Posted on 05/16/2005 3:33:43 PM PDT by Libloather
Illegal aliens: Democrats stumped
By Froma Harrop
PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Hillary gets it. Hillary Clinton says she's against illegal immigration. And she would fine employers who hire illegal aliens.
Pundits say the Democratic senator from New York 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 US 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 illegal immigrants.
President 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.
US 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 reelection. 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) of Wyoming and Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D) of Kentucky. In 1986, they pushed through legislation that repealed the Texas Proviso. It established fines for employers who knowingly hire illegals. But there was a huge 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 (and we've had seven categories added to it 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 as if the Democrats have an issue. And if Senator Clinton can seriously address the problem in nonracial terms, she could march straight to the White House. Go for it, Hillary.
And Hillary needs every one of those votes. RATS work in devious ways...
Hillary may "get it" but I don't for a second believe she has any intentions of slowing the flow of illegal aliens.
That Amendment was proposed by Robert Byrd and had the unanimous support of ALL 44 Senate Democrats including Hellory.
Meanwhile, the Republicans in the Senate could only muster 21 votes in favor of strengthening enforcement of our borders and immigration laws. 34 Republicans voted for the status quo.
Democrats could easily take this issue away from Republican because the Republicans are bought and paid for by the open borders big business lobby.
ARTICLE SNIPPET: "Hillary gets it. Hillary Clinton says she's against illegal immigration. And she would fine employers who hire illegal aliens."
===
===
OPINION - It would be wonderful if Hillary and all the rest of the politicians "got it." Hillary gets whatever it takes to talk her way into the White House. What Hillary does with the info; is a whole other matter.
I've said it before on these threads, and I'll be saying it right through 2008 -- anyone who believes Hillary's sincerity on the issue of illegal aliens is a fool.
Yet there are chowderheads on the right who will vote for her based on her hollow promises because they're single-issue/anti-illegal-immigration voters. Read the Clintons' playbook, people! "Disingenuous," thy name is Hillary!
Frankly I'm surprised the tables were so turned then.
Between 1944 and 1954, "the decade of the wetback," the number of illegal aliens coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. It is estimated that in 1954 before Operation Wetback got under way, more than a million workers had crossed the Rio Grande illegally. Cheap labor displaced native agricultural workers, and increased violation of labor laws and discrimination encouraged criminality, disease, and illiteracy. The resulting Operation Wetback, a national reaction against illegal immigration, began in Texas in mid-July 1954. snip
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.
As factory jobs vanished and illegal immigration swelled in the 1970s... Then came the flood of refugees from Cuba and Haiti... Carter refused to give blanket amnesty.
President Carter also tried to repeal the Texas Proviso. Congress stalled and instead set up a commission to study the matter... U.S. immigration policy was "out of control," the panel announced.
The big amnesty of 1986, signed by Reagan.
In 1986, they (Sen. Alan Simpson (R) of Wyoming and Rep. Romano Mazzoli (D) of Kentucky) pushed through legislation that repealed the Texas Proviso. It established fines for employers who knowingly hire illegals. But there was a huge loophole: Employers did not have to check whether the documents presented by job applicants were valid or fake.
And 19 years later employers still don't have to verify documents.
The Basic Pilot Employment Verification Program involves verification checks of the SSA and DHS databases, using an automated system to verify the employment authorization of all newly hired employees. Participation in the Basic Pilot Program is voluntary, and is free to participating employers. The Basic Pilot: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.
- removes guesswork from document review during the Form I-9 process
- allows participating employers to confirm employment eligibility of all newly hired employees
- improves the accuracy of wage and tax reporting, and
- protects jobs for authorized United States workers
Testimony of Barbara Jordan, U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform Before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary and Related AgenciesBy 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.
March 29, 1995Note: The commission was formed in 1990. It took five years for the commission to do its thing, and then its findings were ignored.
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.
And how many illegal aliens is it that McCain/Kennedy wish to help?
</barf alert>
I agree with you.
(As an aside, I am one of those chowderheads who will vote for a PRO-LIFE candidate WHO WILL DO THE RIGHT THING regarding ILLEGAL immigration. Obviously I would NEVER vote for Hillary, any democrat (no matter how nice -- thinking of Zel Miller), and any liberal (no matter what party they are affiliated with).
When the US government does its job of defending the border and reduces illegal immigration, wage rates in the market will rise. As real (not Fat Teddy's fake "minimum wage") wages rise, blacks will enter the market ("reservation wage") and develop the work skills necessary for advancement. As blacks get comfortable in the work force and pay taxes, they will begin to see how very little the dems have ever done for them.
There's a hint to her approach in the very first line...she'd nail employers who hire illegals.
While I dislike the messenger, I think this is one of the only viable solutions. We have to make it unprofitable for employers to hire these folks. If they can't get jobs, at least some of them will stop coming. Once we can slow down the flow, we can start to turn back the tide.
Will this have an economic impact? Sure. Prices at fast food restaurants and hotels will go up when they have to hire citizens. But so what? Higher prices on some things will mean that parents will have less to pay teenagers--which will cause them to look for work and fill these jobs. If people don't eat out as much and have to do their own yard work/home improvements, it might also mean a few less lard asses.
Anyone who votes on a single anti-immigration issue is NOT a true conservative. Also notice how the media reports very little about Hillary's stance and other Democrats who oppose immigration. They only bring out Republicans to speak against this.
Sounds like the beginnings of wisdom to me. If you don't nail the employers you really aren't serious about the problem. Fancy what a few suits doing the perp walk in handcuffs would do for the market for illegals.
I've said it before on these threads, and I'll be saying it right through 2008 -- anyone who believes Hillary's sincerity on the issue of illegal aliens is a fool.
And why not ? I believe in the complete and utter sincerity of anything that will make her president and rebuild the Democrats as the new majority party. I believe in the complete and utter sincerity of her having the brains to recognize a red button issue on the level of crime and the death penalty back in the 80's and ride it for all its worth. I believe in the complete and total sincerity of her recognizing that economic populism is the only way the Democratic Party can reach values voters. If you don't credit her with the brains to exploit the short sighted selfishness of the open borders crowd you are engaging in wishful thinking.
You mean like during the Clinton years which blacks remember as a times when jobs were plentiful and cities were recovering from the ravages of crime and crack ?
They are going for the vote..both sides.
All the while we are faced with what terrorists that manage to slip in with them.
GD!!!the miserable polititions! A common street hooker looks like an angel next to them.
bump
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.