Many see Bush immigration proposals as non-starter (Proposal Faces "Fierce" Resistence In House)

Reuters ^ | 01.07.04 | Alan Elsner

[Pubbie]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush dived into a heated political debate on Wednesday by proposing to create a class of legal "guest workers" in the United States, but analysts said it was doubtful the blueprint could gain congressional approval in this election year.

In a carefully balanced speech, Bush proposed giving some of the estimated 8 million to 14 million illegal immigrants in the country a way to gain three-year temporary work permits, but offered them no clear path to becoming U.S. citizens.

"Our laws should allow willing foreigners to enter our country and fill jobs that Americans are not filling. We must make our immigration laws more rational and more humane," Bush declared.

The proposal seemed calculated to win Bush Hispanic support ahead of the November presidential election while pleasing employers looking for workers to fill mainly manual, agricultural or low paid service jobs.

"The hype and misinformation that this speech will fuel in the immigrant community will be huge. Unfortunately, the excitement will far outweigh the real effect," said Jeff Goldman, an immigration lawyer with Testa, Hurwitz and Thibeault in Boston.

Bush was at pains to declare he was not offering amnesty for people who entered the United States illegally, but opponents of making concessions to the immigrants said that was exactly what he had done.

"This clearly is an amnesty. It provides not only amnesty but a reward for people who committed a felony by coming here illegally," said Rep. Elton Gallegly, a California Republican.

"There will be substantial opposition from Republicans, Democrats and millions of ordinary Americans once they realize what's involved," Gallegly told Reuters.

CAUTIOUS BACKING

While the proposals won some cautious backing from Hispanic groups and immigration backers, some analysts were doubtful that Bush would put much political muscle behind them in the face of fierce opposition from many in his own Republican political base.

"I don't think it's serious. Bush knows the politics. These proposals don't go far enough for most Democrats and they go too far for around 70 to 100 Republicans in the House of Representatives," said Steven Camarota, research director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors more stringent limits on immigration.

"Republican leaders in Congress won't want to bring up this issue, especially this year, because it divides them. Unless Bush twists their arms hard, this is going nowhere," he said.

Legal and illegal immigration to the United States, already at record levels in the 1990s, accelerated further after 2000 despite the economic slowdown, according to U.S. Census data.

From 2000 to 2002, net immigration to the United States averaged around 1.4 million per year, about half a million of whom entered or stayed in the country illegally.

Bush, who won around 35 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2000, would like to raise that proportion to 40 percent or higher this year. Even if he does nothing to push the proposals, the President will be able to incorporate them into his campaign message aimed at Hispanics.

"This makes no sense except political sense. It reeks of bad policy but screams of politics," said David Ray, assistant director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a group campaigning for sharply reduced levels of immigration.

FAIR argued that the plan undermined homeland security, granted an amnesty for law-breakers, established a back door immigration program and threatened the jobs and wages of American workers.

On the other side of the debate, immigration backers were disappointed that the plan offered no clear path for illegal immigrants to become citizens.

"The initial proposal falls short in helping newcomers become fully integrated into our society, but we look forward to working with the administration and Congress to shape the final legislation," said Leonard Glickman, president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the country's oldest migration organization.

[texasflower]

Why, thank you kindly! (blushing)

[spodefly]

The irony is just so... ironic!

Ironic irony is my favorite kind.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

If it is twelve dollars, people won't buy it. The price of goods must fit the market.

[Libertina]

Thanks for that heavy lifting there!

[Pubbie]

I think I might have to change my tune.

When I posted this thread, I thought Bush was going to grant citizenship to all illegals in the country.

But after reading more, I found out that this will NOT lead to citizenship - it is a temporary Guest Worker program.

My main concern was that the illegals would become citizens and then vote the GOP into extinction and the Democrats will again become the majority party - but since there is no practical way for them to gain citizenship, I am more relaxed about this plan.

(But go ahead and call the Congressmen just to make sure they don't make this program worse)

Best,

Pubbie

[hedgetrimmer]

Mr. Bush is also facilitating the outflow of money from our country to Mexico. In my mind, money transfer out of the country should be expensive. We are better off when people here spend the money here, not ship it off shore or out of country.

