Posted on 12/29/2004 6:21:51 AM PST by Ginifer
(CNSNews.com) - President Bush is moving forward with his plans to create a "Temporary Worker Program" that would allow millions of illegal aliens to remain and work in the U.S. for a minimum of three years with no fear of deportation or other punishment. Advocates of tougher immigration policies believe the president is ignoring the costs and potential dangers posed by illegal immigration.
In his final, scheduled, formal press conference of the year, the president criticized current U.S. immigration policy.
"The system we have today is not a compassionate system. It's not working," Bush said Dec. 20. "And, as a result, the country is less secure than it could be with a rational system."
Any proposed changes to immigration policy must take into account what the president calls "reality.""
\ldblquote There are some jobs in America that Americans won't do and others are willing to do," Bush said. "We ought to have a system that recognizes people are coming here to do jobs that Americans will not do. And there ought to be a legal way for them to do so."
According to a White House fact sheet entitled, "Fair and Secure Immigration Reform," the president's "Temporary Worker Program" would allow new immigrants to the U.S. and those currently here illegally to accept employment "when no American worker is available and willing to take a job.""
Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, told the Cybercast News Service that Bush's proposal is, "a great plan if your objective is to destroy the middle class in the United States.
"If you are going to offer employers the opportunity to bring in unlimited numbers of guest workers then there is never going to be any incentive to increase wages in this country [or] to improve working conditions," Mehlman said. "Upward mobility will become a thing of the past if such a plan is enacted."
Bush says program would not provide 'automatic citizenship'
The program would last three years, but would be renewable. Bush insists he is not proposing amnesty, or an easier road to citizenship, for illegal aliens.
"Now, one of the important aspects of my vision is that this is not automatic citizenship. The American people must understand that," the president stressed. "If somebody who is here working wants to be a citizen, they can get in line like those who have been here legally and have been working to become a citizen in a legal manner."
Mehlman disagreed.
"Even he would have to recognize that a program that allows millions of people, who have broken the law, to gain legal status in this country is an amnesty," Mehlman insisted. "Even though he swears it's not an amnesty program, that's exactly what it is; it is rewarding people who have broken the law.""
Supporters of tougher immigration laws also doubt, according to Mehlman, that there will be anything temporary about the "Temporary Worker Program."
"He's talking about a three-year temporary worker visa, renewable for three more," Mehlman observed. "And at the end of the six years, these people will, of course, all say, 'Thank you very much. We really appreciate the opportunity to work here and now we're going home.' Yeah, right."
The Bush proposal also includes provisions to allow participants to cross back and forth from their country of origin to maintain family ties. President Bush said U.S. Border Patrol agents need to focus on more important duties.
"[W]e want our border patrol agents chasing crooks and thieves and drug runners and terrorists, not good-hearted people who are coming here to work," Bush argued.
'Preposterous' plan fails to address security concerns
Mehlman complained that recommendations by the 9/11 Commission to tighten immigration policy were removed from the legislation passed by Congress due to pressure from those lobbying to protect illegal aliens.
"Special interest politics and greed seem to even trump homeland security," Mehlman concluded, "despite the fact that we've seen what the potential consequences are from not enforcing immigration laws."
Mehlman believes security must be the primary concern in immigration policy and that it is lacking in the proposal to allow for millions of "temporary workers."
"The idea that they are going to do thorough, comprehensive background checks on all these people to make sure that we're not letting in criminals or potential terrorists is preposterous," Mehlman said. "They couldn't even do a decent background check on their own nominee for Homeland Security secretary."
Former New York City Police Commissioner Bernard Kerrick withdrew his nomination for that post after allegations surfaced that he had ties to companies that have business dealings with the Department of Homeland Security and that he had employed an illegal immigrant as a nanny and did not pay his portion of her payroll taxes.
The president also argued that his plan would "take the pressure off of employers." Mehlman believes that is a mistake, as well.
"What we have to do is create disincentives against illegal immigration," Mehlman said. "Right now, we're creating incentives. We don't enforce the laws against employers."
Mehlman acknowledged that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents cannot arrest every illegal alien or catch every employer who knowingly hires them. He believes effective immigration law enforcement means applying "leverage" to selected companies.
