is rural, remote, and pretty rough territory. This border is now manned (protected doesn't describe it) by about 9500 agents, who use cameras, helicopters, and ground vehicles to patrol and monitor the border. Separately, almost 5000 personnel operate the authorized crossing points along the border.

Militarizing this border would probsbly require about 50 men per mile, plus support personnel, or about 100,000 more men total. Why so many? First of all, we need the equivalent of four shifts to provide full time coverage. This number would provide one squad of 12 men per mile, which is the smallest regular command structure. The actual coverage area for such a squad would vary according to the specific territory, but this is a reasonable average.

They would usually operate as 3 or 4 man patrols, armed well enough to present overwhelming force to any "coyotes" trying to sneak their clients in. Smaller patrol teams would invite violence against them as a way to penetrate the border.

But an army division is about 15,000, so we are talking about SIX divisions here. And we simply do not have, and cannot recruit, that many new soldiers in any reasonable amount of time.

And what about Canada, where the border is about three times as long? Again, to truly protect the entire border would require doubling the size of our active duty army, and we just cannot recruit the troops to do it. Could we draft them? Perhaps - for the duration of one administration.
286 posted on 01/08/2004 11:22:51 AM PST by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: futureceo31
That includes illegals but probably a larger amount of legals.

Yes, you are quite right... I should have included them as well. The democrats constant screaming that x million people don't have health care is not true; what they don't have is health care insurance. Different things altogether.

GW is in a bind alright, on this and many other issues. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, someone is going to be unhappy. My emotional self says I'd like to round them all up and ship them back to where they came from , then let them line up to apply for jobs. But my logical self says that's simply impossible, so let's try something new.

287 posted on 01/08/2004 11:23:24 AM PST by Not A Snowbird (Nobody told me it snows in Seattle!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 283 | View Replies]

To: jimt
The message is: Shut up and pay your taxes.
288 posted on 01/08/2004 11:23:57 AM PST by Lady Eileen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
For each worker, how many non-workers will there be? (Children, dependents, etc). Minimum wage (if they get even that) won't be enough to support them. So there will be more cries to raise the minimum wage and create 'assistance' and 'outreach' and 'this-aid' 'that-aid' programs - further expanding the scope of government. It's the nature of the beast.
289 posted on 01/08/2004 11:24:53 AM PST by SolutionsOnly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Owen
Precisely. I'd bet a huge percentage of the 10 million illegals have kids who are US citizens. What would the curernt bomb throwers recommend? Split up these families and raise the kids at government expense?


Guess you think GWB's 'three year' guest workers won't take advantage of ALL the perks an "Anchor Baby" affords all illegals ??
290 posted on 01/08/2004 11:25:04 AM PST by txdoda ("Navy-brat")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: BushCountry
Okay! Thats good for immigrants!

Now please give us the figures for illegal immigrants, or more properly said, illegal aliens!

And please don't give us the figures from La Raza, Lulac, Maldef or Mecha. Try something like Numbers Usa!

291 posted on 01/08/2004 11:26:07 AM PST by navyblue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
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.

OK, so immigration laws are very difficult to enforce and we can't catch all the offenders, so let's just change the immigration laws so we don't have to try? How would Mr. Bush and Ms. Chavez feel about changing our drug laws in that manner? We obviously can't catch all the dope dealers and it's extremely difficult and expensive to catch even a small portion of them. So what the heck, let's just make drug dealing legal, give amnesty to all current dealers, and presto chango the drug problem is solved!! That isn't governing, it's abdicating responsibilty.

292 posted on 01/08/2004 11:26:45 AM PST by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ravingnutter
Not addressing EOIR could defeat the very verbiage you mention ... " unless an order of an immigration judge expressly finds that the alien is not a flight risk and is not a threat to the United States" What the EOIR and BIA are doing is taking the word of ACLU and immigrant-friendly lawyers and letting them undermine the law with loopholes. That verbiage above - that's a loophole... These judges would simply declare everyone in the system "not a flight risk" and presto - free on no bail. If you read the details, you would be shocked at how flagrantly these judges are violating the intent of the law. then again, maybe not, the ACLU is involved.
293 posted on 01/08/2004 11:27:52 AM PST by WOSG (Freedom, Baby! Yeah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: futureceo31
Give it to the DIMs and they advocate total amnesty with ability to get welfare, citiezenship rights and fast track to citizenship... The difference is clear as night and day.

You understand that we have the illegals here and more are always coming. It doesnt matter whether they have total amnesty or not. Bush's proposal will bring in more and so will the democrats. If the democrats can show that the guest workers are second class they will get more of what they want one way or the other. There is little difference.

