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.

[BlackbirdSST]

Exscuse me, but that wasn't very clear. Are you saying that people here on goverment issued temporary work visas are the same as an illegal immigrant that gets paid under the table and doesn't pay taxes??? Could you point out the part in President Bush's speech this morning that provided for a clear path to amnesty? Or are you extrapolating based on no real evidence? I'd welcome an actual well reasoned response if you could conjure it up for me.

I gave you the answer you were seeking and it's as obvious as the nose on your face. What part of ILLEGAL do you people not understand, bait someone else. Blackbird.

[AuH2ORepublican]

Sorry I didn't get back to all of you until this morning---I was away from my office.

Yes, America is founded on free-market principles. However, limiting the U.S. labor "market" to U.S. citizens is as harmful to the pocketbook of the American consumer as it would be to limit our market of goods to those produced wholly within the United States. Why do we buy shoes from Singapore if we can make them in North Carolina? And why do we buy shirts from Honduras if we can make them in Maine? Well, it's because they can produce shoes and shirts much cheaper in those countries---where labor costs are much lower and where they can engage in economies of scale. Those countries had what Adam Smith called a "competitive advantage" in those industries. We are better off importing shoes and shirts at a cheaper price than putting up hugh tariffs (tariffs are a form of taxation, you know) that make it more expensive for American families to buy the clothes they want. Now, in the same way, why should we limit the market for agricultural workers and janitors and cleaning ladies and other low-paying jobs to U.S. citizens? Isn't paying someone $10 an hour to pick lettuce the equivalent of paying twice as much for a pair of shoes because Big Government prohibits U.S. citizens from buying shoes not manufactured entirely within the U.S.? And even if we got rid of the minimum wage (which I think should be considered) and got rid of welfare altogether (which would be a great idea), few Americans would be willing to pick lettuce for $5 an hour, much less for the amount migrant workers are paid.

My understanding of a guest-worker program (and please remember that my comments were based on my understanding of how it works, and thus I stated that I agreed with the general principle of it) is that we allow foreign workers to come temporarily to the U.S. to carry out certain jobs where there is a scarcity of native-born workers. It does not give them citizenship, and it does not guarantee that they will be able to stay when their contract runs out. It's similar to the B-1 visas that allow so many scientists, engineers, programmers, doctors and other professionals from all over the world to work in the U.S., only the guest-worker program would apply to unskilled workers. Just like B-1 visas help stem the flow of industries to places like India and Pakistan (if you think a lot of American companies are outsourcing to South Asia now, imagine what it would be like if U.S. companies were not allowed to bring Indian and Pakistani programmers and engineers to the U.S.), a reasonable guest-worker program would help keep certain industries in the U.S. that would otherwise fail because we couldn't get cheap enough labor. So instead of reflexively opposing any measure that allows foreigners to come to the U.S., we should analyze the final proposal---once it has been completed---and go on from there. Xenophobia will get us nowhere.

As for whether Mexicans who may eventually become permanent residents and go on to become citizens because of a guest-worker program, it is pure speculation that they will vote "80% Democrat." I'm sure many Republicans opposed letting in Cuban refugees in the early 1960s, since they would turn Miami into a Democrat bastion. Instead, Cuban-Americans are the second most Republican ethnicity in the U.S., trailing only Dutch-Americans. A similar thing happened with Vietnamese boat people and Korean immigrants---they voted heavily Republican, especially in California, at least until Pete Wilson began to act in a way that made them feel unwelcome in our party (the problem was not Prop 187, which I supported, but the way in which Wilson tried to sell Prop 187). And as for Mexican-Americans, they were largely Republican in New Mexico until the 1960s or so, and voted around 40% Republican in California until Pete Wilson. And in Texas, they gave then-Governor Bush around 50% of the vote in 1998 and over 35% of the vote in the 2000 Presidential race. Mexican-Americans are for the most part (they are exceptions, of course, just as there are among all groups) hard working, family oriented and socially conservative, and their support for Republicans tends to increase as their incomes increase. Even if a guest-worker program has the effect of increasing the number of Mexicans who become U.S. citizens, which I do not believe to be the case if the program is properly conceived (in fact, if families of guest-workers must stay in Mexico, we would probably see a net *decrease* in Mexicans born in the U.S.), I do not believe for a second that this will make the RATs the majority party in America or even in the Southwest. Mexican-Americans are no more preordained to remaining Democrats forever than were Irish-Americans 100 years ago (when the Irish voted in larger percentages for the Democrats than Mexicans do today).