"You go after some of the employers that have been hiring illegal immigrants with impunity, even though it's against the law. You fine them sufficiently to send a message, the same way that the highway patrol enforces the speed limit on the freeway when they want to," Mehlman said. "They don't stop every single speeder. But, if you're driving along at 80 miles an hour and you see somebody else being pulled over, you slow down."
Such an enforcement strategy would have a ripple effect, according to Mehlman.
"If you go after enough employers to give the rest of them the idea that we're serious about enforcing the law, they will then refrain from hiring illegal immigrants," Mehlman said. "The word gets back, 'Don't come to the United States illegally because nobody's going to take a chance on hiring you.'"
Mehlman believes such a policy would have a similar effect on illegal aliens currently living and working in the U.S.
"Many who are already here [illegally] would leave and go home," Mehlman continued. "The objective is to encourage more people who are here illegally to go home. If you cannot get access to a job, if you can't get access to anything but emergency social benefits, there's no incentive to remain here."
FAIR disputes economic argument for illegal immigration
Mehlman also dismissed the common argument that reducing the available pool of illegal immigrant labor would drive up food prices.
"The labor cost in agriculture is about 10 percent. So, a dollar's worth of produce today would cost you about $1.10 tomorrow if they doubled everybody's wages," Mehlman said.
What little savings consumers reap from lower labor costs are multiplied in other areas, Mehlman argued.
"Maybe you do save a few pennies here and there because there are low-wage illegal immigrant workers doing jobs in this country that Americans would demand a higher wage for," Mehlman explained, "but in return you are providing education for the children of these illegal immigrants, you're providing the health care because these employers are not providing a Blue Cross/Blue Shield (health insurance) program for them. All sorts of social costs are being added on."
But President Bush described his proposal as a more \ldblquote compassionate way to treat people who come to our country." Mehlman wondered about the president's compassion for unemployed and underemployed U.S. citizens.
"What we're wrestling with here is the impact that it has on this country, the impact that it has on people struggling to make a living and make a decent life for themselves and their families, the impact on schools and social services," Mehlman said. "The president didn't tell us who's going to pay to educate all the kids of these 'guest workers' he wants to bring here. Who's going to pay for all the health care needs that they're going to have when they get here?"
Exactly which segment of Americans are buying "larger homes", rod?
I design homes and not one I've done in six years are for "average income" Americans, except for a replacement in a burnout case (1).
Not one home I've done in the past six years has been less than $200k.
The "people" you may be referring to have had to migrate to mobile castles in lieu of conventionally constructed homes. Would you not consider that "downward"?
"I do like the idea of being able to charge gangster scum as terrorists..... it's exactly what they are"
In Virginia, we have a law that went effect July 1 that allows local and state police officers to use immigration status as a tool against criminals. In other words--the police can detain 'em till the BICS picks 'em up.
They busted a bunch of daylaborers for loitering and 12 of 'em were already wanted by the BICS for immigration violations.
Of course, the ACLU and the other enablers were all up in arms over this.."But it's just loitering...". That's what they were charged with, BUT they could've been charged for public urination, intoxicated in public, lewdness, and several other things, but the officer was trying to be "nice" to them.
Yesterday I sent an e-mail regarding his open border policy to president@whitehouse.gov, and haven't received the usual "thank you" back by quick return e-mail. Wonder why. Has anyone else done the same with the same result?
Yours is a repugnant post. Congress has Constitutional authority over immigration and naturalization, and the exercise of that authority is nothing like a pogrom. You slur the Founders and belittle the suffering of those who endured genuine pogroms, simply to advance a political point you have trouble making on its merits.
You need to check yourself.
Would you KINDLY lay off my family?
I am not discussing the laws on legal immigration then and now. If you wish to change the legal immigration processes, tell us about it
I have nothing against your family, I'm very glad that America offered them the prospect for your family and you to prosper.
I'm just asking what do you have against new immigrants trying to prosper through hard work in America.
Every rancher I know hires the neighbors kids to do the manual labor, long before he even thinks about putting an ad in the newspaper.
Both of my girls have white collar management jobs. One of them came home on her vacation two summers ago to paint my house for us.
They didn't expect to go to college on the taxpayers tit, so they both saved most of the money needed for their classes. I paid the rest, not you or a neighbor.
Companies moving overseas? Have you heard about NAFTA and all the US manufacturers that slid down to Mexico, then Thailand and China.
Okay, start your rant about unions.
