Amnesty By Another Name is Still Amnesty: Bush Compounds an Immigration Disaster

Intellectual Conservative ^ | January 12th, 2004 | W. James Antle III

[Torie]

All very interesting. What is the SCOTUS decision which reversed that holding?

[Sabertooth]

nesty: Bush Compounds an Immigration Disaster, Torie wrote:

The anchor baby thingie is a problem with the Bush program. I am surprised you didn't mention it in your screeds about a guest worker program

Click the "Eighteen Illegal Alien" solutions at #1 on this thread.

You'll see that I address anchor babies, and support a legitimate guest worker program, that doesn't legalize Illegals and isn't tantamount to open borders, as the Bush plan is.

Under the President's plan, employers can advertise any job at minimum wage, and hire a "guest worker" when Americans won't take that wage. There is no limit.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

Do you smell a smoke-screen? I do.
This is only partly about illegals.
It is really about an unending cheap labor force, that will completely undermine the wages of every American citizen.
Say goodbye to the middle-class.

[Torie]

Do you propose to repeal or amend the 14th amendment, as interpreted? Sorry, you didn't post a link to your points, and maybe you answer that there.

[browardchad]

America’s immigration disaster is fueled by three forces: Mexico and other countries’ desire to use the emigration of their poor as a safety valve so they can escape needed reforms, the welfare state’s need for new clients and business’ need for cheap labor.

That sums it up nicely, although I'd list them in order of importance, with business' need/greed for cheap labor being the most powerful force, the welfare state's (as embodied by politicians and bureaucrats) need for new clients being second, and lastly Mexico and other countries' desire to use emigration as a safety valve. If it weren't for the first two internal factors, the third external factor would be of little consequence, in spite of all the false altruism currently being so thickly spread.

[Torie]

Sorry, I didn't read your post carefully. I found it. You use the word "outlaw." Splendid. Won't happen. Now what?

[Sabertooth]

Do you propose to repeal or amend the 14th amendment, as interpreted? Sorry, you didn't post a link to your points, and maybe you answer that there.

I'd start with legislation in Congress, and test that bad interpretation of the 14th in the courts, if necessary. Following that, I'd support an Amendment clarifying the 14th.

The link at #1 is live, btw.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

The only specific requirement that the administration has thus far made public is that the jobs must pay the minimum wage. A full-time worker earning the federal minimum wage makes less than the official poverty line for a family of three.

Wages for most workers across America are plummeting due to that cheap labor. It's not enough to live on! Put a stop to the 'cheap labor', let's benefit our campaign contributors lunacy!

KEEP THE HEAT ON! KEEP THOSE PHONE CALLS AND FAXES COMING! LET JORGE ARRIVE HOME TO A DELUGE OF MAIL!

Toll free to you homeboys: 1-800-648-3516

Whitehouse: 202-456-1414 Fax: 202-456-2461

Comment Line: 202-456-6213 and 202-456-1111

SHUT THE DOOR IN 2004! VOTE TANCREDO! VOTE THE BUMS OUT OF OFFICE!

If you don't know how your guys stand on the issue, go to NumbersUSA.com...they have a report card and most of them are flunking! Get 'em out of office!

[Torie]

Assuming you can't get the 14th amendment modified, now what? It strikes me, given my view of the power of economics, that any "solution," even in the best of worlds, will be marginal. Of course, I don't think the muddled status quo is the end of the world, at least not at present. I don't accept the downside scenario of the worry warts as being more likely than not.

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I stay home next election day unless this disaster is fixed and forgotten.

Don't do that...that's what they're counting on! Vote for ANYONE ELSE, but VOTE. It's the only power we've got..use it.

Shut the door in 2004! Vote Tancredo!

[k2blader]

Bump!

[ETERNAL WARMING]

I would agree with that estimation just as an oserver. I would say the last two years have changed dramatically here in Phoenix.

Same in Vegas. And our taxes have gone way up to pay for it...property taxes near double, another percent sales tax, every tax on utilities up!

[Sabertooth]

Won't happen. Now what?

I've got 18 proposals. I've seen others. Any one or several of them would be better than the President's Amnesty.

By attacking the problem from a number of angles, we can make incremental progress against the Illegals. Success begets success, and onced we are committed as a country to solving this problem, politicians and Illegals will get the message. If we have to go back two or three times to clarify the 14th Amendment, so be it.

A few years ago, conventional wisdom held that the problem of terrorism was insoluble. The wisdom was wrong

Today, with Illegals, the conventional wisdom among the decision and opinion-making elites is that the problem is also insoluble. This wisdom is likewise incorrect.

[Mudboy Slim]

"So far eighteen Republicans in my immediate circle of friends and aquaintences will not lift a finger to support nor vote for a single feral-gummint Republican, President Bush included..."

I'm seeing a similar trend amongst friends and acquaintances...I say, "But we certainly don't want Dean as Commander-in-Chief, do we?" and they say, "If we can survive Clinton, we can survive anything." Seems folks would prefer a GOP Congress fighting against a DemonRAT's largesse as compared to a GOP Congress kowtowing to a Pubbie's largesse...I'm not syaing I agree with 'em yet, but Dubyuh's gotta understand there's a huge downside to this Triangulation Strategy!!

FReegards...MUD

[Torie]

A few years ago, conventional wisdom held that the problem of terrorism was insoluble

I missed that one.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Sorry, but I don't see it that way. I pretty much agree with Rush when he said: " It applies to only those working already or with a job promised, but it also identifies their employers who have to pay Social Security and payroll taxes. It puts them legally on the tax rolls, including local taxes, and while not granting citizenship for the first time it officially documents who they are."

[Carry_Okie]

What is the SCOTUS decision which reversed that holding?

It started in the FD Roosevelt Court (of course) with Bridges v. Wixon, 326 US 35 (1945). There was another more recent case that built on Bridges, but my searches didn't find the reference.

Here is the thread I ran on the Slaughterhouse Cases. I think you'll like it.

[cricket]

"Nor will it do to say that we’re stuck with the 8 to 12 million illegal immigrants who are here, so the only thing we can do is legalize them. Regardless of the feasibility or even desirability of mass deportations, to say that we must either tolerate large numbers of illegal aliens or deport upwards of 12 million people is a false choice. We already deport more than 300,000 people per year. Is it not feasible to increase this number somewhat? "

This horse stops running soon as it is out of the gate.

From 8 to 12 million illegals and then asking why we cannot increase the deportees, 'somewhat' - somewhat - SomeWHAT???

So current deportee numbers hover around 300,000; couldn't we just add maybe eight and a half million to those deporting stats?. . .Perhaps we could hire a charter bus company to run non-stop for the next twenty years; to make sure these 'illegals'/service workers, make it back to their own front door. . .

Wake-up folks; Bush is trying to find at least, a reasonable and fair middle ground; tring to implement a solution, which in the end, will serve America; it's taxpayers, it's future; while trying as well to do the right thing for an economically displaced population; who are, in fact, our neighbor.

A population which can share our values; our work ethic and hopefully, a positive, political orientation. . .

Time for new perspectives on an old problem; which has never had anything but a sound-bite passing for a law re these folks surging across our border.

[Sabertooth]

America was almost 90% white at the beginning of the 1960s, and the previous immigration acts were meant to maintain the ethnic makeup

If we maintain an immigration policy that favors English speakers with Western values, race is irrelevant. If the enthic makeup of the nation then naturally evolves away from 90% Caucasian, we still have the same nation.

The problems occur when anti-Westernism, anti-Caucasian racism, and multiculturalism are trojan horsed through a generous immigration policy, for the purpose of social engineering.