Voters Reject Guest-Worker PLan

A new Zogby poll of likely voters finds that Americans prefer, by two to one, the House of Representatives’ enforcement-only bill to the Senate’s plan to grant guest-worker status. Sixty-four percent of Americans support the House bill, with only 30 percent supporting the Senate plan. Support for the enforcement-only approach by itself also proves to be widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of Independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics supporting the enforcement-only House bill.

Regarding legal immigration, this poll demonstrates that Americans want less - not more - immigration, with only two percent responding that current immigration levels are too low. The Senate plan, which would increase legal immigration from one to two million a year, appears blatantly at odds with the wishes of voters. Americans, through and through, do not think we need more people, not even for low-paying jobs. Seventy-four percent of likely voters think that there are enough Americans to fill low-wage jobs, if employers would pay and treat employees better.

What do these numbers mean? Most Democrats, President Bush, and many Republicans in the Senate are out of touch. This news could be particularly damaging for Democrats, given that a majority of their constituents generally supports an enforcement-only approach. It could also be damaging for certain Republicans (like Senators McCain, Brownback, DeWine, or Graham) who currently attempt to auction off citizenship for (unlikely) future votes. Senate Republicans ignoring their base on immigration will likely benefit Democrats this November. Many Republicans are so angry over the guest-worker proposal that they may vote third-party or not vote at all.

This poll is the first poll to ask the question - using neutral language - whether likely voters prefer the House bill (enforcement-only) or Senate (guest-worker) plan. This outcome interestingly depicts that despite all the pro-amnesty rhetoric in the liberal media, 64 percent of Americans still favor an enforcement-only approach. If we were to have a more balanced media, with more opponents of immigration allowed to speak, this number would possibly jump from 64 to 80 percent.

Although previous polls showed that more Americans may support a guest-worker plan, the wording of such polls proved at best questionable, at worst blatantly biased. Critics, however, have always been skeptical of previous polls, especially when almost every person you know - Democrat or Republican - says he wants the same thing: (1) no guest-worker plan, (2) a border secured by guards and a physical fence, and (3) a massive reduction in legal and illegal immigration.

----------------- Matthew A. Roberts is a freelance columnist whose recent articles are mentioned or appear at Washington Times, FrontPageMag.org, National Federation of Republican Assemblies, National Ledger, Reality Check, MichNews, The Post Chronicle, Daley Times-Post, American Daily, Capital Hill Coffee House, et al. He also maintains a weblog at www.conservatoroccidentalis.com

* Executive director of the National Immigration Forum
* Open Borders advocate
* Refers to U.S. efforts to enforce immigrant visa compliance as "heavy-handed tactics [that] seem more like the old Soviet Union and South Africa."

Frank Sharry is the executive director of the National Immigration Forum (NIF), an organization that is part and parcel of the Open Borders Lobby that seeks to eliminate restrictions on immigration into the United States, and advocates amnesty for illegal aliens currently residing in the U.S. Prior to taking over this position in 1990, Sharry had been executive director of Centro Presente, a local agency involved in the Central American sanctuary movement in the greater Boston area that opposed the Reagan Administration's efforts to combat the spread of communism in the region. In 1994, Sharry took a leave of absence from the Forum to serve as Deputy Campaign Manager of Taxpayers Against Proposition 187, a California Initiative to deny social welfare benefits to the state's illegal aliens.

Sharry and the NIF have objected to the U.S. government's creation of a National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) to monitor members of the following groups: nationals of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, and Syria who are in the U.S. on non-immigrant visas; certain non-immigrant visa-holders from other countries that are determined to pose an "elevated national security risk" by the State Department and the INS; and certain foreign national non-immigrant visa-holders in whom the Justice Department has a special interest. NSEERS requires that fingerprints and photos be taken from these individuals, along with other personal data, when they present themselves for admission to the U.S. The fingerprints are then run through intelligence and criminal records databases to identify people who are wanted criminals or suspected terrorists and keep them from entering the country. After 30 days in the United States and then on an annual basis, certain non-immigrant aliens will be required to present themselves at an INS office, where a review will be conducted to ensure that they are complying with the terms of their visas. To Frank Sharry, "these heavy-handed tactics seem more like the old Soviet Union and South Africa."

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1261

Here's my reply from Rat Debbie Stabenow, I haven't gotten a reply from any of my other Rats.

Because of your strong interest . .

. . . I am writing to update you on the status of the immigration bills before the Senate. You will be pleased to know that all three of the proposals being debated have tough border security and enforcement provisions which I strongly support. I have been to our southern border and have seen for myself how out-of-control it is. I have included a summary of the enforcement provisions for your review.

In addition, I am sponsoring an amendment with Senator Byron Dorgan to eliminate the new guest worker program being proposed. At a time when the Administration and Congress should be fighting for American jobs, it's wrong to create a program to bring in 400,000 new guest workers every year in addition to the process set up for those who are already here. Importing cheap labor or exporting American jobs are the wrong priorities for Michigan.

The proposals before us have many different provisions and are very complicated. As a northern border state with an important agriculture economy, we have issues we must address. That's why I believe we need a balanced and comprehensive solution. But it must start with tough border security and it must not add new guest worker programs that undermine American jobs and wages.

