[PhiKapMom]

This article by Linda Chavez is very good. Encourage everyone to make their comments in a manner that lends to discourse from a variety of views but leaves out the animosity that is appearing on some threads. It is much easier to read and comprehend a position someone is advocating when that animosity is removed.

Thanks in advance!

PKM

[4CJ]

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.

Sure they could. They are criminals, and the Federal government is to blame. We have many illegals here in Georgia, we might be thrd behind Texas and California. I know several people personally that decided yesterday, after the speech, not to vote for Bush in 2004. Everyone has a line that has been drawn ...

[sarasota]

I saw a piece last evening re: the housing market. It was pointed out that the job paid $8/hr. and if wages had to be raised (to attract "legals"), the house would cost $10,000-$15,000 more.

[Reo]

"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."

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.

[MeekOneGOP]

[okie01]

There is one compelling argument for rationalization that I'm not surprised the administration won't make publicly.

But I am surprised that no FReepers have tumbled to it yet.

Down the road, as the Boomers retire, Social Security projections are looking at a worker:retiree ratio of, what, 1.18:1?

Under the circumstances, bringing, say, six million more workers into the Social Security system is not a bad idea.

To my mind, this is one of the compelling reasons for normalizing the status from illegal aliens to guest workers.

[blackie]

Linda Chavez ~ Bump!

[Reagan Man]

Nothing has changed since yesterday.

Granting legal status to illegal aliens is the same as granting a pardon. In this case, that pardon equals backdoor amnesty. This initiative by PresBush is basically a repeat of the same bad policy decision made by PresReagan in 1986. That legislation was suppose to solve the illegal immigration problem. It didn't. What PresBush proposed yesterday, won't solve the illegal immigration problem either. Holding employers accountable for hiring illegals, should be a major part of any plan that addresses the criminal intent aspect. Bottom line. Without stricter border enforcement efforts, the problem of illegal immigration will only be perpetuated. We've got to shut the door closed, before we can effectively clean up the immigration mess with coherent legislation that has real teeth. There should be no reward offered for breaking the law. Illegals should be prosecuted, then deported or imprisoned.

[MJY1288]

Tune in to Rush, he's making sense of it all

[ravingnutter]

FYI, we also need to remind people that Bush merely laid out an outline and is leaving the details to Congress. Tancredo has proposed a version that I think we can all live with. From placing the military on the borders to eliminating the "anchor baby" problem and even up to employer provided health care, he covers all the bases. We need to encourage debate on this bill and backing of it if we agree with it.

[FranklinsTower]

I believe a lot of the objections we are now hearing can be somewhat mitigated as the details flesh out during the legislative process. For the unappeasable purists, no amount of pragmatic compromise will satisfy them. Just deporting 8 million illegals is just not a practical solution. All hell would break loose.

The more pragmatic solution is to give them a choice, pay a fine or be deported. I would set the fine at $1,000 payable over the course of a year or two. Thus, they are punished for being illegal, while not totally disrupting our economy.

The added benefits of making them have legal status are many: they pay taxes; improved national security; increased supply of cheap labor thereby fewer plants being built in foreign counties; as there are more plants being built here, that means more higher paying jobs as well; and finally, more criminals will be getting caught as there are more people willing to report crime without fear of being deported.

Employers who fail to report on illegals after a grace period would have to pay far stiffer penalties. The penalties should be stiff enough to really bite if they get caught. This should help prevent an influx of new illegals. Stronger border enforcement and a beefed up employer enforcement all will help stem the tide. There is nothing that says these items are out of the final bill.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the idea is to tie immigration status to jobs. If a job is available for a guest worker (after offering it to Americans first) then they can legally reside here. No job, back home you go.

Just about everybody agrees that this is a very complicated issue. So before rushing to judgment as many of the unappeasable purists are fond of doing, we should wait and see how the details work out during the legislative process.

[jnarcus]

Actually this article like so much of the rhetoric spewed by the "Americans won't do these jobs" group is fallacious on its face. For example if agricultural wages were doubled to attract American workers the price of your veggies and other comestibles would increase a mere 25 cents...because the cost of a head of alettuce is only 10% of the total price. Any economy let alone nation cannot sustain itself on low waged labor that drains the funds for health care and educational services. This argument is old and worn and untrue. This nation had survived very nicely without these illegals for two hundred years. This is the dementia of the left that has over taken our society. We can no longer afford this type of delusion. California has over half of all illegals and I can assure you it has NOT been a good thing in any way shape or form ( look at our deficit and our jails). I don't care who writes it nonsense is nonsense

[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.

[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.

[Right_in_Virginia]

From the article: ~ 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.

Common sense from Linda Chavez.

[PogySailor]

Thanks for the ping to this thread and the earlier one.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Very good article. Bookmarked for future reference.

Thanks PKM.

[lainde]

bttt

[Pietro]

I've been reserving judgement on this proposal until I've learned more of the details. I think after the initial knee-jerk reaction against it people will have time to consider it in full from several perspectives.

In the first place immigration from Mexico is as close to unstoppable as any thing we're likely to see. We've increased border patrols exponentially in the last decade and the problem's gotten worse. Therefore a large population of Mexican nationals, whether good or bad, is a given. We can continue to consider them illegal and force them underground w/ all the inherent pathologies associated w/ that or we can try and to "rehabilitate" them by offering incentives for coming forward.

I prefer the latter.

Secondly, the national security threat from porous borders is also a primary concern. If we have a method for regulating farm and service industry workers we should be able to better focus on the true undesirables that are infiltrating our country.

I believe both of these primary concerns have been addressed by this proposal. I think that in time most reasonable people will come to understand this.

Certainly not ALL concerns have been addressed and it is reasonable to anticipate further legislation that refines issues ranging from security, to economics, and cultural aspects of this migration. It is not the perfect solution (is there such an animal?) but it is a start in the proper direction.