Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: inquest
You want to make sure that they face heavy consequences for hiring illegals who come in after a guest-worker program is enacted.

No. I want to make employers face heavy consequences for having any illegals of whatever duration working for them.

And I never said anything about "amnesty". Amnesty implies that we just let any illegal immigrants stay. I never said that. That's what the '86 amnesty was. I would allow employers who wanted to sponsor their long term employees to apply for guest worker status for them, but that is in no way "amnesty".

You've acknowledged that a guest worker program that's not made available to illegals won't make the problem worse, and will even make it slightly better.

No, I haven't. I've said repeatedly that as long as illegals can find jobs here, guest worker programs, fences, border patrols, etc. don't matter a bit.

116 posted on 02/12/2006 4:09:32 PM PST by speekinout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: speekinout
Amnesty implies that we just let any illegal immigrants stay. I never said that. That's what the '86 amnesty was. I would allow employers who wanted to sponsor their long term employees to apply for guest worker status for them, but that is in no way "amnesty".

We disagree on whether that specific word applies, but the general principle is the same in both cases. Illegals get legalized (to whatever degree) along with some vague promise of enforcement afterwards, which never materializes.

[You've acknowledged that a guest worker program that's not made available to illegals won't make the problem worse, and will even make it slightly better.]

No, I haven't. I've said repeatedly that as long as illegals can find jobs here, guest worker programs, fences, border patrols, etc. don't matter a bit.

You speculated about a 1-2% reduction at #107. I myself would give a somewhat higher number, especially with increased enforcement, but even using your figure, it would still be a move in the right direction. If we make the program unavailabe to illegals, it would have a much easier time passing Congress. Then we'll see who's right. If you're right, and there's no significant effect, there'd be nothing stopping Congress from then moving to make the program available to illegals. And in pushing for it, you'd have hard numbers to back up your case with, instead of mere speculation. But since enacting the program without illegals won't make the situation worse, and would remove a significant roadblock to its passage in Congress, there's no valid reason not to do it as an initial step, at least from the perspective of those who are in favor of guest-worker programs at all.

117 posted on 02/12/2006 4:57:19 PM PST by inquest (If you favor any legal status for illegal aliens, then do not claim to be in favor of secure borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson