A platform for immigrants - NY Times Lunacy

New York Times ^ | Aug 29, 2004 | NY Times

[Aetius]

August 29, 2004 A Platform for Immigrants

olitical parties generally like to get through the business of adopting their campaign platforms without too much fuss. But on the eve of their convention, President Bush and his loyal followers had to deal with undercurrents of unhappiness from conservatives about the issue of immigration reform.

Anybody who has watched the Republicans wrestling with this explosive issue this year knew it would be difficult to please both the Republican moderates who realize that the system is "broken" - as Mr. Bush put it in January - and ideologues like Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado, who has not only opposed easing rules for undocumented workers but has even favored a "time out'' on legal immigration. Mr. Bush will gain more support in that wider middle ground if he sticks with his original proposal to mend the immigration system and begins supporting bipartisan proposals in Congress.

Mr. Bush made a reasonable start in January at untangling the immigration mess - a guest worker plan that he stressed was not an amnesty. There were few details in his proposal, but even this moderate plan provoked a deafening outcry from the conservatives in the "What part of illegal don't you understand?" crowd. Sadly, the president went scurrying back into safer territory. Congress stalled passage of a bill to help 500,000 farm workers, and one to lower costs for immigrants' children to go to college. These bills have the support of Republicans and Democrats, unions and businesses. The president could easily bring them to the floor.

At the same time, Mr. Bush needs to head off less helpful proposals. Some anti-immigrant conservatives want the police or hospital workers to help identify illegal immigrants as a first step in sending them back where they came from. Most police experts and health workers strongly object. If an illegal worker is raped, she might resist going to the police for fear that they will worry more about her papers than her attacker; that leaves the rapist on the streets. No health expert wants someone with a contagious disease hiding from those who could provide treatment.

Mr. Bush's original plan seemed to head in the right direction by promising workable incentives for those who want to return to their native countries after earning money in America. But any plan to create a new class of "temporary" workers raises the specter of the old bracero program, which resulted in harassment, discrimination and abuse of too many migrant workers. The word amnesty is anathema to Mr. Bush's conservative Republican base, but the president has to realize that reform will work only if there is a reasonable way to allow some illegal immigrants a path toward permanent residence and even citizenship.

A party platform has never been a real contract with the voters, of course. But if the Republicans want to court moderates and appeal to minority voters like Hispanics, the promise of legitimate and humane immigration reform deserves to be near the top of the president's agenda for a second term.

[skeeter]

Chavez needed to limit the supply of labor in order to drive up wages. A ruthless man, he apparently is on the same side as many who are posting here who want to limit the number of immgrants comong here to work.

Chavez was a socialist.

There are two countries - one carefully limits immigration to that which provides the greatest collective benefit and strictly enforces its immigration laws. The other allows the wholesale importation of millions of dirt poor laborers, most from a politically unstable neighbor, with the effect of driving down wages & squeezing the middle class.

Which country is more at risk of eventual socialization?

[Aetius]

Yeah, it says we'd need at least 5 million legal immigrants per year to save an inherently flawed system! I don't see the logic of making the immigration problems worse in order to prop up a Soc Sec system that should be moved towards private retirement accounts and away from a pay as you go system.

But again, if that is the solution one prefers, then the politicians should just be honest about it. Bush, Kerry, etc should go before the public and say that they want to increase immigration levels by a factor of 5, that they want 5 million legal immigrants per year instead of our already large influx of one million per year. Honesty is preferable to deception.

They also mention the National Academy of Sciences study done back in the mid-late 90s to study the fiscal impact of immigration. The bottom line of that study was that immigration was a net benefit -- to the whopping tune of about one tenth of one percent of GDP. In other words; nothing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It isn't about whether you see the logic of it or not, the fact remains that Americans will neither A) go for an increase in legal immigration of that magnitude, and would most likely dump any politician who brings it up, or B) give up Social Security.

Meanwhile, any effort by any administration to make any inroads into this issue is greeted by jeers from most because the only acceptable solution to some, is the immediate resolution of the issue; plainly spoken they want to get to the end of the race without actually running the course.