The Bush Proposal (Interesting article by Linda Chavez on the Immigration Proposal)

Town Hall ^ | Jan 8, 2004 | Linda Chavez

[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.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Not unless one or other parent is already a
"LEGAL" U.S. Citizen."

---

Unfortunately, that is not the state of the law today. The 14th Amendment provides "all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S." "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been interpreted to exclude children of ambassadors (who have diplomatic immunity, and thus are not subject to U.S. laws) from U.S. citizenship, but not children of non-citizens or even children of illegal aliens. While I would like to see Congress use Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to legislate that automatic citizenship for persons born in the U.S. will only be afforded to those for whom at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, and then fight it out in court, the current state of the law is that anyone born in the U.S., even if their parents are tourists or illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens.

[deport]

Identification is a problem where one chooses to operate with multiples..... most of us have giving our finger prints at some point, military, drivers license, etc.

[T.Smith]

"C'mon people...get a grip, Bush clearly stated that it would be up to Congress to put together the details."

That's just Tancredo's version. Tancredo ain't congress. Perhaps you should get a grip my friend.

[navyblue]

Okay! Since you're a PhiKapmom you should be able to understand the following:

What is going on here is a simple Econ 101, supply and demand curve. The labor demand curve is being forced to the right. The wages as always are on the verticle axis. Draw your curves, find the intersect and bring it to the verticle axis. Now draw a second set of curves with the supply curve shifted right. What happens to the price of labor with the new curve?

And now you understand what this is really about!

[PuNcH]

Then invite well educated, highly skilled, high income potential people from Europe or other areas.

It looks like that is exactly what this proposal is also going to do. It sounds like we could have guest workers from any country going after anykind of job. I dont think there's going to be alot in the "high income" potential though as they will lower the wages for a much larger variety of citizens than now.

[WOSG]

"Militarizing this border would probsbly require about 50 men per mile, plus support personnel, "

Nonsense. In the rural areas, you put up a fence and could man it with about 1-2 persons per mile, making sure the integrity of the fence is maintained. A team of 20 could be well-covering a 10 mile stretch round the clock. Add in UAVs and cameras and motion-detectors, and you're all set.

build a fence and you will need only 20,000 men/women to man the borders.

As for Canada, it is much less of a problem anyway.

[livius]

Exactly. The "sealed border" is pure fantasy.

However, border enforcment in general would be more effective if we could get more cooperation out of Mexico, and I think Bush's program might help with that. If Mexico knows that its money supply won't be cut off by being stricter on border enforcement (and prosecution of smuggling rings) on its own side, it might be possible to get some real help from that side of the border. Mexico has not been a reliably good neighbor of late, and I hope Bush uses this as a way of bringing them around.

[futureceo31]

But think about how he has taken away issue after issue from the Dims. I really think that his second term would be pursuing conservative policies after setting up a veto proof senate and house.
And also, I would ask you to name one of Gephart and Liberman's policies that you can even come close to liking. I mean, it was only 3 years ago that Liberman was Gore's running mate and as your handle seems to indicate, Gore was not a favorite of yours..:)
I really think that Bush has to position the republican party as the party of everyone and the democratic party as the party of the far left leftists.
We still have a long way to go since quite a few state houses are still controlled by democrats and we have the press who is going to demonize everything that Bush does that is somewhat conservative and the majority of the voting public lives on the one-liners coming out of the media pundits who are all left wing. So I think we have to sit back, look at the big picutre and see what the alternative can bring...

[WOSG]

It was a bad policy decision by Reagan.
And not the only one. Reagan passed a big tax increase
on social security. Bush never did.

If reagan gets a pass, so should Bush.

[PuNcH]

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

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

Then the guest worker program cant be enforced can it?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"Guess you think GWB's 'three year' guest workers won't take advantage of ALL the perks an "Anchor Baby" affords all illegals ??"

---

First of all, there are no longer any "anchor baby" benefits like there used to be. If an alien has a child in the U.S., that does not give the alien the right to stay in the U.S. Only when the U.S.-born child turns 18 does he have the right to "claim" his immigrant parents and allow them to obtain permanent resident status, and even then they can only do it if they have evidence that the parents will not be an economic burden to the government.

And second, if the guest-worker program is done right, the families of guest workers will not be allowed to move to the U.S., and the guest worker will send them money to support them in their home country. When the 3-year stint is up, the guest worker has to return home. No U.S. born baby, so no "anchor baby" of any kind.

[T.Smith]

"What Bush is proposing is an abomination, a system of legalized quasi-indentured servitude of three to six year terms whereby the darkies are kept on Plantation America to do the scut labor the elites allegedly won't do--an intolerable and unstable state of affairs that will not be allowed long to continue by courts reviewing the situation. When the system collapses, it will collapse in the direction of full citizenship and amnesty for all 9 to 15 million illegal aliens and their families. If we don't want to end up at that destination, we had better not start down that road."

Bears repeating, many times over.

[txdoda]

Those who object to this amnesty program are not blaming Bush for the original problem, but we are blaming him for repeated attempts at making the problem worse. If this legislation passes, we are likely to see a massive increase in both legal and illegal immigration as we signal the world most emphatically that there is no immigration law that can't be overcome by sheer force of numbers combined with our lack of political will. >>>>>>>

Excellant !!!

The only things NEW in GWB proposals (that haven't FAILED before) is the 3 yr. limit & lose your job, you go home.....LOL just birth an "Anchor Baby" & these won't apply to your deportation either.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Ah, but if you seal the Mexican border, then wouldn't the Canadian border become a problem?

Or is the issue not about national security, but about MEXICANS?

