Posted on 05/16/2005 5:47:01 AM PDT by SJackson
Hillary gets it. Hillary Clinton says she's against illegal immigration. And she would fine employers who hire illegal aliens.
Pundits say the New York Democrat is using this hot-button issue to position herself for the 2008 presidential election. It's a way to hit Republicans from the right. Polls show huge majorities of both Republicans and Democrats oppose illegal immigration -- and are frustrated that President Bush won't do a thing to stop it.
But this issue does not belong to the right. Or it shouldn't. Illegal immigration hurts most liberal causes. It depresses wages, crushes unions and kills all hope for universal health coverage. Progressives have to understand that there can be little social justice in an unregulated labor market.
"Liberals are so confused on this issue," says Vernon Briggs, a labor economist at Cornell University and self-described liberal. "Immigration policy has got to be held accountable for its economic consequences."
Many Democrats used to get it. In 1964, President Johnson abolished the Bracero program, which brought in "temporary" farm workers from Mexico. Its demise let Cesar Chavez organize U.S. farm workers. His union won some battles early on, but a new wave of illegal immigrants in the mid-1970s reversed that progress. The union barely exists today.
It's long been a felony offense for a foreign national to enter the United States illegally. And until 1952, it was also a felony to harbor an illegal alien. That's when farm interests had the law changed to take employers off the hook: Employing an illegal alien no longer constituted "harboring" one. This came to be known as the "Texas Proviso."
As factory jobs vanished and illegal immigration swelled in the 1970s, Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, sensed a growing crisis. Then came the flood of refugees from Cuba and Haiti -- most claiming political asylum. Carter refused to give blanket amnesty. The refugees were taken care of in 1986, when Republican Ronald Reagan granted a blanket amnesty for 3 million illegals.
Carter also tried to repeal the Texas Proviso. Congress stalled and instead set up a commission to study the matter. It was chaired by the Rev. Theodore Hesburgh, then president of the University of Notre Dame.
U.S. immigration policy was "out of control," the panel announced. It minced no words: "The commission has rejected the argument of many economists, ethnic groups and religious leaders for a great expansion in number of immigrants and refugees."
Shortly thereafter, Carter lost his bid for re-election. Reagan became too busy cutting taxes for the rich to bother with the commission's recommendations. (Besides, isn't cheap labor another kind of tax cut?)
The cause was taken up by Sen. Alan Simpson, R-Wyo., and Rep. Romano Mazzoli, D-Ky. In 1986, they pushed through legislation that repealed the Texas Proviso. It established fines for employers who knowingly hire illegals. But there was a titanic loophole: Employers did not have to check whether the documents presented by job applicants were valid or fake.
By 1991, America was in a recession. The economy had lost a million jobs. That year, the current president's father, George H.W. Bush, signed a law that raised annual legal immigration by 35 percent to 700,000. And it did nothing about illegal entrants.
Congress in 1990 had established another commission to study the problem. This one was headed by Barbara Jordan, a Democrat who had represented Texas in the House of Representatives. The Jordan Commission made excellent recommendations, which went nowhere. One would have required employers to make a single phone call to verify a job applicant's Social Security number. Even that was too much.
The rationale for the 1986 amnesty (we've had seven since then) is that we had been sending illegal immigrants mixed messages. After all, it had been previously legal for employers to hire them.
Nowadays, the messages aren't even mixed anymore. A cheap-labor Republican, George Bush won't enforce the employer penalties. He has a new amnesty program. And he vows to "match any willing worker with any willing employer." Hence, the latest stampede at the southern border.
Sounds like the Democrats have an issue. And if Clinton can seriously address the problem in non-racial terms, she could march straight to the White House. Go for it, Hillary.
That just tells me about stuff I'd like to keep from my earnings ... bring on the Fair Tax!
That said, in most cases, I don't think they earn enough to pay Income Tax or FICA - in fact if they filed, they would probably get MORE money in the form of another welfare boondoggle: the "Earned Income Tax Credit."
Hitlery fools no one, not even her supporters.
Its still their money. They are still entitled to dispose of as they see fit.
And these days, too much of our money seems to go to the PRC to help their economy (and the PLA) to grow.
And what about the money we are collectively forced to pay when they commit crimes, need emerghency health care services, and educate their kids??????? Don't you think they should pay for that???
No, just the share, at least, that the rest of us have our picked for every day of every week.
The issue of immigration has nothing to do with the traditional political split between Liberal versus Conservative. Its more a split between those Americans who still have a lick of common sense versus those who are completely nuts. You have support for endless immigration coming from the exteme ends of both the Liberal AND Conservative elites -- with the rest of us Americans stuck in the middle paying for it. On the Left, you have the Bleeding Heart Liberals who's hearts bleed for all "minorities" (so long as they don't have to actually live amongst them). ANd on the right, you have the Rightwing Coporate Conservatives who see millions of new immigrants as nothing more than cattle for them to feed on: a source of endless cheap labor and millions of new people to buy their crappy products. But the overwhelming majority of Americans of ALL political persuasions want to severely reduce our insane level of Mass Immigration, and to put a complete stop to illegal immigration. And we are going to do that. ANd any politician who gets in our way is going to pay dearly for that. Are you listening, Senator McCain and Senator Chappequiddik?
Hill and dems want it both ways, as usual. They're against illegal immigration (wink, wink...come on in, vote dem.,and we'll get you lots of free goodies,cradle to grave stuff), but we blame employers who hire illegals. We certainly don't blame massive wave of illegal migrants/invaders looking for a better life. So when illegals get the vote, along with felons, they'll vote dem. And then they'll vote to secede and join Mexico or become Aztlan. At that point, GW and the republicans, sitting on their hands/dithering, will wonder what hit them.
Hill and dems want it both ways, as usual. They're against illegal immigration (wink, wink...come on in, vote dem.,and we'll get you lots of free goodies,cradle to grave stuff), but we blame employers who hire illegals. We certainly don't blame massive wave of illegal migrants/invaders looking for a better life. So when illegals get the vote, along with felons, they'll vote dem. And then they'll vote to secede and join Mexico or become Aztlan. At that point, GW and the republicans, presently sitting on their hands, will wonder what hit them.
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.