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.

[MattAMiller]

Why would there be more illegals coming over if the plan is enacted? If they're interested in the program and apply they won't be illegals. If they aren't interested then it might as well not exist.

[MattAMiller]

I question whether our unskilled labor pool is large enough. About 40% of the people who are unemployed today have college degrees. Not that everybody without a degree is unskilled, but it tends to indicate to me that we are reaching full employment in that regard. More and more the blue collar workforce has valuable skills, and we're better off using those skills than paying them 20 bucks an hour to do stoop labor.

[Tempest]

Thanks for your post but I saw one major flaw in your reasoning. And that was your assumption that if we were to be able to stop illegal immigration and to deport or deny public services to illegal immigrants that suddenly the huge savings to the goverment would automatically equate to the average citizen suddenly gaining some form of benefit as in tax-cuts. I actually find that scenario highley unlikely it's more probable that our goverment would just find something else to waste our tax dollars on.

[Tempest]

"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."

I'm sorry if you felt that I was baiting you. I was just looking for you to explain your assertions with some form of a well reasoned logic or fact based response.

I guess that since you refuse to provide me with one. I'll just have to ask someone who might be able to provide adequate reasoning for their assertions.

[EagleMamaMT]

So, by your reckoning, since the government will just find something else to spend money on, we should just keep our mouths shut and take it? That's kind of like telling a rape victim to relax and enjoy it.

[Tempest]

That wasn't what I was trying to relay actually. I was just saying that to assume that stopping illegal immigration would suddenly give us a huge boon monetarily would be rather unrealistic.

After all you'd have to protect both boarders and the US has thousands and thousands of miles to protect between Canada and Mexico and not all of it hospitable and easy to monitor. The cost to monitor all of that on a 24/7 basis would most likely outweigh or at the very least equal what we spend right now in civil services. Not to mention the huge capital expenditure to get monitoring basis set-up and ready. Money that we're already short on.

Then of course there's also the loss of a major labor force which would have to be replaced with citizens who would be in a position to demand higher wages raising the cost of many staple supplies to many American families. Unless of course those supplies were to end up being subsidized by the American goverment which then it would still end up costing the taxpayer money either way. Or it could also just destroy the American farming industry as consumers resorted to purchasing less expensive produce from across the boarder. So in the end I'm not quite sure if we benifitted or lost?

[Tempest]

Append to last reply: I guess my point was that I cannot forsee a savings to the American taxpayer if we were to just plug up the boarder and stop illegal immigration.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I'm willing to HEAR HIM OUT. That's for sure.

I can see some positive things to this.

For one, if their families come to join them, there could be stipulations that if they get involved in CRIME they could be deported. Think about the ripple affect. If they are hanging with gangs, and they keep "company" with them. Wouldn't they perhaps consider that their ENTIRE family could be deported if they were here on a 3 year VISA if they were even remotely involved in GANG activity?

If this is done right, I could see it having positive REBOUND effects in a multitude of area's. Area's that we would have been playing "catch up" on for YEARS to come.

We both were concerned about the impact of Social Security.. but in the long run, if they start to pay into it and do for MANY YEARS.. then they deserve it no less than any of us do.

Plus, it begins the PROCESS of LEGAL immigration which NONE of us should object to. Other than my Cherokee ancestors, the rest of my Ancestors were privledged to have taken advantage of immigration policies and came to America via a legal process that allowed them access. They came from Ireland and Germany.

Homeland Security would have ON PAPER and by TRACKABLE MEANS the MILLIONS of illegal immigrants that are ALREADY HERE. Once this is accomplished, if a person is NOT on a 3 year VISA and isn't carrying a card, it sure makes it EASIER to take them in and DEPORT THEM!!!

We would be MUCH more secure.

Not all of these people will obey the laws and REMAIN in America. Not all of them will stay.

I say their FAMILIES have to show they can be good citizens too or RISK deportation. What a perfect way to address GANG activity, DRUG problems, and a host of other societal ills.

If handled right this could truly be a work of GENIUS.

I'm all for debating this .. but I can see the positive sides of it too.

FRegards, VH&W

[JustPiper]

Freeper's we need the list of those Reps that we should contact and email addresses and phone numbers. If this is going to face strong resistance in the House, let us make them aware of our strong resistance!

[EagleMamaMT]

Sorry, I had to leave yesterday. Just getting back to the MB.

