A Texas-Sized Disconnect On Borders

Washington Post ^ | 25 June 2006 | David Broder

[RKV]

The story line of the week was "Republicans in Retreat," as major pieces of President Bush's legislative program hit roadblocks on Capitol Hill.

The subtext was a largely unexamined cultural and political gap between the president and important parts of his core constituency, a rift that only now, in his sixth year in office, is becoming evident.

First, a quick summary of what happened. On Tuesday morning House Republican leaders met with Speaker Dennis Hastert to assess the prospects for immigration reform. Widely different bills had passed in the House and Senate, and the normal procedure would be to appoint conferees to negotiate a possible compromise.

But in the leadership meeting, the view that emerged was that the House GOP membership would tolerate no deviation from the original House position -- close the border with Mexico now and only later consider a guest worker program or possible citizenship for some of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants to be living in this country.

The Senate approach -- linking all those steps in a single package -- was a nonstarter, the House leaders decided. So instead of naming conferees, they ordered up a new round of regional hearings -- a time-killing stall that may well doom the chances of any action this year on Bush's No. 1 domestic policy proposal.

[raybbr]

The difference has been exposed by the debate over immigration, which at bottom is a struggle over America's demographic and cultural future. If you talk to members of Congress of both parties, as I have been doing, what you hear over and over is that their constituents have been rattled by the appearance in their communities -- especially in small towns and rural and suburban areas -- of newcomers speaking a different language (Spanish) and living in separate enclaves. The newcomers are changing job markets and, particularly, the makeup of school classes -- a disconcerting development for many of the residents already there.

THE "NEW AMERICA"

We are now one of the largest Spanish-speaking nations in the world. We're a major source of Latin music, journalism and culture.

Just go to Miami, or San Antonio, Los Angeles, Chicago or West New York, New Jersey ... and close your eyes and listen. You could just as easily be in Santo Domingo or Santiago, or San Miguel de Allende.

For years our nation has debated this change -- some have praised it and others have resented it. By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America.

As I speak, we are celebrating the success of democracy in Mexico.

George Bush from a campaign speech in Miami, August 2000.

You can read the speech here.

Here is an excerpt of a good critique of that speech:

In equating our intimate historic bonds to our mother country and to Canada with our ties to Mexico, W. shows a staggering ignorance of the civilizational facts of life. The reason we are so close to Britain and Canada is that we share with them a common historical culture, language, literature, and legal system, as well as similar standards of behavior, expectations of public officials, and so on. My Bush Epiphany By Lawrence Auster

[Liz]

EXCERPT: Some Immigrants Are Offering Social Security Numbers for Rent

NY Times | 6/7/2005 | EDUARDO PORTER

Gerardo Luviano is looking for somebody to rent his Social Security number. Mr. Luviano, 39, obtained legal residence in the United States almost 20 years ago. But these days, back in Mexico....he is looking for an illegal immigrant in the United States to use it for him - providing a little cash along the way. "My brother in California has a friend who has crops and has people that need one."

Mr. Luviano's pending transaction is merely a blip in a shadowy yet vibrant underground market....undetected by American authorities, operating below the radar in immigrant communities from coast to coast, a secondary trade in identities has emerged straddling both sides of the Mexico-United States border.

Illegal immigrant workers usually earn so little they are owed an income tax refund...........The illegal immigrant "working the number" will usually pay the real owner by sharing the tax refund. Since legal American residents can lose their green cards if they stay outside the country too long, it is useful to have somebody working under their identity north of the border.

"Sometimes the one who is working doesn't mind giving all the refund, he just wants to work," said Fernando Rosales, who runs a shop preparing income taxes in the immigrant-rich enclave of Huntington Park, Calif.

The income tax "refund" is almost certainly generated by Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) fraud, which as a "legal resident" the number renter would qualify to receive, especially if they have have or claim children. The EITC is a "refundable tax credit, which means the IRS will pay it out even if no taxes have been withheld or paid in. So the IRS gives filers who claim the EITC "refunds," even if they have had no taxes withheld.

These number renters can claim up to $4,400 for the 2005 tax year in EITC "refunds," most of the number renters probably claim this maximum refund. The Additional Child Tax Credit is another "refundable" credit which is no doubt routinely claimed by these renters.

For 2005, if the number renter claimed $14,400 in wage income, and three children, between the EITC and the Additional Child Tax Credit the renter would, without having any taxes withheld from wages, receive a tax "refund" of $4,898, plus have $892 credited to Social Security; in addition to the potential of thousands of dollars in California unemployment compensation.

[mo]

Liz-I'm beginning to perceive that the Feds have the same "problem" with immigration as Microsoft does with privacy/security in Windows. Both the borders and the OS are SUPPOSED to leak...it weakens the peons and peasants...and empowers their masters.

