Posted on 01/13/2004 7:04:52 PM PST by Federalist 78
Conservatives generally reacted with dismay to the new immigration reform plan that President Bush outlined in a White House speech January 7.
The proposal has four main planks: 1) granting three-year work visas to millions of illegal aliens now working in the country, 2) allowing employers to import an unlimited number of additional foreign workers as long as they make a "good faith" effort to hire Americans first, 3) allowing aliens working in the United States to receive credit in their nations' retirement systems or giving them tax-preferred savings accounts they can collect when they return home, and 4) increasing the number of aliens allowed to legally and permanently immigrate to the United States.
Illegal aliens who get three-year work visas would be eligible to apply for permanent status (and eventual citizenship) on the same basis as aliens back in their home country who did not break U.S. immigration laws.
"The people of eastern North Carolina who are God-fearing protectors of the Constitution believe, as I believe, that no one should be rewarded for breaking the law," Rep. Walter Jones (R.-N.C.) told HUMAN EVENTS. "You can disguise it any way you want, it's still amnesty."
"Eagle Forum will not support any member of Congress who votes for this, or for amnesty in any form," said Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly, who challenged the proposal on both public policy and political grounds. "Hispanics vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and I don't understand how bringing in more of them helps the Republican Party," she said. "There are probably five billion people in the world who would like to be American workers. Are we going to take workers from Iraq and Iran?"
NumbersUSA, an immigration reform group, estimates that up to 75% of the eight-to-12 million illegal aliens in the country could be eligible for three-year work visas under Bush's plan.
"This is a self-inflicted political landmine," said K.B. Forbes, a Latino conservative who served as communications director for Steve Forbes' (no relation) 2000 presidential campaign and now runs a non-partisan Hispanic advocacy group in East Los Angeles.
"Illegal aliens don't vote," said Forbes. "The Hispanics who vote are second- and third-generation who are tired of being lumped in with the others."
"I think that for the first time, he may have come up with something that may seriously endanger his base," said Free Congress Foundation President Paul Weyrich. "This is a way that terrorists can get into the country, legally and everything," he said.
"As we speak, our borders are being inundated with people who think they might get an amnesty," said Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.), chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus. Tancredo predicted the plan would not pass the House and contested the President's suggestion that America's current immigration laws are the cause of the immigration crisis. "Mr. President," he said, "the executive branch has chosen not to enforce the law."
Some conservatives, however, do support the proposal. "I'm very pleased," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R.-Ariz.), who along with Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.) and Rep. Jim Kolbe (R.-Ariz.) introduced a guest worker bill last year. "It's close to what we introduced." "Over the past decade, we have increased funding for border enforcement by sixfold and we haven't managed to stop anyone who really wants to come," added Flake. "In the aggregate, if you look over the past decade, we've had massive immigration, both legal and illegal, and wages have risen in all sectors."
Rep. Chris Cannon (R.-Utah), who also supports the plan, said that as of now we don't know who the illegal aliens are. "This plan will bring them out of the shadows," he said. "We will have their fingerprints and photos." However, he said, more details on "controlling the border" need to be worked out before the plan can advance. Cannon also cited the retirement provisions in the plan as giving aliens "incentives to go home. They will be able to transfer their retirement accounts to Mexico." Conservatives, he said, must look at the alternatives: "Are we ever really going to send all these illegal residents home? If not, we should get them under the law and weed out the bad ones."
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R.-Calif.) praised the President for his concern for illegal immigrants but said, "I think his proposals will not serve the best interests of the American people." Rohrabacher argued that the proposal frames the labor issue incorrectly. "I don't think there are any jobs that Americans won't do," he said, "there are jobs that don't pay enough for Americans to do now. The proposal the President is making would tend to keep down wages." He also noted that unforeseen expenses could result from importing more foreign workers. "Are these jobs all going to have health care associated with them?" he asked. "If not, are we going to pay for health care for all these people? . . . The people who vote Republican are not going to like this."
"It's nauseating, to be honest with you," said conservative commentator and political consultant Don Feder. "I didn't vote for Bush to get this."
Rep. John Shadegg (R.-Ariz.) said that he might consider Bush's ideas, but only if we secure the border first. "The President mentioned a 40% increase in the Border Patrol, but it's not working," he said. "In Arizona, where I live, the border is completely out of control. [Securing it] must be done first."
"For whatever reason, the federal government hasn't enforced the laws on the books," said Rep. J. D. Hayworth (R.-Ariz.). "The President talked about giving illegal aliens proper documents. Does that include Social Security cards and driver's licenses? With the motor voter law, that could cause problems. This is a Pandora's box." Under Bush's plan, he said, "It will be the policy of the United States to provide an endless supply of cheap labor. It virtually ensures a permanent economic underclass. It raises questions about education, health care. What about the people who are trying to leave welfare for work? Don't we want to help them?"
Joseph D'Agostino is Associate Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.
"Whoso rewardeth evil for good, evil shall not depart from his house."
- Proverbs 17:13
There appears to be a conflict between what Mr. Robertson claims what God spoke to him and the revealed Word of God:
Robertson is a good conservative humanitarian and businessman who supports missionary work.
There are many conflicts between his claims and the revealed Word of God:
Here are some examples of the most common violations of United States Immigration laws:
Examples:
(This is not a complete list of violations.)
