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.

[sarasota]

So it's the illegals fault, not inflation? I have to disagree. My home, built in the 30's, has increased by the same margin you mention and there are no illegals working in my area.

[FITZ]

No --- my point was that illegals have nothing to do with the price of houses. They don't keep the prices low --- or homes in California should be the cheapest. A worker being paid $20 an hour might build a $100,000 home with 2000 sq ft, a worker being paid $5 an hour might build a $400,000 home with 2000 sq ft.

[auboy]

[Thanks for posting this, PKM. And thanks for your comments regarding avoiding the venom of some of the other threads. Chavez presents a reasoned argument supporting a solution which is both pragmatic and compassionate. I expect this will pass in Congress with at least 75-80% support as members and citizens have more time to study and think it through. For my 2-cents, the President has provided exactly the right balance in offering a common sense answer to a long-term problem. This is true leadership.]

Ditto!

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: There is no way that the United States can find and deport 8-12 million illegal aliens in this country...

All that needs to be said unless we start up our own Gestapo. W's plan works for me.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"dunno the exact point, but I'm guessing around $8/hr or so (fulltime)."

---

Even if we assume that the poverty rate for a one-person family is a little over $6 an hour for someone who works 40 hours a week for a full year (which I think is lower than the actual poverty rate, since something like 12% of Americans live under the federal poverty rate), so 125% above the poverty rate for one person would be like $8 an hour, the second the guest worker brought in his wife and kids he would go below the poverty rate, since the threshhold is much higher for multi-member families. I assume the Cornyn plan says that if you want to bring in your wife and two kids, your income must be at least 125% of the poverty rate for a 4-person household. But in any event, as I said, that percentage should be jacked up to 150% or 200%.

[MEGoody]

Since the proposal is focused on 'willing workers,' I don't see how the social services you point to would be any more taxed than they are now (or would have been anyway).

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of the proposal at all. I just don't think it's quite as horrible as I initially thought.

Okay, Jose?

[MEGoody]

"and because these people will be more economically stressed, they will be very receptive to the 'You are a victim' message from the Democrats and labor unions."

That may well be, but since non-citizens can't vote, I don't see how that is an issue.

I do not like this proposal from Bush. The 'amnesty' for illegals already here will not shock the system, but it is quite possible that the program will encourage enough additional illegals to come over our borders to do just that.

I do think there is a bit of 'the sky is falling' mentality going on around this though.

[MEGoody]

"For each worker, how many non-workers will there be?"

Don't know, and not sure we ever will until there's a way to get a handle on who they are. (From what I've heard, Bush's proposal may help with that.)

"Minimum wage (if they get even that) won't be enough to support them."

Possibly, but I doubt they think they are owed the same things as Americans do. We're a spoiled nation.

"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."

Quite possible. And we'll have to deal with them as they arise.

[moondoggie]

Not all, certainly, but most are the fringe who voted for Perot, Buchanan, Keyes, or the Libertarian/other 3rd party candidate, etc. Most of these people are perpetually disgruntled about something or another, because they seem capable only of finding fault.

I like to refer to them as "purists". For them it's "all or nothing". That "ideal" has never existed.

Re: Reagan....As Gov. of CA. he was roundly criticized for choosing a conservative Dem to serve in his Administration. He said that he had never known "anyone" with whom he agreed 100%, but if he could find people he agreed with at least 80%..he thought that was pretty good!

Bottom line is there are too many people in the party who can't tolerate compromise, IMO.

[jimt]

Since the proposal is focused on 'willing workers,' I don't see how the social services you point to would be any more taxed than they are now (or would have been anyway).

Glad to hear you're not in favor of the proposal.

The reason that socialist services would be more utilized is that many illegals avoid using them for fear of being deported. Once that fear is removed, it's Katy-bar-the-door and usage will predictably zoom.

It's not the single male immigrant here to work that I am apprehensive about.

It is the immigrant with a large and growing family whose income cannot possibly support them, and who therefore relies on my tax dollars to pay his family's way.

[moondoggie]

I don't know if it's "doable" or not. I'm just another citizen with an opinion sitting here on my puter trying to figure it out like everyone else:-)

Isn't the requirement that immigrants be registured and be "sponsored"..ie:show proof of employment.. the way it "used" to be? Can you explain to me "how" it would increase immigration by forcing them to show proof of employment? Seems to me that would slow it down since many of them don't come here to work. I'm including Muslims who come in on those temporary visas "to get an education"

Don't you think there's "more" to this than just Mexicans?