[Lead Moderator]

Don't try to get around excerpt requirements again.

[PGalt]

Thanks for posting; thanks for your contributions.

[dirtboy]

The difference has been exposed by the debate over immigration

No, ILLEGAL immigration. Anyone who tries to make this about immigration in general is being deceptive, at the least.

[dirtboy]

They are Texans, and Texas is different. Historically and culturally, it has been part of Mexico. Though it fought to free itself of Mexican rule, it has never regarded Mexicans as strangers...But, as they are learning, the Texas perspective is not that widely shared in the modern GOP.

What an utter pantload. The GOP members of the Texas House and the border sheriffs went to Washington to request a meeting with Bush. Being from Texas has nothing to do with it. Instead, it's about whether you are interested in pandering for votes and cheap labor, or whether borders mean something.

[RKV]

You are very welcome. The "Lead Moderator" doesn't seem to be too happy with me today.

[sportutegrl]

http://www.dailylocal.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=16831759&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17782&rfi=8

This guy couldn't get a job as a mason because of illegals "doing the work Americans won't do".

[raybbr]

No, ILLEGAL immigration. Anyone who tries to make this about immigration in general is being deceptive, at the least.

I believe immigration in its broadest sense is what Broder is talking about. The legal immigrants as well as the illegals have gotten used to demanding and receiving special considerations from our various govts.

The fact that it seems to be largely hispanic is due to the majority of "immigrants" to be hispanic. The hispanic illegals along with the legals and the concurrent cultural changes have been magnified by sheer numbers.

If it were millions of Poles, Chinese or Ethiopians, for example, and our liberal govts were to grant the same favor and prejudice to them the problem would be the same. They would live in enclaves and demand and most likely receive the same concessions that the hispanics have demanded and received.

[RKV]

I live in California (People's Republic of), and California is different - it was once part of Mexico, like Texas. We were fortunate enough to get away from Mexico and don't plan on going back, not if we can get the Feds to do the jobs we pay them to.

[TomGuy]

If GW can't get it passed this year, look for him to have a massive major push for it during his last 2 years in office.

It isn't going away soon --- not until it either passes or GW is out of office.

[One theory that has circulated -- with much flaming: GW has an agreement with the Dems -- if it doesn't pass, they will simply issue massive numbers of green cards, thus making the illegals 'legal' by default.]

[Liz]

End free pass on hiring of illegals

Atlanta Journal Constitution | 6/12/06 | Mike King

FR Posted on 06/12/2006 4:12:42 AM PDT by Oshkalaboomboom

Until now, if the government notified an employer that a new worker's Social Security number did not match any government records on the individual, the employer was under no obligation to do anything. That was a serious lapse in oversight.

According to government numbers, at least 10 percent of the 250 million wage reports filed by employers with Social Security every year match no existing numbers. (Many even come in with numbers such as 000-00-0000.)

Last week, though, the Department of Homeland Security announced that from now on, it will require employers to actually investigate mismatched numbers, and will be held responsible if they continue to employ workers who cannot explain the discrepancy.

This wink-and-nod approach by federal officials to enforcement of workplace hiring rules did not begin with the Bush administration, however. The Clinton administration took the same "see-no-evil" view of what goes on in employment offices of large construction firms, poultry plants, textile mills and other businesses that rely on immigrants willing to work cheap and not raise a ruckus about overtime or safety and health hazards.

The result, of course, has been 12 million immigrants in the country illegally, with more coming every day. To stem that tide, some in Congress advocate building hundreds of miles of fence and doubling — again — the number of Border Patrol agents. Fine. Give it a try.

But enforcing workplace hiring laws and levying big fines, even prison, on employers who violate those laws will have much more impact on the flow of illegal immigrants coming here. (Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...

[RKV]

That would be typical here in Southern California construction also.

[Dog Gone]

There is some partial truth to the statement. While Texans are concerned about illegal immigration as much as any Americans, there is relatively little homophobic feeling toward hispanics in the state.

American hispanics are treated as Americans and the culture is accepted and even embraced. We have no problem with cities with spanish names like Gonzales or San Antonio. Tony Sanchez lost his bid for governor not because he is hispanic, but because he ran as a Democrat. (I know Tony and he could have easily run as a Republican. He's conservative. He was used by the Rats in a failed effort to split Texas hispanics off of the Republican party.)

What we, including established hispanics, don't like is the influx of illegal aliens. They're not established, they're not part of the culture, and they're not Americans.

Hispanics are not the problem. Illegals are.

[Dog Gone]

The "Lead Moderator" doesn't seem to be too happy with me today.

He's not going to be happy with anyone who tries to get around the excerpt rules at this forum. They exist for legal reasons and anyone who circumvents them puts the forum in jeopardy.

Unless that's your intent, quit complaining and start complying.