"Durham, North Carolina - Adolfo A. Franco, Assistant Administrator of the Latin America and Caribbean Bureau of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), announced today that USAID will provide $500,000 to support the creation of an innovative new program to facilitate the flow of remittances to Mexico. Mr. Franco was joined at a press conference in the Latino Community Credit Union in Durham, North Carolina, by U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin; Carolina Zaragoza, Mexican Consul for the Carolinas; Arthur Arnold, the CEO of the World Council of Credit Unions; and John Herrera, the Chairman of the Board of the credit union.

"USAID will work with credit unions in Mexico and the United States to offer low-cost money transfer services. The program will also promote savings and investment by offering attractive, safe, and convenient places for people to save their money. In many cases, financial services - savings, credit, mortgages - will be provided to families that have never had them before," said Mr. Franco.

USAID will partner with the World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU), a leading advocacy organization for credit unions, dedicated to building strong credit unions in countries all over the world, and the Caja Popular Mexicana, the largest credit union in Mexico, to develop the initiative.

Under the program, WOCCU will provide critical training, technical assistance and technology to ensure the success of this effort. WOCCU has enlisted the assistance of the Texas and California credit union leagues, which will provide additional training and internship opportunities for staff from Mexico.

Remittances are earnings sent back by migrants to their home countries. They have accelerated dramatically in recent years, growing at an average rate of between 7-10 percent per year in Latin America and the Caribbean. In 2001, according to recent data from an Inter-American Development Bank study, these remittances exceeded $23 billion.

These financial flows exceed official development assistance by a significant amount, and now represent one quarter of total Foreign Direct Investment to the region.

Remittances have an economic and social impact far beyond their traditional role as a supplement to family income. They are a critical source of foreign exchange, with the potential to play a critical role in promoting economic development. Moreover, for five countries - Nicaragua, Haiti, El Salvador, Jamaica, and Ecuador - remittances account for over 10 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

Even in an economy as large as Mexico's, remittances are more than twice the value of agricultural exports, and over 50 percent of oil exports. Mexico is by far the largest recipient of remittances in Latin America and the Caribbean, with over $9.2 billion in 2001. This represents over 40 percent of total flows to the region. "

[Sabertooth]

That's what I said on another thread, half joking. If Congress has to sort this out, it will never make it to the President's desk. And all he has to do is say he tried. Boo hoo.

It's not so clean and easy as that.

Hundreds of thousands of prospective Illegals now believe that President Bush is their friend, and will be encouraged to jump our borders, hoping that he eventually gets an Amnesty through.

This is bad policy, and bad politics.

[Pelham]

others have gone the way of David Dreier and are "establishment", they go along with Bush and sell out.

I'll have you know that David Dreier is a member in good standing of the Hillary Clinton wing of the Republican Party.

[Tempest]

"How the hell do you know it is going to cost $12.00? What are you afraid of the free market and the rule of law?
You jerk!"

Oh I'm sorry the last time I checked there didn't seem to be alot of competition going on at the lettuce bin. I also noice that most canned vegatables and fruits I purchase don't very more han 10 cents regardless of brand. I guess all of those farming conglomerates don't compete as much as you would like me to think.

[hedgetrimmer]

This scheme is going somewhere. Part of Bush's trip to the Summmit of the Americas is to set up a remittances policy. You know the money the illegals send out of country? I would also remind you that a public private partnership (a partnership between government and non-governmental organizations is a type of fascism, where government uses taxpayer money to reward private nonprofit organizations)

Here is what they are planning:

As migration to the United States has increased over the past decade, the level of remittances sent back to countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) has accelerated dramatically, growing at an average rate of between 7–10% per year across the region in recent years. Estimates indicate that the total volume
of remittances to LAC exceeds $18 billion per year. A country breakout is provided in the table below.
Many experts believe that the available statistics seriously underestimate the real volume of transfers, which may be as high as $20 billion. Official figures are unreliable for a number of reasons; most importantly, they are based on central bank figures and do not accurately capture informal flows. (The figures below are based on IDB estimates, from all sources, including the U.S. The countries listed represent over 90% of total volume.)
Family Remittances to LAC
Year 1999
Mexico $6.795 billion
Brazil $1.898 billion
Dominican Republic $1.747 billion
El Salvador $1.580 billion
Ecuador $1.247 billion
Peru $819 million
Cuba $800 million
Jamaica $781 million
Haiti $720 million
Colombia $612 million
Guatemala $535 million
Honduras $368 million
Nicaragua $345 million
All Countries $18.247 billion
In fact, remittances are having an economic and social impact far beyond their traditional role as a supplement to family income. In LAC, they now constitute a critical flow of foreign currency in the majority of countries, as the following data illustrate.

The value of remittances:
• Exceeds Official Development Assistance inflows;
• Is equal to nearly one-third of total regional Foreign Direct Investment;
• Accounts for over 10% of GDP in Haiti, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Jamaica, the Dominican
Republic, and Ecuador;
• In Mexico, remittances equal revenue from tourism and exceed 160% of agricultural exports;
• In El Salvador, remittances are seven times total FDI;
• In Guatemala, remittances are now nearly equal to coffee exports.

Potential partners might include a U.S. bank such as Wells Fargo, or the World Council of Credit Unions, both of which have shown some interest in serving the migrant market. Such a partnership would also need to include a non-profit organization or other entity with experience working with migrant populations. This sort of public-private partnership might serve as a model for the Global Development Alliance (GDA).

[Krodg]

There is no job Americans won't do,

you keep saying that and I still say you are wrong...

if illegals didn't lower the cost of wages by working for less, paying no taxes, getting no benefits, and sleeping in fields.

I'm sure you know that many that 'play the system' here...don't bother to earn a wage...pay no taxes...get Goverment benefits (medical card, food stamps etc.) and live in government assisted housing. Ask them whether or not they would take any job and give up the easy life...

[Tempest]

It seems to me that you may have a misunderstanding of how the RICO act works. If you're going to refer me back to the abortion law case. It think you might need to understand how the RICO act was applied in that case.

Although I do disagree with the application of the RICO act in 1993 against Operation Rescue (because it opened the door to a whole mess of slippery slope arguements) the arguement made was based on charges of conspiracy and extortion.

Which in the case of corporate executives in relation to low level immigrant workers is going to be very hard to apply. I can't imagine how you would make a viable legal arguement to that effect in order to seize the property of corporations which are seen as seperate entities from the individuals that run them as opposed to wholly owned private companies. Nor can I see how you could bring up charges of conspiracy and extortion agaisnt a corporate executive.

Well anyways here's a link to the RICO act in case you'd like to take a look at it for yourself.

[Tempest]

"If it is twelve dollars, people won't buy it. The price of goods must fit the market."

True, otherwise the goverment will have to come in a subsidize the farming industry further than they already do in order to keep prices low. In which case we end up paying for it either way.

Or supermarkets will just have to import more produce killing another American industry. It's a terribly complex circular arguement isn't it?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

For every action there is a reaction.

BOYCOTT LETTUCE TODAY! :)

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I also noice that most canned vegatables and fruits I purchase don't very more han 10 cents regardless of brand.

PSST... all the vegetables are the same, with different labels on them. :)

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Yes, but people who live here legally, and temporarily pay social security, and don't receive it, because they aren't citizens.

[Tempest]

Hmmm it seems that I didn't finish my thought on the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph in my last reply to you. The whole statement should read.

Nor can I see how you could bring up charges of conspiracy and extortion agaisnt a corporate executive who has little to no connection in to the highering of some low level illegal alien working for them.

[Libertina]

If you believe that this proposal would NOT lead to citizenship, as well as an even greater flood at the borders, I've got a bridge to sell you. Don't forget the FAMILY that EACH is allowed to bring with them, ... And who will pay for all their education, medical care, and their new American born babies - and lawsuits if they're NOT given something!? YOU...and me.

[Tempest]

"PSST... all the vegetables are the same, with different labels on them. :)"

No! I'm telling you that baby carrots are far more sensitive and impressionable than adult carrots ;)

Seriously though it seems to me for a society that's supposed to be based on the free market there appears to be far to much price fixing going on between companies.

E.G. Gas, produce, cell phone plans, internet providers. Is it just me or do all these people seem to offer the same service at the same price never bothering to be anymore competative than to merely match each other.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Initially their prices may match, but eventually, don't they decrease in tandem?

Perhaps I am thinking of "high end" gadgets like plasma screen televisions, but over time, doesn't the price level off to what the market will bear?