Sorry for the long post, but it's a complex issue that requires complex analysis.

[AuH2ORepublican]

"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."

---

hedgetrimmer, even if money transfers to Mexico were free, Mexican guest workers would still buy most of their goods and services in the U.S. They would send their savings (not their spending money) back to Mexico, which would allow their wife and family to stay over there and would allow the guest worker to have built a small nest egg back in Mexico for when his contract is up and he has to go back home. I think facilitating money transfers to Mexico is just about the most important thing we could do to ensure that guest workers don't try to sneak their families in here. In fact, I think it would be better if part of their salary, say, their FICA taxes, were sent back to Mexico and they would have an IRA over there instead of qualifying for Social Security in the U.S.

[Sabertooth]

They believe Bush is their friend? Then Bush is halfway home! No one should ever believe government is their friend.

President Bush has made it a point to be a friend to Illegals for most of his political career, since opposing Proposition #187 in 1994.

[EagleMamaMT]

You know what, $12.00 for a head of lettuce might be cheap.

Let me tell you something: I transcribed doctors' reports for a major hospital in Southern California for five years, up until 2 years ago. During those five years, I typed at least one report a week on an illegal alien giving birth to a premature baby in this hospital. Premature birth is pretty common among illegals due to factors such as poor nutrition, diseases and lack of prenatal care.

I don't know if you know anything about the costs associated with premature birth, but they are tremendous. It's not unusual for one premature birth to add up to $150,000, depending on how premature the baby is. These babies also require long-term care for physical therapy, occupational therapy, respiratory therapy and home health nursing when they are finally discharged from the hospital. Multiply this times most of the larger hospitals in California alone and you're looking at MAJOR money being spent by the Government (state and federal) just to provide services for premature babies born to illegal aliens - that's not taking into consideration the amount of Medicaid, AFDC, WIC, Food Stamps, Section 8 housing, utility subsidies, etc., illegals become entitled to once they have an "anchor baby" here in the U.S. And I won't even go into the fact that illegals receive services from ERs all over this country, the costs of which the hospitals end up eating or the state, federal and local governments pay for. This is a major crisis and is driving healthcare costs up for everyone in America.

Think about it: You can choose whether or not you're willing to pay $12.00 for a head of lettuce. You can't choose whether or not you pay taxes.

[Age of Reason]

1. Short paragraphs are our friends.

2. Curiously, American companies are free to hire people from overseas, where labor is cheaper--

Yet American workers and students aren't allowed to buy medicine and textbooks from overseas, where they are cheaper.

[Age of Reason]

you keep saying that [there is no job Americans won't do]

Yes. There is no job Americans won't do.

Here's why:

Americans work underground in coal mines under threat of cave-ins and poison gas.

Americans work as garbage men, outdoors in all kinds of weather, each man lifting several tons of stinking, leaking garbage every day.

Americans work in sewers and Americans work hundreds of feet in the air walking steel beams.

There is no job Americans won't do.

and I still say you are wrong...

Your turn to say why.

[A. Pole]

So you want to pay $12 dollar for a head of lettuce???!!

"The cost of labor as a percentage of sales averaged 28.2% among Top 400 companies reporting labor-cost information."
( Helping the Help )

It means that doubling of wages would increase the price of lettuce only by 28%.