I'm not so sure we'd have to fortify the border. Right now, INS and the Border Patrol are not really enforcing the laws on the books. Also, state and local officials are not reporting illegals to the INS. There have been several news stories on FR lately about cities in different states that will NOT allow illegals to even be reported to INS. If we just started enforcing the laws on the books, especially with regard to people employing illegals, that would go a long way toward stopping the problem. It's kind of like Rush says about homeless shelters: "If you build them, they will come." In this case, it's "If you employ them, they will come."

I'll give you an example of the above regarding INS: One of my brothers lives across the road from a huge nursery in NE Oklahoma. This place uses illegals all the time. He knows for a fact that several people in the area have reported this business to INS. What has INS done about the problem? Nothing. This business is a known offender and the INS couldn't care less. It's also like the gun laws Congress keeps passing. Like the NRA says, "just enforce the laws on the books and you won't have to write new ones." Why is that concept so difficult for Congress to grasp?

Now, even if we do have to spend more money on tightening the border, I can see another great good that might come out of doing that, even beyond lessening the illegal invasion and the threats to National Security from terrorists entering that way - it would help to stop the massive flow of illegal drugs being moved into America across the Southern border of the U.S. I see that as an added benefit of a tighter border. Maybe the DEA and the INS could both be beefed up to deal with the problem. As an added benefit, these would be good, new jobs for American citizens - especially some of our men and women leaving the military, who notoriously have a difficult time finding good positions in civilian life.

As to food costing more: We're talking specifically about lettuce and a few other crops here, specifically the ones which bruise easily and no one has really came up with a good machine for picking them yet, but not agriculture in general, because the majority of agricultural jobs are mechanized now.

One reason no one has come up with a good machine for picking these more labor-intensive crops is because the growers can get dirt-cheap illegals to pick them. Maybe it's time for some inventors to get busy and create some machines that will do these jobs.

Most agriculture is heavily mechanized any more, allowing one or two farmers to do the work that would have required many, many people a couple of generations ago. I live in an area where agriculture is the number-one industry - the main crops being soybeans, winter wheat, corn and milo maise. All of those are harvested by machine any more. In addition, there are a few huge hog operations and also lots of cattle ranching operations around here. Strangly enough, the farmers around here don't use illegals - even the huge corporate hog farms use local citizens from the area. I know one lady who works there. She makes $8.50 per hour, works 40 hours a week, and has benefits. She's very happy to have the job, too. I keep hearing the "they'll do the jobs no American will do" argument, but here in this part of Missouri, American citizens are doing these jobs, without the benefit of illegals, and the jobs are getting done.

[skeeter]

My concern was that Bush was creating 12 million Democratic voters - but since it will still be hard for them to become citizens, this calms me a great deal.

Who seriously doubts that after these illegals and their families have spent 6-9 years in the US legislation will be proposed granting them citizenship? Tell me who could oppose it?

[skeeter]

As Lou Dobbs so aptly said - 'this is not a market, its not an economy... its a NATION'.

[AD from SpringBay]

Just like campaign finance reform. It will never get through.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

This is really, really blowing up in thr Presidents face - and I don't just mean with the people on FR. I am hearing it all over.

[JustPiper]

Your right. This is one issue that is All-American, Sold-American from 70-90%, he's doing this to himself, we begged him.

[slowhandluke]

Their "social security" money will be deposited ????
To be slightly more fair, their money should be flushed down the
same hole my social security money is flushed.

[slowhandluke]

No, they are NOT paying for those services. They are taking jobs that don't pay enough to fully fund the needed medical and education services. This will totally undermine the current actuarial tables for all government services.

The normal progression is that most of the new job market entrants (college or high school grads) start at low paying jobs that are effectively subsidized, but move into higher paying jobs sometime and over their lifetime do pay for what they get. However, a guest worker class introduces a group that is subsidized for their entire low-paid working life.

Maybe, in 30 years, when their children (now US citizens) are working things will balance out. But you will have broken the system in the mean time.

[slowhandluke]

Well, we could do what some of the Israeli farms have done and find ways to automate the harvest. That was reported some time back when the supply of cheap Palestinian labor started getting distrupted (and disruptive). I heard on some radio
station recently that there are mechanical means to pick grapes, but the investment isn't worth it. It would be, if the farmer could find $20/hr operators, but not $5/hour pickers.