How much will this fence cost?

[Wolfstar]

PhiKapMom, as a Southern Californian, I know the impact of illegal immigration far better than many FReepers. I am deeply concerned about the:

• massive impact on our medical, educational and social services;
  
  
• unfairness to American citizens, and those who have or want to emigrate here legally;
  
  
• fact that Spanish is already the de facto first language in large pockets of the west and southwest, and those of us born here, who speak only English, often are made to feel like strangers in our own hometowns;
  
  
• fact that some unknown percentage of Mexicans, both here and in Mexico, want to make the southwest and California into "Atzlan;"
  
  
• fact that Mexico is legislating a variety of ways to encourage continued political ties to Mexico among Mexicans living in the U.S.

I think the 1986 Immigration Reform Act — his blanket amnesty — was President Ronald Reagan's biggest mistake. It reformed nothing and only served to massively increase illegals pouring over our borders. I think the various proposals currently kicking around Washington to "reform" immigration once again will just open the doors wider.

I believe it is an insult to Americans on lower economic rungs to say that they will not take some of the kinds of jobs described in the above article. I think it's an even greater insult to say that employers can only compete if they hire illegal day laborers and pay them cash. They hire such people because: (1) they are readily available, (2) our taxes and minimum wage laws are punitive.

Having said all of the above, I have no intention of abandoning this President because I disagree with him on this issue. I will do everything I can to try to defeat it in Congress. But on balance, there is no way — none — that I can trust any Leftist/Democrat with our national security over the next several years. It was Carter's stupidly naive foreign policy that betrayed the Shah of Iran and opened the door for radical Islamists to get up a head of steam around the world. It was Clinton's monumental negligence of foreign policy that led directly to the rise of Osama bin Laden and Al Queda. I fear what further damage any of the current crop of Dem candidates will do should one of them be elected later this year. I, for one, never want to find out.

[AM2000]

We have a perfect excuse, 911. We need to take advantage of this window of opportunity.

Your use of the word 'excuse' betrays you.

[WOSG]

Unfortunately, that is not the state of the law today. The 14th Amendment provides "all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S." "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has been interpreted to exclude children of ambassadors (who have diplomatic immunity, and thus are not subject to U.S. laws) from U.S. citizenship, but not children of non-citizens or even children of illegal aliens. While I would like to see Congress use Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to legislate that automatic citizenship for persons born in the U.S. will only be afforded to those for whom at least one parent is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident, and then fight it out in court, the current state of the law is that anyone born in the U.S., even if their parents are tourists or illegal aliens, are U.S. citizens."

Dittos on this. Any illegal alien is not under the jurisdiction of the US in any sense and thus there is no 14t h Amendment requirement to make them citizens. The exceptions that are already given to diplomats need to be given to illegal aliens. No automatic citizenship under such cases. This would end a huge amount of the abuses in the immigration system.

" This perversion of American citizenship, commonly called ?birthright citizenship,? is the result of the federal government and judiciary?s willful misinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[i] In truth, the Citizenship Clause confers nothing so broad. The plain language of the 14th Amendment does not grant automatic birthright citizenship. A review of the Senate debate before the 14th Amendment?s ratification makes clear that the Citizenship Clause?s proponents were careful to preclude any automatic grant of citizenship based only on birth within the territory of the United States. Some legal theorists, along with those who favor unrestricted immigration, argue that only another amendment to the Constitution would be constitutionally adequate to end automatic birthright citizenship. That is wrong. All we need do is read (and enforce) the Citizenship Clause as written. Legislation to enforce the limits inherent in the Citizenship Clause is well within the Congress? constitutional power. As the 14th Amendment itself explicitly states: ?The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.?[ii]"

Congress has the power to enforce the 14th amendment and has the power under Article III section 2 to enforce appellate jurisdiction. It thus can define the limitation granted by 'subject to the jurisdiction' to mean simply those who are legal residents and exclude illegal aliens. There is such a bill, btw:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d107:190:./list/bss/d107HR.lst::|TOM:/bss/d107query.html

[txdoda]

I didn't know this until a short time ago, but if both parents are Mexican citizens and their child is born on soil of the United States, that child becomes a United States Citizen.>>>>

Yes, & they're getting a lot more organized with this scam.......as some hospitals have reported BUS LOADS of illegals arriving, all ready to give birth, to new US citizens.

[Owen]

This phrase "anchor baby" is, one supposes, a way to undercut the concept of US territory. If a baby is born in America, it is American but our extremists are preferring something different. I suppose their proposal is intended to declare the definition of "American" to be genetic. Genetic purity will become the order of the day.

Do we remember that the idea of Germany for Germany was encountered on this issue just a few years ago? Is following Germany's lead what folks have in mind?

Also, it may be useful to keep in mind that this entire thing has been going on for decades. There are 20 year old anchor babies walking around. They were born to parents who are not US citizens. In fact, we could go back a generation and have a look at who fits in that category. Or wait, maybe more than one generation.

I suspect the more generations one goes back, the more people one will find who are not documented to have the proper genetics.

[PuNcH]

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

That is absolutely false. We had an estimated 300k illegals and the amnesty was meant as a charitable gesture in return for greater enforcement. Those who argued against the amnesty were laughed at as racist paranoids when they predicted that it would bring in millions of more illegals. We got the amnesty but we didnt get the enforcement.

We need rational immigration laws, but nobody has dared to touch this matter until now.

We have rational immigration laws we just need to enforce them instead of handing out amnesties to the law breakers.

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.

Yah and the very people that you think you're being charitable towards are going to argue that you are a racist taking advantage of them just as they have done before. If they can show any second class status at all you lose.