[tracer]

Laz did not ank me a question, but I suppose that he would be the best one to determine whether that which I replied to him is something he agrees with/follows or not.

BTW, why would a guy from such a decent land as Scotland become so negative towards GWBush and "bushbots?"

BTW -- I'll take the bait, having failed to otherwise inquire: is your interesting home page based on the "real" you?

No criticism or animosity here, only curiosity. All the best, and I hope to visit your fair land for the first time either this year or the next.....

[hedgetrimmer]

The countries have created "hometown" clubs for the illegals in every major city in America. The hometown clubs make sure that the illegals send money back to be spent on infrastructure in their "hometown". That is, the money goes back to pay for water wells, roads and other infrastructure project.

You think the money should all be sent back, what about the infrastructure here? They use water,roads,hospitals, librarys, government services, yet you think they should not pay for those, instead the American taxpayer must pick up the tab so they can send their money out of country? That makes no sense.

And never in the history of the world has the taxpayer of one country been forced to prop up the GDP of another through such a subtley nefarious way. Its subtle because most people do not know what is happening, and it is nefarious because it makes our Constitution worthless. You see, if you call a spade a spade, and these remittances are foreign aid and nothing else, then the people of America and Congress should decide who should get how much money. With remittances, Congress is effectively neutered. They can't do anything. This also shifts the balance of power to the whitehouse, because Mr. Bush is making policy out of country at the Summit of the Americas, who initiated the policy for remittances in our country. This takes all authority away from Congress and gives it to the president and foreign interests. That doesn't scare you at all?

Also, unless you think its fine for the treasury department to keep printing an endless flow of money, the number of dollars available in the US becomes fewer and fewer, while the number of dollars out of country greater. Now it used to be governments like to controll the amount of dollars floating around in foreign countries, but now they can't because remittances are an unregulated outflow of money. This seems to be fiscally irresponsible of our government to allow this as well.

You think all their money should be sent back, but you don't appear to grasp that the outflow of money has a negative effect on our infrastructure, our governmental structure and our economy.

P.S I don't think Mr. Goldwater would ever have approved the unfettered flow of illegals into our country and the economic and Consitutional harm it is causing.

[AuH2ORepublican]

""The cost of labor as a percentage of sales averaged 28.2% among Top 400 companies reporting labor-cost information."
( Helping the Help )

It means that doubling of wages would increase the price of lettuce only by 28%."

---

Umm, no. The cost of labor as a percentage of sales *averaged* 28.2% among top 400 companies, but it is clearly much lower for capital-intensive products and much higher for labor intensive products. The cost of labor is probably upwards of 80% of the cost of selling lettuce.

And if wages for lettuce-pickers was doubled overnight, we would likely end up buying all our lettuce from south of the border or from Asia, since the California lettuce industry couldn't compete (unless protectionists piled up tariffs on imported lettuce, which would allow a "market price" of twice what it is now).

[hedgetrimmer]

Lettuce actually doesn't ship very well, and lettuce coming in from china would probably look pretty unattractive to most people.

We do ship some lettuce to Japan and Pacific rim, but it has to the the absolutely best quality possible to make the journey and still be marketable when it gets there. It is way more expensive than the local lettuce, but some asians are willing to pay a premium for a very high quality product.

[A. Pole]

Umm, no. The cost of labor as a percentage of sales *averaged* 28.2% among top 400 companies, but it is clearly much lower for capital-intensive products and much higher for labor intensive products. The cost of labor is probably upwards of 80% of the cost of selling lettuce.

Really? Can you demonstrate?

[AuH2ORepublican]

"You think the money should all be sent back, what about the infrastructure here? They use water,roads,hospitals, librarys, government services, yet you think they should not pay for those, instead the American taxpayer must pick up the tab so they can send their money out of country?"

