Immigrant Plan Makes Sense But Work Ahead (L.A. Daily News)

Depending on whom you listen to, President George W. Bush's stab at immigration reform amounts to either a get-in-free card for millions of law-breaking "invaders," or further exploitation of the nation's poor and oppressed undocumented workers.

That's a good sign. If Bush can offend both the die-hard nativists and the open-borders fanatics at the same time, he must be doing something right.

Although the president has left it up to Congress to hash out many of the key details of his plan for dealing with the nation's 10 million illegal immigrants, the broad outline looks like the sensible sort of reform America has desperately needed for decades. It seeks to reduce illegal immigration in the only way that's truly practical -- simplifying and expanding legal immigration.

{BYLINE}By implementing a guest-worker program and issuing more green cards, the administration would make it easier for honest and hard-working people to come to America. Illegal immigrants would be allowed to stay, but only if they have jobs, and newcomers would need to line up employment before arriving. Likewise, family members would be welcome only if the primary wage-earner could provide for them.

With noncriminal immigrants allowed ample legal access to the country, law enforcement could then focus its efforts on those whose intentions are less noble -- be it terrorists, gang members or would-be welfare cheats. And by channeling immigrants through legal points of entry, Bush's plan would make sure that all foreign residents are properly identified -- a crucial safeguard against terrorist attack.

Meanwhile, legal status would protect formerly illegal immigrants from many of the criminal and workplace abuses that are common today.

But for the nativists, there's just too much compassion in Bush's brand of conservatism.

The nativists resent any plan that might ultimately assimilate illegal immigrants into the American mainstream. They hold out hope that Washington will one day round up and deport some 10 million men, women and children -- a vision that's both horrific and unrealistic.

Still, immigration opponents raise an important complaint: Illegal immigrants have, by definition, broken American law, and should be held accountable. Bush answers that concern by insisting that illegal immigrants who take advantage of his plan would pay a one-time fine. Moreover, they would be put at the bottom of the waiting list -- behind all the immigrants who have come here legally -- to get green cards.

Immigration activists, who hail from a variety of left-wing causes, refuse even to use the word "illegal." They regard undocumented workers purely as victims, and see little need for regaining control over the nation's borders. They're also reflexively hostile to self-sufficiency requirements, as immigrants who are dependent on the welfare state and unable to speak English make for natural Democratic constituents.

Yet America's rich immigrant history is one of assimilation and self-reliance -- a country open to anyone willing to embrace its ideals and to work hard; a country that regards diverse and freedom-loving people as its greatest resource. "Every generation of immigrants has reaffirmed our ability to assimilate newcomers," Bush reminded the nation Friday, and that's "one of the defining strengths of our country."

That's a vision the nativists and the open-borders fanatics despise, but one Bush seems committed to resurrecting.

Still, much can happen in congressional committees, and whether the bill that eventually results from Bush's proposal lives up to such lofty ambitions remains to be seen. Enforcement provisions will be key.

The flip side of liberalized immigration policy must be deportation for those unwilling to apply for legalized status. Likewise, with easy access into the nation through legal channels, the Border Patrol must be beefed up to stop future illegal entry.

How many times would guest workers be able to renew their three-year permit? (They must be allowed to stay long enough to apply for green cards, but not so long that they can remain indefinitely without obtaining one.)

How many more green cards would Washington offer? (Too many could make the full legalization process virtually automatic, when it should be gradual and thus earned.)

How high would the fee be for illegal immigrants hoping to get into the program? (Too high and the program is a nonstarter. Too low, and the nation exacts no meaningful penalty for breaking its laws.)

And what steps will the federal government take to make sure that guest workers whose permits expire -- or who lose their jobs -- do, in fact, leave the country?

Unless such issues are adequately resolved, they could render Bush's bill as ultimately worthless as it is initially promising.

But give Bush credit. He's opened an overdue national debate that no one -- save the nativists and the open-borders fanatics -- has been willing to touch for two decades. He's also taken the first step toward helping America live up to its highest ideals as a nation that, as he puts it, "honors the law and welcomes the newcomer."

Chris Weinkopf is the Daily News' editorial page editor. Write to him by e-mail at chris.weinkopf@dailynews.com .

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg	Freepers/Avg	Monthlies
2	Florida	2,750.00	48	57.29	808	3.40	478.00	33

That's a good sign. If Bush can offend both the die-hard nativists and the open-borders fanatics at the same time, he must be doing something right.