"The Open Borders Lobby is determined to create a legal supply of cheap labor. This should bother liberals, especially union workers, whose wages and living conditions would be undermined by Mexican competition subsidized by the federal government."
Why do you think Hillary is positioning herself as an immigration hawk ? She knows that without economic populism she will have nothing with which to appeal to the blue collar cultural conservative voters who voted "moral values" this year.
"Somebody wanna explain wny the law of supply and demand should not apply to employers? If Americans don't want those jobs, pay more until they do."
Precisely !
That was long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, so to speak. When those words were written, we were still trying to grow as a nation. There were still large parts of the country which were yet to be settled. There wasn't a Welfare State as we now know it here in the US. Most of all, we didn't have an entire world religion determined to either kill or convert every living, breathing American. Simply put, those words don't apply any more, at least not in the spirit in which they were inscribed.
I think it would be more appropriate to say, "send us your legal immigrants, those who have skills we need, those who are willing to learn English, assimilate into our society, and become Americans...otherwise they can stay in whatever God forsaken hellhole of a 'socialist utopia' they currently infest."
America today is not, despite the PC and idiotic rumblings of many in the media, a "nation of immigrants". I was born here, my parents were born here, their parents were born here, and so on, going back about 150 years. We're a nation that used to be a melting pot, but is now becoming Balkanized at an alarming rate. You Europeans know how well that has worked, eh?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Bay ran Pat's Presidential campaigns. The webmaster is a former Buchanan aide. Tancredo seems to be latching on to that organization. He's going atfer conservatives like Chris Cannon in Utah (who just happened to piece together the seedy background of John Tanton take a look: http://chriscannon.house.gov/press2004/march24.htm - not that it'll matter).
Hey, he'll raise a lot of for that... pandering to hysteria over this issue has made some folks a lot of money.
Uh no, Pat Buchanan has been speculated many times as being "deep throat" to Woodward/Bernstein for a third rate burglary(I am more than willing to discuss how the liberal media brought down Nixon on another thread) and was fired by Reagan.
And now Buchanan gets his paycheck to be the conservative patsy on a liberal netowrk(MSNBC).
Pat is a beltway prostitute, never worked in flyover country, etc.etc.
"I design homes and not one I've done in six years are for "average income" Americans, except for a replacement in a burnout case (1).
Not one home I've done in the past six years has been less than $200k."
Around here, even a townhouse in a "crime ridden neighborhood" will cost $220K. The average income is also similarly high.
Were I to base my ideas of what sort of jobs Americans do and do not do on this (skewed) area, yes, I would have to come to the conclusion that Americans don't want to do "those sorts of jobs".
I might also come to the conclusion, based on what I see getting built around here, that Americans are indeed moving to larger houses.
But I know full well that Northern Virginia isn't like the rest of the country.
No model ever is. I just don't see the assimilation problem posed by Hispanic immigration.
I have my own set of friends, customs, activities etc... I don't celebrate Cinco De Mayo but I have no reason to begrudge others who wish to. (I do resent being dragged onto the dance floor during a salsa song, but that's just the price one has to pay for not being Donald Trump).
I don't speak Spanish but don't fear those who do.
Crime is down in my area and gangs were suppressed long ago except for the Bandidos, and they've always been nice to me.
All my experiences with Hispanic immigrants have been positive. They are the predominant labor force in my area. They are paid well, and I can't imagine who would take their place if immigration were stopped.
Given some of the comments I've seen on immigration threads, I think the REAL beef you have with Dane's comment is that it got too close to the truth.
I don't think anyone can doubt that there is a fair amount of racism among certain immigration hawks. I also think that it is tolerated by other immigration hawks. So trying to call in a moderate on Dane seems to me to be an effort to hide the truth.
Yes Congress does have that perview, where did I state it doesn't.
It also has the power to disregard your neo-National Socialist views, and try to bring some sanity into the system.
That may have been. Right now, I am referring to our LAWS. Laws can change. If our President doesn't like the laws that prohibit people from sneaking into the country, then he should be fair and announce he is going to push for the laws' removal.
That's why I chuckle at those on FR who wish for a neo-porgrom of new immigrants, when the vast majority of these peoples ancestors, also faced the animus that these people on FR spew now.
We may be the descendants of both slaves and slave owners here now, too, but we do have the right to speak up on current policy affecting America.
Funny how you cheap labor types like to pass off your selfish greed as "compassion" and play the "racism" act.
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.