---

Well, assuming you have a job, you're paying taxes for our infrastructure. But with the money left over, you can do what you damn well please, including buying a German car and a Swiss watch and a Japanese TV and Australian wine and a South African diamond. Guest workers would pay taxes, same as Americans. What they do with their leftover money is up to them, and if they can send it back to their family in their home country if will mean that their whole family won't have to move to the U.S., where the children would go to school at our expense and where any new children born would be U.S. citizens. So letting them send money back is a good solution for both the guest worker and the American people.

"Also, unless you think its fine for the treasury department to keep printing an endless flow of money, the number of dollars available in the US becomes fewer and fewer, while the number of dollars out of country greater. Now it used to be governments like to controll the amount of dollars floating around in foreign countries, but now they can't because remittances are an unregulated outflow of money. This seems to be fiscally irresponsible of our government to allow this as well."

---

That is just absurd. The huge majority of U.S. dollars circulating in the world market are due to Americans buying imported products---or do you want to ban that too? We are part of a global economy, you know.


"I don't think Mr. Goldwater would ever have approved the unfettered flow of illegals into our country"

---

And neither do I. Reread my posts.

[hedgetrimmer]

According to a document issued in November of 2001 by CONAPO, the Mexican National Population Council, even with a decrease in the birth rate and an improved Mexican economy, emigration to the U.S. will not diminish for at least the next 30 years! CONAPO called this emigration “inevitable.” Of course what CONAPO really means by "inevitable" is that it doesn't want it stopped.

The Mexican central bank recently reported that income from remittances from Mexican migrants in the U.S. now tops that of every other sector other than petroleum. Migration, in other words, earns more for Mexico than tourism, more than manufacturing, more than mining, more than agriculture, more than direct foreign investment in Mexico.

In just the first 6 months of 2003, recorded earnings from remittances totaled $6.3 billion (Petroleum – over $8 billion, direct foreign investment – $5.2 billion, Tourism – $4.9 billion). [Mexican Central Bank: Money Sent Home By Migrants Tops Foreign Investment, Tourism by Mark Stevenson, Associated Press, August 29th, 2003]

Mexico has great economic potential. It’s a tourist bonanza with some of the world’s finest beaches, colonial architecture, pre-Hispanic archaeology, and more. Mexico has mineral wealth – for example, it’s the world’s number one in silver reserves - a large industrial sector, a highly-educated upper class and a small but growing high-tech industry. Mexican agriculture is blessed with a wide variety of ecosystems and long growing seasons.

Yet, except for petroleum, not one of these sources of wealth production can surpass the value of remittances from migrants in the U.S.!

This is a stunning indictment. How could a modern nation-state allow itself to get into such a predicament?

This incredible failure should be a first-class embarrassment for Mexico’s ruling class. Instead, it's being utilized for political gain. The power of migrant remittances in the economy is yet another built-in disincentive to reform Mexico’s economy.

Where does remittance money go? It goes to buy groceries, consumer goods and into home improvement. In some cases it encourages its recipients not to take up productive work in Mexico. Very little of remittance funds are channeled into savings or productive investment in Mexico. Once again, no incentive for emigration reduction.

Indeed, Mexico is losing its attraction for foreign investment due in part to its government’s ongoing failure to enact reform in the fiscal and energy sectors [México pierde su atractiva, Romina Róman, Universal, September 11th, 2003]. Why should it, with that emigration safety valve? --Allan Wall

[hedgetrimmer]

It really looks like Mexico is calling the shots on American immigration policy and Bush's plan reflects more what the Mexican government wants than the American people

**

Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez, who recently declared that Mexico would give the U.S. nothing in exchange for a migratory accord, laid out the goals of Mexican foreign policy in a recent Reforma article. Generally, these goals are what you would expect given the globalist principles outlined in Vicente Fox’s Madrid speech. But of special interest to the U.S. National Question is one item that Foreign Minister Derbez describes thusly:

“Through our network of 45 consulates, we reinforce attention to the needs of our fellow Mexicans in the United States regardless of their legal or migratory status…We seek with our northern neighbor the negotiation of a total migratory package which includes (a) the regularization of undocumented [a.k.a. illegal] Mexicans resident in that country, (b) border security, (c)an increase in the number of visas for temporary workers and (d) regional economic development.

