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.

[unspun]

I agree, but sometimes the cart needs to be placed in the street before the horse.

[Iron Eagle]

The answer is no -- and one would be well advised to tread lightly in asking questions like that. Not a criticism, just an observation. FAIR is above Board. Now, whether one agrees with their approach and policies, that's a bit different.

[Dat Mon]

Here is the jist of the argument IMHO.

To come here LEGALLY takes time and money, at the very least.

To come here ILLEGALLY takes no time, and no money unless you are smuggled in by an organized gang.

To come here LEGALLY means following the established laws as outlined by the Congress and enforced by the Executive branch.

To come here ILLEGALLY menas following NO laws except how to not get caught.

Now, should either group have the same rights, ONCE HERE, to live, work, receive social services, etc, ASIDE from the fact that neither group have become naturalized citizens, with voting privaledges.

Any guest worker plan has to penalize in some way the folks who have already broken the law. There is no way around it. The majority of folks will not accept anything less.

Now, we have to agree on the penalties, and the means of enforcement.

[unspun]

To a point. However, there are enough workers in other countries who could replace every American for a lower wage. Would you leave the international labor market entirely unrestricted?

No. I think we can maintain a good idea of what kinds of jobs Americans want to work and what we're unwilling to.

[itsahoot]

Powell and his delegation discussed Mexico's concerns about treatment of Mexicans on U.S. soil.

Damn straight, we force them into free education, and medical care, I would be concerned about this too.</sarcasm>

[Iron Eagle]

That is a different FAIR -- This FAIR is Federation for American Immigration Reform.

[Fatalis]

If we could get them to go home to return here legally, then we wouldn't NEED a plan, would we?

I don't see the logic in that. Right now illegal aliens have no avenue to return home and enter legally. Wouldn't Tancredo's plan provide such an avenue, and wouldn't that avenue be positive encouragement to illegal aliens to comply with the law?

[sarah_f]

Nothing like an immigration thread to seperate the conservatives from the republicans!

[WRhine]

Kerry's amnesty was blanket amnesty for all illegals here now. THAT is more conservative?????????

Far be it from me to defend any amnesty but Kerry's plan required the Illegals to be in the country, working for 5 years, with a clean arrest record. That right off the bat eliminates a pretty good chunk of the current population of Illegal Aliens in the U.S. He also mentioned, penalizing employers that hire Illegals and beefing up border security. Do I think Kerry would have flip flopped on this....probably.

[RS]

"And who subsidizes their benefits with government handouts?...you and me and everyone else who pays taxes."

... and when they gain guest worker status they will start paying the taxes they don't now...

" And who benefits from the cheaper labor?...the Republican's corporate buddies. "

... and the American consumer and the stockholders in those corporations

"And who is seeing their culture, language, and national traditions trashed?"

... where is this happening ?

[itsahoot]

For more decades than any of us have lived, workers have come from Mexico to the US.

Sure I can remember when I was a kid, most people in my home town spoke Spanish, and we had ballots in 12 languages. </sarcasm>

[Reagan Man]

The cart you speak of is a guest workers program coupled with a form of amnesty. That doesn't solve the problem. It only perpetuates the problem. I say seal the borders first, prosecute employers who break the law by hiring illegals and halt welfare for illegals. Then we can talk about a guest workers problem that has a chance of functioning properly with longterm success. Amnesty right off the bat, is out of the question.

[dangus]

If you get fired, you get deported. Hard to assert your rights that way, isn't it?

[sarcasm]

THEY were standing under a tree, each with an arm round the other's neck, and Alice knew which was which in a moment, because one of them had "DUM" embroidered on his collar, and the other "DEE". `I suppose they've each got "TWEEDLE" round at the back of the collar,' she said to herself.

[Iron Eagle]

Well he might be lowering your grade!

The Court, sadly, resolved this issue in Plyler v. Doe, holding that illegal aliens are subject to our jurisdiction by being here. In doing so, the Court further held that they were entitled to "equal protection" and permitted those illegal aliens to be granted free k-12 public education. In fact, Plyler v. Doe makes it illegal to require proof of citizenship before entering a public school at that grade level. (I am not talking about children born here of illegals,m I am talking about illegal children).

Thus -- the 1982 Supreme Court case has answered your jurisdiction question, and further imparted not just the "protections" of the 14th Amendment, but it provided to illegals the benefits of citizenship. This is unquestionably, one of the worst and most consequential Supreme Court decisions in the last 40 years.

[FreedomCalls]

Are you saying because Mr Bush doesn't call it an amnesty, it isn't???

Are you saying that simply because you call it an amnesty program it is?

[WRhine]

Wait until the FTAA is in full bloom and we turn into the American Union getting to experience up close and personal runaway multiculturalism.

It will be a most fertile soil for our compassionate government to grow ad infinitum. Imagine all the various ethnic groups competing for government's attention and favor. It will make today's race based politics look like a side show.

[Jorge]

Where did Bush "Call For Illegal Alien Amnesty"? He didn't. This whole article is based on a lie.

Thank you!
We get these hysterical "Illegal Alien Amnesty" threads on FR every few months it seems....

[RS]

"If you get fired, you get deported. Hard to assert your rights that way, isn't it?"

Nope, I'm sure that they would have the same rights regarding getting fired as anyone else...

But you are right, if they do not have a job here they have to go home - they are GUEST workers, NOT permanent residents.

[fetts]

Thanks -- I don't pretend to be a Constitutional scholar!

Even US Supreme Court cases have been overturned, so we can only hope.