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.

[Fatalis]

The only reason it's being discussed is because there was a scheduled meeting in Mexico.

This is from today's Washington Times.

Bush revives bid to legalize illegal aliens

The president met privately in the Oval Office with Sen. John McCain to discuss jump-starting a stalled White House initiative that would grant legal status to millions of immigrants who broke the law to enter the United States.

The Arizona Republican is one of the Senate's most outspoken supporters of expanding guest-worker programs and has introduced his own bill to offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

"We are formulating plans for the legislative agenda for next year," said White House political strategist Karl Rove. "And immigration will be on that agenda."

He added: "The president had a meeting this morning to discuss with a significant member of the Senate the prospect of immigration reform. And he's going to make it an important item."

[radicalamericannationalist]

My first post to you on this subject posited that an acquittal, if made expensive enough, can still be used to create a disincentive to hire illegals. Thus, even if your juries that must be out there somewhere (I trust you have evidence other than your bare assertion) do not convict, it is not the case that nothing has been accomplished. The business has incurred a new cost and there is negative publicity about their business practices.

[FreedomCalls]

And someday frogs may have wings surgically grafted onto them in order to keep their butts from hitting the ground when they hop.

You mean there's hope for Michael Moore?

[Poohbah]

My first post to you on this subject posited that an acquittal, if made expensive enough, can still be used to create a disincentive to hire illegals.

Ah. I see now. You wish to replicate Janet Reno's strategy against firearms ownership: if you harrass enough people, then they will surrender their guns more readily.

Empowering government to engage in pure harrassment is a pretty stupid idea, OK?

Thus, even if your juries that must be out there somewhere (I trust you have evidence other than your bare assertion) do not convict, it is not the case that nothing has been accomplished.

Look in newspapers from 1987-88. Most probably would not devote extensive coverage to cases ending in acquittal, but there ought to be a column-inch or so reporting the fact.

[marilew]

Pres. Bush did talk about it in the last debate. I re-read it today

[Fatalis]

It brings the law into closer accord with the customs of the American Southwest regarding hiring of Mexican workers.

It was perfectly legal to hire Mexicans until 1965. And then the rules were arbitrarily changed to benefit one small special-interest group.

"Long held?" In the 1950s more tha a million illegal aliens were expelled.

What's occurred since 1965 isn't remotely close to the type of seasonal agricultural work that you're hearkening to. It's a free for all to hire illegal aliens. I'm skeptical that your aquaintances, who've participated by default up in the free for all, which is now the current custom, would be any more inclined to enforce the law against employers after a mass legalization via a guest worker proposal. Why should employers comply?

[to_zion]

What about the 15 million who are already here, on welfare, using our medical services for free, filling our schools, filling our prisons? If the "guestworker" plan is granted to a few million, what happens to the other millions? Deportation, NAAHH!

Declare the past...diagnose the present...fortell the furture - Hippocrates

[Howlin]

My statement stands: we're discussing this because of statements that Powell made IN Mexico.

In his press conference after he won, Bush didn't even MENTION immigration.

[Poohbah]

"Long held?" In the 1950s more tha a million illegal aliens were expelled.

Yeah. The illegal alien problem was a hell of a lot more manageable than the current mess is.

No system is going to be perfect.

What's occurred since 1965 isn't remotely close to the type of seasonal agricultural work that you're hearkening to. It's a free for all to hire illegal aliens.

Because of the 1965 law.

I'm skeptical that your aquaintances, who've participated by default up in the free for all, which is now the current custom, would be any more inclined to enforce the law against employers after a mass legalization via a guest worker proposal.

It would bring the overall posture of the law into closer accord with long-established (i.e., since 1848) custom.

Why should employers comply?

1. It's easier to be legal than illegal.

2. It's more likely that those who are illegal will be detected and caught (illegal activities will be more noticeable).

3. It's more likely that they'll be convicted.

[Fatalis]

True about the press conference, and it's true that Powell opened up this new can of worms (hello Taiwan), but the Bush meeting with McCain is another trigger.

It would be better if he dropped it for now, or adopted the Tancredo guest worker proposal into his overall plan. This is a fight that will be a major distraction, I'm afraid, and there are issues that were more central to the President's campaign that I'd rather see him tackle first.

[radicalamericannationalist]

If you think that hiring illegal aliens is akin to legal gun ownership, you again display your facility with logic. Bringing suits against people who violate the law is not harassment. IT the job of a U.S. Attorney.

And you point back twenty years for some possible evidence. You cannot extrapolate what a jury would do today based on what happened two decades ago.

[radicalamericannationalist]

That's an insult to frogs.

[Howlin]

He had a meeting with McCain, in which I am sure MORE than immigration was discussed.

And he's not going to fight with anybody; he has put his plan out there, just like all the senators and represenatives have; THEY will fight it out in Congress.

[JustAnotherSavage]

“In case you're unaware, blue-collar working class built the Republican party and elected Ronald Reagan. It's the corporate slugs who are along for the ride, not the other way around.”

Yes, and its the working class that fights this and every other war and has always kept this country alive. The Republican party uses the Christian right as surely as the Democrats use Black Americans.

[Fatalis]

It's not just because of the '65 law. Increased transportation is a major factor, as is the welfare state, multiculturalism, and also the do-nothing approach by those who were supposed to enforce the laws against illegal aliens.

I've seen nothing to suggest that hiring illegal aliens will be any more difficult after a legalization than it is now. It's really a stretch to say that it's difficult to know who's currently hiring illegals.

A real problem that advocates of the President's proposal have is that they ask for a rather blind trust that enforcement measures that aren't taken now will be taken later. If the President wants a politically pragmatic guest worker proposal, he'd be wise to incorporate the Tancredo plan and neutralize a ton of opposition on his right flank.

[Fatalis]

From Rove's comments it appears that immigration reform was the focus.

If the President is just going to toss a legalization proposal into Congress, or get behind the bill McCain has sponsored, without a fight, he will lose in short order, to no purpose. Do you really think that's the plan?

[Howlin]

Did you read it all?

In a 90-minute interview Sept. 22 with editors and reporters of The Washington Times, Mr. Rove said a Bush victory would "be an opportunity" for the president's guest-worker proposal for immigrants, although he declined to call it a "mandate," as he did on such issues as Social Security reform and tax cuts.

[EagleMamaMT]

You are sadly mistaken if you think my husband is a union crane operator. I myself am an independent contractor medical transcriptionist. Sorry to disillusion you. I know you froth at the mouth and cry every time you think someone might be a union member. I'm sure if you mention your problem to your psychiatrist, he can increase your medication dosage and help you with your delusions.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Too true. The great irony here is that blacks are disproportionately harmed by the illegal influx as they are most likely to be losing jobs to illegals and having their schools and emergency rooms swamped by illegals. By heeding the will of the people on this issue, Bush would be helping to carve up the Democrat base. I guess when it comes to the national interest and the long term interests of the GOP versus the interests of his cheap labor cronies, we lose.

[mudblood]

"liberally or more so"

Most Hispanics are very religious - so are republicans. Most Hispanics are very tight with their money, use it wisely, and don't expect much from the government (at least in Mexico) - so are republicans. Because of the high catholic background, most Hispanics are pro-life (just a guess there) - and so are republicans. Most Cubans are very republican, have a high rate of business ownership, stress higher education, etc. Most non-Cubans are hard working and wouldn't appreciate hiked taxes, for example. I think the republicans can work on these qualities and hammer out a very informed, right minded constituency.