“Besides seeking a total migratory package defined above, with the goal of improving living conditions of our fellow Mexicans, we have issued in the past year 1, 130,000 matriculas consulares. [They are] accepted in 280 banking institutions and in 32 states of that country [the U.S.] The [U.S.] Department of the Treasury announced yesterday that it permits the use of the matricula by commercial banking. This will doubtless increase its acceptance, to the benefit of all Mexicans.

“In April we established the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, whose Consultative Council is composed of 100 consultants, elected directly by the Mexican Communities, which institutionalizes the relationship between Mexico and the communities abroad.” [Estrategias de la Nueva Política Exterior de México, Luis Ernesto Derbez, Reforma, September 19th, 2003]

Notice that, as usual, the Mexican foreign ministry is closely monitoring the matricula consular situation, pushing for a migratory accord, and utilizing Mexican consulates as operational bases for the continuing colonization of the United States.

Americans need to understand that Mexico’s leaders, who head its white minority government, have no intention whatsoever of reducing emigration. Why should they? Emigration keeps them in power. It removes a portion of Mexico’s poor, reducing demographic pressure on the government. And, as recent Mexican administrations have learned, it gives Mexico an opportunity to exert influence over U.S. immigration policy, which enables the cycle to continue.

In Mexico’s fractious political world, “defending the immigrants” is one issue which draws support across the political spectrum. All political parties and centers of influence support the continued promotion of emigration and the concomitant subversion of American law and sovereignty.

--Alan Wall

[Destro]

I must be one of the last White European immigrant to come to America. Silly me doing it the old fashioned way in gettinga visa and then residency and then applying to be a citizen. I guess because I had to earn it I cherish it more.

[i are a cowboy]

I believe the President is aware of the problem with the congress and is trying to get some political mileage just by beginning the debate. I am also of the opinion that the problem is so large that something similar to this idea is the only answer. However, if they don't do what is necessary at the border the problem will not go away no matter what solution is implemented.

[gooleyman]

If this program gets implemented, land borders will have definable checkpoints.

Don't we have defined checkpoints now? And people still sneak past them. And even if we do search them and find nothing, that doesn't mean they don't have evil intentions. There are plenty of harmful devices and chemicals in the country that they can get their hands on once they are here. But that's the terrorist angle. The real point of this discussion is illegal immegration. Remember many of the participants of 9/11 would not have been detected as hostile on the surface because they had legitimate looking reasons for being here. That was part of the ruse. Get in and become part of the fabric and...BLAM...suckerpunch.

Getting back to immigration. I'll give Bush the benefit of the little doubt I have. I think this action gains nothing. It doesn't lose much either, except that it will add a bureaucracy to manage the new personel it will take. That adds to the debt. That I don't like, but that's a whole 'nother discussion too. I can only hope that it at least gains Bush some votes from Hispanics. The ones looking for a reason NOT to vote for him will find it no matter what.

I think you'll still find just as many or even more sneaking in because they have to sneak in first and find someone to hire them and then apply for this. I expect there will be some trafficking going on through either legitimate or phantom companies (as you mentioned later in your comment.) Things like this bother me because, before the ink is dry on the bill, someone will have figured a way around it, or to take advantage of it (and our tax money.)

When the term of this certificate is over do they HAVE to leave. If not, they will renew ad-infinitum or go back to their illegal ways. Human nature. And how many of them will want their families to stay behind in Mexico. I'd want my family with me. So they'll work out a way to get them here, most likely illegally.

I'll have to learn more about it before I warm up to it.

[MattAMiller]

How do they become citizens in a couple of years under this plan?