294 posted on 01/08/2004 11:28:09 AM PST by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
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.

Chavez is all wrong about this and the President is correct. Bush is proposing TEMPORARY guest worker status, so any current illegal immigrants who moved into the new system would AT BEST only be able to stay a short while longer. The so-called "earned legalization" plans are completely stupid and wrong-headed. How can you "earn" a benefit by breaking the law???? It is a system which tacitly instructs people to cheat. Giving the so-called "earned legalization" to current illegal residents is a strong message to those still outside of the U.S. to please break our laws and evade the border patrol so that they too can begin to "earn" their citizenship in the next amnesty. No, Chavez is completely wrong on this one, (although I admire her ability and values greatly in general). President Bush has the far better legalization plan.

295 posted on 01/08/2004 11:29:15 AM PST by dano1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: futureceo31
Yes, I like President Bush, and I trusted him. I have been let down by many of his policies. Some were really big issues to me. I let some things go,thinking it was politics and necessary, and that I had to be fair. A president has to represent all of the people and I will never agree with one 100%.

But at some point I am going to have to listen to what he says , and take it on face value.

Where do people like me draw the line? How much are we going to be asked to accept in the name of politics?

At some point President Bush is going to have to come out and say "I am not a leftist", even if it is at some cost to him.

The things he says, even if you and I know it is not going to really materialize, shapes public opinion and perpetuates , what I believe, is a myth. That being the Democrats are really powerful.

I believe the public is more right than left, I think they are looking for leadership in that direction.

IMO, offering confusing statements and platforms, does not help our efforts as Conservatives or Republicans. I don't think it is going to help him get reelected to stand in front of the world and degrade Americans the way he did yesterday, either.

I think it was a wrong move, and it is especially painful to me because it comes after what I think are three big, bad moves in a row.

I don't think we have to worry about Dean or Clark. I think we need to worry about Liberman and Gephardt.

296 posted on 01/08/2004 11:29:32 AM PST by Diva Betsy Ross ("were it not for the brave , there would be no land of the free")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65
And what about Canada, where the border is about three times as long?


And don't forget the Gulf Coast, East Coast and West Coast water borders...... boats coming in at desolate locations along each of them.....
297 posted on 01/08/2004 11:32:32 AM PST by deport (..... DONATE TO FREEREPUBLIC......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 286 | View Replies]

To: Owen
Actually, not "precisely".

there is no need for the children of illegal aliens to be considered US citizens. Change the law so that only the chidlren of permanent residents, citizens and legal long-term visa holders are citizens.
The 14th amendment is clear that people under the jurisdiction of the US born here are citizens. But it was not intended to apply to illegal aliens or other aliens in our country having kids, and illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of their country of citizenship not ours.

Do you think the children of US diplomats in China should be considered Chinese citizens and subject to the draft of the Chinese govt when they turn 18???

So the solution: The law (or stupid custom) granting automatic citizenship to the children of
illegals must end.
Children born here of foreigners would not automatically become US citizens
nor residents, unless their parents are *legal* residents of this country.
298 posted on 01/08/2004 11:32:53 AM PST by WOSG (Freedom, Baby! Yeah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: futureceo31
If it were that simple, we wouldnt be here discussing this issue and we would have law enforcement taking care of the problem.

LOL, law enforcement? There is no enforcement! If they are going to enforce employers under this proposal then they could start enforcing the law right now without the proposal. It is alot of contrived BS.

The proposal should include jailtime for employers and bounties for workers who turn in their employers. Now why do we need the rest of the proposal except that the govt is simply forcing it's will against the wishes of the American citizen?

299 posted on 01/08/2004 11:33:59 AM PST by PuNcH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: navyblue
Why import more lower social class, with no education, no skills, with little earning potential who will likely end up on assistance?

That's exactly what many people said about the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, and just about every group that came to this country in the 19th and early 20th century. In fact, one of the foundations of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger's desire to halt these undesireables from reproducing (you can read it her works - she wasn't bashful about saying it!). Yet I think the Irish, et al., have turned out to be pretty good citizens, don't you?

One thing I do think we should do is bring back meaningful citizenship or Americanization classes. In the 19th and 20th centuries, children in public schools were taught in English, regardless of their parents' native language, and were taught about the history of this country, its political foundations and ideals, etc.

I think many immigrants, judging from my contact with Latin American immigrants in NYC, where they were suing to get their kids OUT of bilingual education, would be very happy to learn English and adopt American values. But with our crummy, left-wing, Dem-dominated educational system, their chances are not as good as they were in the 19th century, alas.

300 posted on 01/08/2004 11:34:07 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 441-442 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson