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

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.

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.

I have been livid about this since yesterday and have read my eyes off trying to see the points on both sides of this issue both pro and con here with the wonderful Freepers and nothing has swayed me and I agree with every word you posted Harpo11 in your post 140.

My youngest son in the building trades here in Columbus, Ohio is having terrible times getting work due to Mexican illegal work crews getting much of the available work. My Daughter in law a fine teacher is so frustrated with Leave No Child Behind as her 5th grade class is 50% illegal kids and some of them sleep in cars.

I have backed W all the way except his stance on immigration and this time he has really disappointed my entire Conservative family BIG TIME! All I can do is pray my Republican congressman and my two Republican Senators hold up and come out opposed to this new proposal. Karl Rove thanks a lot you have really come up with something that is rocking your party and your President's base!

HeHeHe. It's good to hear from another possessing of a devious heart. Now let's all wait gleefully for the Demon-craters to hit de tar baby.

My major predictions now number three:

1. This new tidbit.

2. That a goodly portion the much-ballyhooed and elusive "Weapons of Mass Destruction" are safely tucked away on (or under) French soil.

3. That the newly-dissed yet principled and rational Joe Lieberman will cross the Great Aisle and swap his (D) for an (R) well before next summer's Witches' Sabbath, aka the Democratic National Convention.

I haven't heard these gems anywhere else other than issuing forth from my own brain, addled as it is. So I'm either a total lunatic (most likely the case) or I should have my own radio talk show -- or at least a posh office in downtown DC.

It's tough being humble....... 8~)

Two words: free and market. The LIBs love "free," but they LIE about the meaning of the word "market." Define it and enact policies to ensure it remains relatively "free" over generations. If you mean that employers, many of which receive protections from liability by incorporating (SCOTUS: a corporation is a "creature of the law"), and which benefit from the wealth and investments of U.S. citizens primarily -- and the blood of its heroes fighting to sustain it -- will be "free" to import foreign guest workers to substitute for American labor, then it's not truly "free" any more.

Freedom 101 from Jefferson: it comes with responsibilities.

The tax basis for participation will be different in some states (foreign workers on short-term seasonal or "project" assignments routinely get around state and local tax liability). Moreover, there are associated macroeconomic and business costs that are not even reflected in the $ contract between employer and employee:
1. Top consulting firms actually get paid $MM to "train" companies to deal with language and culture issues that DESTROY economic value at firms (all things considered, and assuming an ability to substitute even with HIGHER paid American labor)
2. Tax burden on infrastructure -- health care, insurance, training, welfare, SS, prisons, on and on. Business 101: the full cost of an employee is not simply a function of the negotiated salary. Cheap imported labor, for a large minority share of the pool, merely passes on HIGHER costs for that illusion of "cheaper" labor onto states and the Feds (US via taxes). The net result is an effective cost subsidy for less competitive enterprises for a large minority share of the total firms employing such labor.
3. Productivity. US Federal Reserve bank economists have proven quantitatively in several studies that few have the guts to report on that immigrant labor subsitution has dramatically REDUCED productivity growth in the United States. In other words -- NO KIDDING -- language, training, social and cultural gaps do matter and are weighing on the total wealth creating capacity of the United States.

What we have done is basically create a huge share of the U.S. economy (ballparked in studies at 10-12% of GDP) that is fundamentally dependent upon indirect labor cost subsidies through illegal and legal immigrant labor.

"Free Markets 101" -- that results in ineffective allocations of investment capital that DESTROYS long-run productivity and job creation for short-term gains for a relatively narrow fringe of firms.

Moreover: Many immigrant laborers have subsidies from foreign governments affecting the cost basis for their participation in the non-market "free for all." Indeed one of the lesser known dirty secrets of the racket is that governments in China, South Korea, Egypt, and elsewhere deliberately have incentive/subsidy programs to send people here to work in professional jobs (with rotations back home expected after a few years) or even to set up small "mom and up" shops. Why? Hard currency is the name of the game. They need the $ flowing back into the economies to subsidize a host of programs. The world outside the US exports two things mainly -- natural resources and cheap/slave labor.

The bottom line is that the WH is taking a radical libertarian approach, which, like the "free trade" argument, is not about "free trade" or "free labor markets" at ALL. They are policies for "open markets" that seek the ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SOCIALIST SUBSIDIES AND INEFFECIENCIES RESULTING FROM POORLY REGULATED MARKETS (E.G., ALLOWING COUNTRIES TO EFFECTIVELY "DUMP" LABOR AND ASSOCIATED POLITICAL COSTS ONTO THE U.S. MARKET -- E.G., MEXICO). MEXICO WOULD HAVE EXPLODED IN ANOTHER REVOLUTION A LONG TIME AGO -- MAYBE RESULTING IN A REAL FREE MARKET THAT WOULD SEE THE END OF THE SOCIALISTS -- WITHOUT SUCKERS IN THE US TO SUPPORT THEM.

Even the advocates who know what the heck they are talking about are careful not to call it "free markets."

Looks like it's time to dig out that Adam Smith book -- "capitalism" is not about everyone out for themselves. That's called selfish mercantilism or simply parasitism, and no society on earth has long survived with the parasites controlling most of the economic decisions. If this is news to you it is because you probably were "educated" in the post-1960s culture of America where the term has been hijacked by two camps -- both internationalist in agenda: neo-libertarians and socialists. There is a middle ground, and it was at the heart of Adam Smith's notion of "capitalism" benefiting societies as well as individuals (striking a rational balance), as well as concepts like "scientific management for profitability" (American Management Association) and U.S. economic policies right through the 1960s.

Two words: free and market. The LIBs love "free," but they LIE about the meaning of the word "market." Define it and enact policies to ensure it remains relatively "free" over generations. If you mean that employers, many of which receive protections from liability by incorporating (SCOTUS: a corporation is a "creature of the law"), and which benefit from the wealth and investments of U.S. citizens primarily -- and the blood of its heroes fighting to sustain it -- will be "free" to import foreign guest workers to substitute for American labor, then it's not truly "free" any more.

Freedom 101 from Jefferson: it comes with responsibilities.

The tax basis for participation will be different in some states (foreign workers on short-term seasonal or "project" assignments routinely get around state and local tax liability). Moreover, there are associated macroeconomic and business costs that are not even reflected in the $ contract between employer and employee:
1. Top consulting firms actually get paid $MM to "train" companies to deal with language and culture issues that DESTROY economic value at firms (all things considered, and assuming an ability to substitute even with HIGHER paid American labor)
2. Tax burden on infrastructure -- health care, insurance, training, welfare, SS, prisons, on and on. Business 101: the full cost of an employee is not simply a function of the negotiated salary. Cheap imported labor, for a large minority share of the pool, merely passes on HIGHER costs for that illusion of "cheaper" labor onto states and the Feds (US via taxes). The net result is an effective cost subsidy for less competitive enterprises for a large minority share of the total firms employing such labor.
3. Productivity. US Federal Reserve bank economists have proven quantitatively in several studies that few have the guts to report on that immigrant labor subsitution has dramatically REDUCED productivity growth in the United States. In other words -- NO KIDDING -- language, training, social and cultural gaps do matter and are weighing on the total wealth creating capacity of the United States.

What we have done is basically create a huge share of the U.S. economy (ballparked in studies at 10-12% of GDP) that is fundamentally dependent upon indirect labor cost subsidies through illegal and legal immigrant labor.

"Free Markets 101" -- that results in ineffective allocations of investment capital that DESTROYS long-run productivity and job creation for short-term gains for a relatively narrow fringe of firms.

Moreover: Many immigrant laborers have subsidies from foreign governments affecting the cost basis for their participation in the non-market "free for all." Indeed one of the lesser known dirty secrets of the racket is that governments in China, South Korea, Egypt, and elsewhere deliberately have incentive/subsidy programs to send people here to work in professional jobs (with rotations back home expected after a few years) or even to set up small "mom and up" shops. Why? Hard currency is the name of the game. They need the $ flowing back into the economies to subsidize a host of programs. The world outside the US exports two things mainly -- natural resources and cheap/slave labor.

The bottom line is that the WH is taking a radical libertarian approach, which, like the "free trade" argument, is not about "free trade" or "free labor markets" at ALL. They are policies for "open markets" that seek the ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF SOCIALIST SUBSIDIES AND INEFFECIENCIES RESULTING FROM POORLY REGULATED MARKETS (E.G., ALLOWING COUNTRIES TO EFFECTIVELY "DUMP" LABOR AND ASSOCIATED POLITICAL COSTS ONTO THE U.S. MARKET -- E.G., MEXICO). MEXICO WOULD HAVE EXPLODED IN ANOTHER REVOLUTION A LONG TIME AGO -- MAYBE RESULTING IN A REAL FREE MARKET THAT WOULD SEE THE END OF THE SOCIALISTS -- WITHOUT SUCKERS IN THE US TO SUPPORT THEM.

Even the advocates who know what the heck they are talking about are careful not to call it "free markets."

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.