As the debate continues, I will fight for these principles. Our immigration system is broken and it must be fixed! Thank you for sharing your views with me. Please don't hesitate to contact me whenever I can be of assistance to you and your family.

Sincerely,

Debbie Stabenow

United States Senator

Immigration Enforcement Provisions in Senate Immigration Bill

Doubled Border Patrol -- adds 12,000 new agents (2,400 each year for the next 5 years).

Doubled Interior Enforcement -- adds 1,000 investigators per year for next 5 years.

Tightened Controls--expands exit-entry security system at all land borders and airports.

Construction of Barriers -- mandates new roads and vehicle barriers at borders.

Construction of Fences -- provides additional border fences at specific vulnerable sectors.

New Checkpoints -- authorizes new permanent highway checkpoints near border.

New Security Perimeter -- adds new technology at the border to help stop illegal immigration

New Ports of Entry -- authorizes additional ports of entry along land borders.

Increased DHS Resources for Transporting Aliens -- requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to expand ability to retrieve aliens detained by local police.

New Criminal Penalties for Tunnels -- creates new crime for construction, financing, and use of unlawful tunnels.

New Criminal Penalties for Evading Immigration Officers -- creates significant criminal penalties for evading or refusing to obey commands of immigration officers.

New Criminal Penalties for Money Laundering -- creates significant criminal penalties for financial transactions related to money laundering or smuggling.

Comprehensive Surveillance Plan -- mandates new land and water surveillance plan.

Expanded Anti-Smuggling Efforts -- mandates assistance to secure Mexico's southern border.

Improved inter-agency coordination on alien smuggling-- requires DHS to develop and implement plan to improve coordination between federal agencies and local authorities involved in efforts to combat alien smuggling.

Increased Document Fraud Detection -- increases access to anti-fraud detection resources.

Biometric Identifiers--new fraud-proof immigration documents with biometrics.

Expanded Detention Authority -- provides new authority to detain dangerous individuals.

Increased Detention Facilities -- requires DHS to acquire 20 new detention facilities to accommodate at least 10,000 detainees.

Expanded Terrorist Removal Grounds-- expands authority to remove suspected terrorists.

Expanded Aggravated Felony Definition -- increases penalties for participation in smuggling and other crimes plus revises and expands definition of aggravated felony.

Faster Removal -- tightens removal period, adds new penalties for failure to depart.

Increased Criminal Sentences -- enhances sentences for repeat illegal entrants and variety of other crimes.

New Removal Grounds -- adds new passport and fraud offenses as ground for removal.

Removal of Criminals Prior to Release -- expands immigration hearings in prisons.

State and Local Police Authority -- authorizes state and local law enforcement officers to investigate, apprehend, arrest, detain or transfer to aliens to federal custody.

Immigration Status in National Crime Database -- requires inclusion of information about immigration status violators in national database

Prohibits Time Limits on Background Checks -- bars any immigration benefits until background checks are completed.

Criminal Penalties for Aid to Undocumented -- makes aiding undocumented a crime, but provides defense if aid is purely humanitarian.

Assistance to States -- provides reimbursement for costs of prosecuting and imprisoning undocumented criminal aliens.

CIS has also been critiqued as being part of a network of anti-immigrant groups that cater to a white supremacist constituency by right-wing economic libertarians who believe in the benefits of mass and unfettered immigration. A Wall Street Journal op-ed (June 15, 2004), that was widely praised and circulated by pro-immigrant groups, reported that despite the fact that CIS “may strike right-wing poses in the press,” it and other like-minded groups “support big government, mock federalism, deride free markets, and push a cultural agenda abhorrent to any self-respecting social conservative.” A follow-up article in the Wall Street Journal titled “Borderline Republicans” described the anti-immigration network this way: “CIS, FAIR, NumbersUSA, ProjectUSA—and more than a half-dozen similar groups that Republicans have become disturbingly comfortable with—were founded or funded (or both) by John Tanton. In addition to trying to stop immigration to the U.S., appropriate population control measures for Dr. Tanton and his network include promoting China’s one-child policy, sterilizing Third World women, and wider use of RU-486.” (5) Replying to this charge, Krikorian wrote in National Review Online that CIS does not take a “position on anything that does not involve U.S. immigration policy.” (6)

Rep. Chris Cannon (R-Utah) has come under sharp criticism by CIS and other immigration restrictionist groups for his pro-immigration positions. According to Cannon, “Tanton set up groups like CIS and FAIR to take an analytical approach to immigration from a Republican point of view so that they can give cover to Republicans who oppose immigration for other reasons.” (5)

Executive director Krikorian, who appears regularly before congressional committees discussing immigration policy, describes himself and CIS as being “conservative” but as not belonging to the “high-immigration Right” as represented by the Wall Street Journal. According to Krikorian, “The high-immigration Right works hand-in-glove with the anti-American Left.” Like many anti-immigrant groups, CIS believes that Corporate America and leftists share a common agenda of open borders, albeit for different reasons. (6)

Funding

Early funding for CIS was channeled through U.S. Inc, a nonprofit established and still directed by John Tanton, who was one of the cofounders of the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR). (3)

Source.

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.