When someone opens up a discussion on this topic in this manner, there's no need to continue reading.

This guy sees die-hard nativists and open-borders fanatics as two ends of the spectrum. Whoa fella, wait just a minute there.

The citizens of the United States of America have every right to object to the language of their home region being changed to a foreign language, in full or even in part. They have every right to object to the creation of instant slums, high crime rates and regions where loyalties and allegence to a foreign nation take precidence over loyalties and allegence to our the United States of America.

The citizens of the United States of America have every right to object to paying for the education of tens of millions of children who should not be here, whose parents pay very little into the system to support the costs of their own children's education.

The citizens of the United States of American have every right to object to providing healthcare to these illegal immigrants for free, when they themselves can barely afford skyrocketing healthcare costs.

The citizens of the United States of American should NEVER have to face disqualification for employment because they do not speak a foreign language on the soil of the United States of America.

Refering to the citizen of the United States who object to these things as 'die-hard nativists' is an insult of the highest order. What single objection to a policy above, would position someone out of the absolute mainstream? There isn't a citizen of any nation on the planet that would or should accept their nation being subjegated to servitude to an illegal class of invader.

The citizens of the United States have their incomes ripped away from them to pay for people who have invaded our nation, are occupying it's territory and are breaking it's laws every moment they are here. Since when is this the ugly opposite end of the spectrum, of someone who advocates this? No, the opposite end of the spectrum would be citizens of the United States who objected to any legal immigrants from another state. And while that is in fact a good idea until present invaders are expelled or assimiliated, that is not the long-term goal of those who object to illegal immigration. They want reasoned immigration policies enforced on immigrants from every nation. Is that radical? Evidently this nin-compoop thinks so.

Anyone who defends any of the policies issues I have described normal citizens of the United States objecting to, is an open border fanatic. I'll grant the writer that. And the use of this term by him wasn't without some rather focused intent. By calling those folks open border fanatics, he sought to position himself to besmirch the character of people who have every right to make the judgements they have regarding their personal funds, jobs, communities, regions, states, and nation being pried away from them.

This write is either a useful idiot or a focused promoter of the underground that seeks to advance illegal immigrants and the damage they are doing to this nation and it's citizen, irrevocably.

Who among us would knowingly grant a certain group of citizens of the United States the right to make a decent living from cash payments not reported to the IRS, then get their children's education, the family healthcare and other goods and services for free, all the while the other US citizens were having to pay for it? That is precisely what we are granting to people who are not citizens. Why?

DoughtyOne Charges In . .

"The citizens of the United States of America have every right to object to the language of their home region being changed to a foreign language, in full or even in part. They have every right to object to the creation of instant slums, high crime rates and regions where loyalties and allegence to a foreign nation take precidence over loyalties and allegence to our the United States of America.

"The citizens of the United States of America have every right to object to paying for the education of tens of millions of children who should not be here, whose parents pay very little into the system to support the costs of their own children's education.

"The citizens of the United States of American have every right to object to providing healthcare to these illegal immigrants for free, when they themselves can barely afford skyrocketing healthcare costs.

"The citizens of the United States of America should NEVER have to face disqualification for employment because they do not speak a foreign language on the soil of the United States of America.

==========================================================================================

We talking legal citizens here, right?

To: DoughtyOne

The President's plan deals with today's reality, not the way we wish it could be. Electronic fingerprinting should be required of all visitors to the United States.

Perhaps you and the President can explain how fingerprinting applies to illegal immigrants. Are we going to set up kiosks where the illegals drop by and submit to fingerprinting on the way into our nation? As for 'today's reality', if you're going to go down that route, we can simply use that excuse every five years and legalize another five to ten million people. When does it end?

Future Illegals should not be immediately deported but rather those from the south should be sent to prison in Northern Alaska for a period, those from Northern climates might spend time in Death Valley.

We protect the borders of Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq... but can't protect our own. No, I'm not about to condone incarcerating these people and then paying for their housing and upkeep. Deport and keep them the hell out. Allow the same immigration quotas on Mexico as any other foreign nation.

Employers should be required to have documentation on hand. Those who hire illegals should face a minimum 1 year in jail per illegal employee.

There are already stiff penalties for employing illegal immigrants.

We need both carrot and big stick to deal with our border situation.

8 posted on 01/11/2004 3:10:29 PM PST by stocksthatgoup

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.