Sign me..Dim bulb:-(

[SolutionsOnly]

sounds like you directly benefit from low-cost labor - as if you hire illegal aliens now and it puts money directly into your own personal pocket, with a kind of 'as long as I get mine', I really don't much care about the repercussions attitude.

[moondoggie]

I agree with you!

Politicians have long been afraid of broaching the immigration problem.

It's been off-limits like Social Security reform used to be.

Whether you like Bush's proposal or not, at least give him credit for getting the debate going.

And I don't disagree with those who say we need to follow the laws already on the books. No doubt the INS is totally inept.

Who knows... maybe sweeping reforms in the INS may come out of all of this and that would be a GOOD thing, IMO.

[SolutionsOnly]

and no, I'm not trying to flame you. I'm just trying to understand the rationale behind your laisse faire attitude about it.

I wouldn't be as riled about this if I felt the government was serious about ending illegal immigration. But they offer no evidence that they are serious. The huge hole in the system remains enforcement. The next wave of illegals is in the queue, ready to to undercut the cost of the immediately more expensive (FICA, medicare, worker's comp )
'guest workers'.

Much of the 'sky-is-falling' attitude comes from a recognition that Bush's proposal does nothing to solve the problem - it only accomodates the symptoms. We've been through this before with the 1986 amnesty program so I understand why people are upset that the government has and seemingly intends to) abdicate it's responsibility to secure the border. On top of the fact that Bush's program is indeed an amnesty, the Merriam Webster definition of which is:

Main Entry: am·nes·ty
Pronunciation: 'am-n&-stE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Greek amnEstia forgetfulness, from amnEstos forgotten, from a- + mnasthai to remember -- more at MIND
Date: 1580
: the act of an authority (as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals
- amnesty transitive verb


That's very different from the definition the president is trying to sell us (that being rewarding law-breaking with citizenship). How Clintonesque! So essentially the message is, we're inept, we're incompetent, don't worry about the law because we sure won't!

And becuase people with attitudes like your own are so willing to grant the government (another) pass on this issue, it pretty much seems like the problem will never be
solved and those waiting in line for legal immigrant status are a bunch of chumps.

I seriously doubt that guest workers will simple say "OK, my three years is up, I'll go home now." to believe they will is a bit naive.

[jnarcus]

The Rats control the legislature because California voter roles are bloated with illegals form Mexico...thanks to Bill and Al who decided to let anyone in and speed up the process...ALSO because the GOP in Cali;s legislature are weak and simpering fools who would give up their first born in order to get reelected...And for your information most of wat I buy is mad in the USA...I make a point of it...WalMart is not where I shop

[jnarcus]

America (the good old USA) was not founded in 1804...nay in fact it existed even before the revolutionary war...The illegal problem became a screaming embarrassment around 1970 ( give or take a few years)...so Yes I do believe that for 200 years the USA did not need to pander to those who can't make their own country viable or those greedy business men who would rather depress wages than pay the market rate for AMERICAN workers

[Pan_Yans Wife]

But there was never an immigration problem in New York, when the Irish arrived, when they were conscripted to serve in the Civil War? Immigration was never an issue in NY politics?

[jnarcus]

I have not posted signs saying Irishmen and dogs not allowed...Moreover, the illegal problem is not somehow manufactured by unrealistic immigration laws but rather by a corrupt and ineffective government in Mexico City that would rather send people north than make their own country work. The Irish problem in New York City is nothing like what has happened to southern California, Arizona, and Texas. There are whole sections in southern California where you cannot find a single English speaker...trust me I experienced it. If I wanted to live in Mexico I would move there and become part of their society...since I want to live in the USA I want those who come here to do it legally and become part of the American culture...Look at France and what has happened in recent years even with legal immigration...a nation cannot survive if others are trying to kill its borders, language, and culture. The cash only under the table workeres who cannot read or speak English is destroying our country...The need for "cheap" labor as you cite it was removed sometime ago by all those "globalists" who insisted on NAFTA...didn't help did it? SEND EM ALL HOME IF THEY ARE NOT HERE LEGALLY

[moondoggie]

The current issue of the Federalist puts things in proper perspective.

All opposition to Bush's immigration proposal might want to read it and comment.

http://federalist.com/main/about.asp

[jnarcus]

The problems in NYC in 1863 had not as much to do with Irish LEGAL (fer crying out loud) immigration but rather the problematic allowance of buying out of conscription...leading of course to the infamous draft riots...but that is so of point....The irish were LEGAL immigrants...we are talking here about ILLEGAL ALIENS...get it correct...it ain't immigration ii is about breaking the laws and being rewarded for the very illegal act itself