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.

[livius]

If we had only 300k, then they all must have lived on my block! They were, however, not all Mexicans (nor are they now). A friend of mine who got amnesty was British, but she couldn't get legal status because she was a teacher and she would supposedly take a job away from an American teacher. Well, perhaps she would have, because she was so much better qualified than most of the teachers in my part of CA at that time.

I'm sure keeping people like my friend out of the US to protect an American job sounded like a good idea at the time, but there was actually a teacher shortage in the area. And perhaps a little competition from better educated foreign teachers would have made some of the PC lamebrains in the ed biz shape up a bit.

Our policies then were not working, which is why we had to announce an "amnesty." Immigration policies have to be changed every so often to meet new needs that arise. I don't think our current laws are rational, because the burden of really enforcing them would be so enormous that it would end up costing us much more than we would save.

I don't think a work permit program is being "charitable" towards immigrant labor, btw. They were paid for their services under the old program; nobody was taking advantage of them, except for unscrupulous farmers and factory owners who did, in fact, put them in substandard housing and attempt to keep them as company-store debt slaves. And one of the jobs of the INS in those days was finding and breaking up things like this. There will always be abuses, regardless of the program or policy.

And we have to consider other aspects, too. Mexico is a pit, but it is not to our advantage to let it become completely poor and desperate. Someday, maybe Mexico will get its act together and join the First World, which it could. But in the meantime, unrealistically trying to shut off any income going to Mexico would simply mean that Hugo Chavez could move his "Bolivarian Revolution" to yet another country in Latin America.

There are a lot of things to balance in this, and I think Bush is trying to do it. I'm sure there will be changes in this plan before it's finalized, but you've got to start somewhere.

[Cultural Jihad]

Apart from your lack of civility and apparent difficulty in following simple forum rules (ironic when the topic is following rules), supposedly no citizen or resident alien ever committed rape or murder, and visas would have prevented all such crimes.

[WOSG]

"I don't think the 'anchor baby' ever gave the right for the parent to remain in the US, however, you seldom here about
the parent(s) getting deported either."

It did and it does. They arent called anchor babies for nothing.

As for the benefits and extent of it ...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:2:./temp/~r1078Xxhk3::

"According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, in FY95 about $1.1 billion in
Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Food Stamp benefits were provided to households with an
illegal alien parent for the use of his or her citizen child. There can be no mistake that the citizenship grant has
significantly contributed to our unprecedented levels of illegal immigration. According to some figures, an estimated
165,000 children are born to illegal aliens in the U.S. annually."

[txdoda]

See post # 26.......

In this bill our gov't acknowledges that these 'anchor babies' & their PARENTS receive many welfare benefits.

[WOSG]

What's wrong about this scenario is that if the worker earns more than 125% of poverty wage, he gets TO BRING HIS FAMILY.
I am quoting exactly from the Cornyn proposal. The McPain and other guest worker programs are even more generous.

This means wife and kids. 3 years is enough time to make a US citizen.

I dont see any other humane way to run the program, btw, so I dont disagree with the provision per se. You cant expect a working guy to leave his whole family for 3 years.

OTOH, if we ended chain migration, where kids could bring their parents, sibling etc. (a recursive effect that enables a single US citizen to bring literally dozens of relatives), that would be a different thing. Then the kid could come back to the US when 18, but the parents would have to wait in some other queue to come to the US.

Another alternative is to restrict the US citizen of folks born to people here illegally or on temporary visas. That's another way to skin the cat. I'd prefer doing both/all we can.

[PuNcH]

Enforcement of the law reduces crime and non-enforcement encourages crime. We have illegal immigration and it's increased rates of murder and rape thanks to non-enforcement of the law.

I find your race baiting rather insulting. and pathetic... ;)

[Bigg Red]

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.
%%%

Well, then perhaps we should all be prepared to pay more. This seems like a fair exchange for increased security.

Also, she says that it would be impossible to round up all of the illegals yet she doesn't explain why. And, even if they can't round up all of them, how about going after most of them?

Normally, I find Chavez articles very well written and convincing, but I think she is using shaky logic here.

Thanks for the ping, PKM.

[txdoda]

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

We have 'un-manned' planes that could be used all much of our borders. A civilian group is already using this technology.


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

We could stop the 'revolving door', that occupies much of our BP agents time. FIRST time your caught sneaking in, identify & ban for 5 yrs. any type legal entry. As it is, most are set free, then keep trying until they make.

[brydic1]

Where have been this last 40 years. No hospital publicly financed and most privately financed are prohibited from turning away any type of patient needing immediate treatment. This is the most expensive type of treatment and the very type that the illegals demand. They flee across the border to deliver their babies and to get treatment which is costly or unavailable in Mexico. Wake up americans the multi billion dollar drain will now swell to trillions. Only a terrorist incident arising from cross border invasions will awake the american people to the outrage that is ocurring.

[Bigg Red]

...security without borders, is no security at all.

&&&

Bears repeating.

And thank you for your service to our country.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"if the worker earns more than 125% of poverty wage, he gets TO BRING HIS FAMILY."

---

Well, if he's making 125% of the poverty rate, he's not picking lettuce, he's a computer programmer. That isn't the mass migration we all fear. But for unskilled workers, I would not allow their families to come up with them, since we would end up paying for the education and health care of their spouses and children and since children born in the U.S. are (according to current law) U.S. citizens by birth.

"if we ended chain migration, where kids could bring their parents, sibling etc. (a recursive effect that enables a single US citizen to bring literally dozens of relatives), that would be a different thing. Then the kid could come back to the US when 18, but the parents would have to wait in some other queue to come to the US.

Another alternative is to restrict the US citizen of folks born to people here illegally or on temporary visas."

---

I agree with both of your proposals. Doing away with chain migration would simply require a change in law, while granting U.S. citizenship to those born in the U.S. only if their parents are citizens or permanent residents might be trickier. As I wrote before, I would pursue legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to clarify the language of Section 1, but God only knows how the courts would rule on that one. If they rule we can't do so legislatively, we'd have to amend the Constitution.

[txdoda]

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.>>>>>>

No one's talking about going back generations.

But, the child could be 'citizen' to the parents (legal or illegal) home country, & then receive auto US citzenship *if* the parents per-sued US citizenship.

[brydic1]

While our servicemen toil and sacrifice their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan to protect our freedoms our politicians are selling their homeland down the river by refusing to enforce immigration laws and continuing to sanction the presence of millions of invaders within our nation.

[txdoda]

If this doesnt work maybe a draft is plan B? :-D>>>>>>>

Wonder how many of our illegals are registered for selective service ?? As our laws REQUIRE (all men, citizen, legal & illegal)

Or is this just another US law they choose to violate??

[Lady Eileen]

Just heard about this website on Sean Hannity's show: SecureBorders.com

The Defense of the Nation begins with the Defense of its Borders.

[KC_Conspirator]

This is not the first time I have reminded you. This is the third time I have heard about your list being wiped out and you using an AOL list.

[MainFrame65]

"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."

A man alone is a target - and with a guarded border, the value of penetration rises. And how many hours - and days - are these soldiers going to work? Also, consider the closed borders that are penetration targets today, like the one between Egypt and Gaza, as well as in the Southern California area. New tunnels are being dug all the time, probably faster than we can find them. Guarding the fence is not enough.

[ravingnutter]

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

No, but we can get behind Tancredo's version and write our Congresscritters and let them know that we won't settle for any less.

[txdoda]

It did and it does. They arent called anchor babies for nothing.>>>>>

Yes, I know how much gov't's NON enforcement of our laws costs us.......just surprised at many who think because illegals are working, they are paying their own way.