I'm the type of "grassroots conservative" that puts my country and its Constitution above---WAY above---some "Fearless Leader" like Bush or his party. If my opposition to this treasonous "This is not an amnesty! This is NOT an amnesty!" plan gets me banned, I'll wear it as a badge of honor.
In view of the President's conduct respecting the CFR Act [signed it], the vastly expensive prescription benefits legislation, remarks concerning the possible extension of the AWB, and finally, his catastrophic sellout on illegal immigration, Real Americans are entitled to ask whether the President holds any respect whatsoever for the Constitution he swore to defend and protect. Does he have strongly held principles? And to put it in crass political terms, if Rove is the prime movant in this long Train of Abuses, are Real Americans not then entitled to conclude that Rove has persuaded the President that he may endlessly disregard his conservative base? We all recall Lee Atwater telling President Read My Lips that he could disregard the conservative base on taxes, among other things. Lee Atwater's judgment was spectacularly unsound and I fear that of his protege Rove may be worse. In the four cases cited above, there is no upside for the President or the country - just a Pandora's Box of downside for the country and an increasingly estranged and alienated conservative base, that is, the party bedrock. Thus it seems that Rove has convinced the President that no matter what outrage the President commits against the conservative principles he ran on, the conservative base will be there not only on election day, but during the campaign. Moreover, Rove does not understand that the bizarre spectacle of our President mud wrestling in Monterey in a dogpile of pygmies does not go down well with Americans, including many Democrats, who believe in our national sovereignty. Let us all pray that God will grant the President light to see. Amen and may God Bless America
few days ago poor old putupon's tagline was thrown up against the wall, shook down for it's lunch money and thrown in a locker.It was harmless, women didn't miscarry upon reading it, frogs didn't fall from the sky, and old people didn't keel over at the site of it. -something to the effect of "immigration somthing something, El Presidente Jorge Del RINO Arbusto" or something like that.
LOL!
A sad state of affairs...
Thus it seems that Rove has convinced the President that no matter what outrage the President commits against the conservative principles he ran on, the conservative base will be there not only on election day, but during the campaign.
The first time I heard, "I didn't leave the democratic party, the party left me," was during the 1988 elections. Those folk found the BIG RNC TENT.
There is a claim being made, "For every conservative we lose, we pick up two from the DNC." I have no link, statistic, or anyone to quote. The more probable case is, WHERE THEY GONNA GO! What are the conservatives going do? The third parties have made no preparation whatsoever, except the Libertarians.
Just like Robertson said, BUSH CAN DO NO WRONG!
Let's not forget that Pat was the guy who ended up apologizing for saying that 9/11 was God's punishment on Evil America.
I think Bush and Rove are in the process of creating one.
"According to a RoperASW poll from last year, 83 percent of Americans support mandatory detention and forfeiture of property for illegal immigrants, followed by deportation."
I'm one of the 83%.
If the President Bush or Tom Ridge would announce that in six months they will be paying a $50 per head bounty for each illegal alien on American soil there would be a mad rush for the borders.
A policeman in a car costs the average city about $200 an hour. Helicopters cost at least $2000 an hour with the ground crews. What is the full cost of a teacher per hour? $140.00 or there about.
If we could get illegal aliens to turn each other in, just the ones trying to slip through the net, (I know thousands would attempt it) we would save billions in law enforcement, welfare programs, unemployment, medical care, job training and schools the first year.
Do all this under Executive Order and tell the Courts to back off. This is national security!
Any employer who has employed an illegal alien more than five months from the announcement date will be fined $5000 per employee. One month later enforcement begins. This will give employers 5 months to shed the illegals and hire legally papered actual American citizens.
Then on the announced date, start in a state such as Oklahoma. Well centered, not overly populated and clean the state out. This would give Homeland, INS and Border Patrol time to install their co-agents in various court houses around the country to verify a persons paperwork, i.e.. birth certificates, hospital records, etc.
Go state to state from the epicenter sweeping out the criminals who have successfully avoided suspicion. They already had 5 months to get out, hanging around to test the system carries a SEVERE penalty. They won't be able to say they weren't warned.
Divide a state into quadrants depending on population per square mile., First arrest those whose names were turn in for the bounty. Then others suspected by local law agencies. When arrests slow down, open an adjoining quadrant.
Get caught after the selected dated and the result would be every foreign national who is not in America legally would forfeit all their belongings (houses, cars, bank accounts, etc.) and be deported within 24 hours. These forfeited belongings would then be given to local churches for distribution to the needy in that community. Another cost saver!
This enforcement would apply to illegals from every country in the world, not just Mexico.
Imagine the number of Chinese who would be taking the ship home with everything in the house, new cars, you name it would be on those ships. The thousands of Canadians who decided the USA was better than Canada would be again headed North.
How many schools could be closed? How many hospitals and state paid housing tracts? How many welfare offices? How many planned jail enlargements could be stopped for lack of need?
How many state and federal employees would find out that they have the time to actually give good service to their American customers?
Oh yes, it would be an economic shocker in the amount of taxes that could be reduced or used to actually improve something needed for American citizens, instead of illegal foreigners.
Want an approximate number of the population drop? Try 50 million+ with the majority over 30 years of age, having been illegal residents of America for over ten years.
I've always wondered how many folks are on Medicare that don't deserve it. I'll bet that would save a big chuink of money that could be used for American war veterans and citizens health problems.
Just imagine the frantic squealing from our politicians thinking of the lost votes and contributions. That would be a sideshow worth watching!
Scan the whole page for good reading!
Conservative Debate Handbook
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.