Bush Breaks First Campaign Pledge By Renewing Call For Illegal Alien Amnesty

FAIR ^ | November 10, 2004 | Dan Stein

[VU4G10]

(Washington, DC—November 10, 2004) It wasn't quite "Read my lips," but in the last presidential debate in Arizona, George W. Bush clearly stated that he would not support amnesty for illegal aliens. One week after being narrowly returned to office, the president has reneged on that pledge. Bush has dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to Mexico City to open discussions with the Mexican government about the size and scope of amnesty for illegal immigrants and for a massive new guest worker program.

"President Bush and Karl Rove have seemingly missed the message of their own, and the Republican Party's, success at the polls last week," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "In spite of a poor record on jobs, further erosion of the middle class, and staggering budget deficits, the people returned the GOP to office because they believed that the Republican Party was more in tune with them on values and respect for the law. One of those gut issues that led voters to ignore the administration's poor record in other areas was the belief that Bush and the Republicans would enforce laws against illegal immigration, not reward illegal immigrants and auction off every job in America to the lowest bidder."

The immigration plan being dusted off in Washington and Mexico City is essentially the same one the administration introduced last January, which proved to be so wildly unpopular among voters that they were forced to shelve it. "Who is the president seeking to reward by reintroducing his amnesty/guest worker proposal?" asked Stein. "Not middle class workers who made it very clear that they are feeling squeezed. Not the millions of families who have lost their health insurance benefits because their employers no longer feel that it is necessary to offer such benefits to attract American workers. Not Hispanic voters, whom polls indicate do not consider this to be high priority and who voted in significant numbers in favor of an Arizona ballot measure that bars illegal aliens from receiving most public benefits.

"The only interest group, besides the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal aliens and their families who could be in line for legal U.S. residency, are cheap labor employers who have come to believe that it is their right to have workers who will work at whatever wages they wish to pay," Stein said.

The latest White House announcement will touch off yet another surge in illegal immigration and further compromise homeland security, predicted FAIR. Last January, when the president first proposed this plan, the U.S. Border Patrol reported a marked increase in the number of people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally in order to benefit from the proposed amnesty. "Aside from betraying the interests of millions of people who voted for him because they believed the president shared their core values, this irresponsible renewal of talk of amnesty will betray those who voted for him because they believed the Republicans were the party that could be entrusted to protect homeland security. You cannot have homeland security and chaos at the border. You cannot have homeland security while granting amnesty to millions of people with only minimal background checks. And you certainly cannot have amnesty and unlimited guest workers, and preserve a solid middle class," asserted Stein.

[John Lenin]

Less skilled workers get far below minimum, as little as $2 and hour

BS

[expatpat]

If they are working under the table, then they are officialy not employed and must return to Mexico. Of course, enforcement is the key.

[mudblood]

"At what cost"

In the first debate, Kerry said he would have given nuclear fuel to Iran to see if they were going to use it in a peaceful manner - to test them. Totally insain. Bush wants to make it easier for illegals to contribute to our society legally. Arguably problematic. I'll choose the latter every time.

[dead]

This decision comes from higher up than US presidents.

God? Or?

I believe the current theory is David Rockefeller.

[dangus]

Yes, there was a guy who was liberal on abortion involved in the founding of FAIR! OooOOOooh. Why don't you talk about the present head of FAIR, Dan Stein. The guy who matters. What? Your're left-wing attack dogs don't have anything on him?

Your style of discrediting FAIR is straight out of the James Carville play book. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Joe Hadenuf]

I have never had any real problems with illegal aliens, and at the risk of being ridiculed I think that Bush is actualy on to something here

Oh man, we are in so much trouble.....This is truly never never land....

[dangus]

When criticizing your employer who pays you a tiny fraction of the going wage can get you exiled, you are a slave.

[Howlin]

You're quite the drama queen, aren't you?

[dangus]

>Don't look now, but it is already there.<

Yes, and the last amnesty helped it grow by leaps and bounds.

[raybbr]

Childish

[RightWinger]

It's not about losing jobs, it's about legal citizens having to shell out money to support illegal aliens.

This lifeboat can't keep taking on unlimited passengers before it tips over and sinks.

[Dat Mon]

"Of course, enforcement is the key."

BINGO. Thats my point. Without a rational, well thought out approach to these issues, we merely solve one set of problems only to create another set.

Enforcement is the elephant in the living room for EVERY immigration issue.

This is why the approach needs to be part of an approach which limits the problem at the source...ie...the border itself.

And the final piece of the puzzle is the penalties imposed on American companies who violate the law. What penalties are prescribed in the various guest worker plans...Bushs and Tancredo's, for example.

[Howlin]

Thanks for admitting it.

[Southack]

"The ones that don't punish the lawbreakers under the laws that they broke. A simple, measly one-time fee to be paid by the lawbreaking employer is not the penalty for being a lawbreaking illegal alien or for being a lawbreaking employer of an illegal alien. It is hardly a penalty, it is more like an administrative fee or a bribe."

That's such poor logic; you're grasping.

If you pay a fee or a fine, you've been punished. That's a far cry from "amnesty" (which means "no punishment").

They also have to register with our government. That's a heckofa lot better than having them remain here anonymously.

[fetts]

How is that different from employers today who may be dissatisfied with their illegal employees? They could report the employee to the INS and (provided the INS cares or has the resources), the employee is deported because he is here illegally. Does that mean they are slaves now also?

I can't figure what you mean.

[scripter]

I've read Bush's plan (perhaps from the whitehouse website - can't remember) and it didn't mention amnesty. It mentioned those who had jobs and nothing longer than 2 or 3 years. If he said something else then I'd like to see it.

[ACDSWIZ]

Well why don't you just fill us in on what is not true here. It seems word for word with what Bush proposed in his first year until 9/11 forced him to withdraw his guest worker/amnesty. Redefining illegality does not make it right. Who believes that after three years in the US and with the anchor babies that will surely result that anyone will be returning to Mexico or anywhere else. Or is supporting Bush all you care about?

[Howlin]

They also have to register with our government.

It seems to me if they have to register, then the ones who aren't in the database, i.e., unregistered, would be the ones that would be deported immediately, right?