Posted on 11/10/2004 12:51:19 PM PST by VU4G10
(Washington, DC—November 10, 2004) It wasn't quite "Read my lips," but in the last presidential debate in Arizona, George W. Bush clearly stated that he would not support amnesty for illegal aliens. One week after being narrowly returned to office, the president has reneged on that pledge. Bush has dispatched Secretary of State Colin Powell to Mexico City to open discussions with the Mexican government about the size and scope of amnesty for illegal immigrants and for a massive new guest worker program.
"President Bush and Karl Rove have seemingly missed the message of their own, and the Republican Party's, success at the polls last week," said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "In spite of a poor record on jobs, further erosion of the middle class, and staggering budget deficits, the people returned the GOP to office because they believed that the Republican Party was more in tune with them on values and respect for the law. One of those gut issues that led voters to ignore the administration's poor record in other areas was the belief that Bush and the Republicans would enforce laws against illegal immigration, not reward illegal immigrants and auction off every job in America to the lowest bidder."
The immigration plan being dusted off in Washington and Mexico City is essentially the same one the administration introduced last January, which proved to be so wildly unpopular among voters that they were forced to shelve it. "Who is the president seeking to reward by reintroducing his amnesty/guest worker proposal?" asked Stein. "Not middle class workers who made it very clear that they are feeling squeezed. Not the millions of families who have lost their health insurance benefits because their employers no longer feel that it is necessary to offer such benefits to attract American workers. Not Hispanic voters, whom polls indicate do not consider this to be high priority and who voted in significant numbers in favor of an Arizona ballot measure that bars illegal aliens from receiving most public benefits.
"The only interest group, besides the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal aliens and their families who could be in line for legal U.S. residency, are cheap labor employers who have come to believe that it is their right to have workers who will work at whatever wages they wish to pay," Stein said.
The latest White House announcement will touch off yet another surge in illegal immigration and further compromise homeland security, predicted FAIR. Last January, when the president first proposed this plan, the U.S. Border Patrol reported a marked increase in the number of people attempting to enter the U.S. illegally in order to benefit from the proposed amnesty. "Aside from betraying the interests of millions of people who voted for him because they believed the president shared their core values, this irresponsible renewal of talk of amnesty will betray those who voted for him because they believed the Republicans were the party that could be entrusted to protect homeland security. You cannot have homeland security and chaos at the border. You cannot have homeland security while granting amnesty to millions of people with only minimal background checks. And you certainly cannot have amnesty and unlimited guest workers, and preserve a solid middle class," asserted Stein.
So if there were a population that was specifically non-religious, loved the welfare state, and loved to lay around, eat bon bons and watch tv, you would not want them here? If the answer is yes, you are admitting that you are not allowing the illegals to stay here because of principle, but because of politics. How then do you oppose the Socialists among us promoting the immigration of the bon bon eaters? Either we have a set of laws that mean what they say, or we don't. Build a fence, dismantle the system that provides for the illegals and their children, then get back to me about immigration policy. Unless the flow is stopped, and the social costs are minimized, immigration reform is just a phantom policy.
I think it is a completely different subject. One is the problem of illegal immigrants be they lettuce pickers or Richard Branson. The other is the problem of the working poor legal or illegal. You solve the two independently. For even if you cut back on government benefits to the working poor to encourage greater self-reliance, you would still have a large number of illegals crossing the border to get jobs here that they can't get in Chiapas. A $6.00 an hour job in San Diego is better than eating prickly pear pads in Tapachula.
"Required to return to their home" implies some form of enforcement. For instance, you are "required" to pay your federal income tax and if you don't you can be prosecuted for failing to do so. I assume that requiring them to return home if they are no longer employed (for they will be tracked via the guest worker visa) means that armed LEOs will hustle them along if they don't.
I could be wrong. We'll have to wait and see. Right now, the situation is that nobody cares whether they are working or not and nobody is forcing them home. The status quo can't stand. If the President's plan doesn't work we can always go to Plan B. Anything is better than no plan (what we have right now).
In the long run, Bush would go down in History for IMPORTING MASS DEMOCRATIC VOTING BLOC.
Dems and far left would hide behind social programs for the poor.
Failure to convict the same person several times in a row on essentially the same charges is considered prima facie evidence of government misconduct, especially when the charges must be brought about by undercover sting operations.
We are not talking about randomly picking people to prosecute here but those who the government reasonably believes are hiring illegals.
The only way they're going to find a significant number--i.e., enough to deter others--is to engage in undercover stings. And at that point, you have the government soliciting criminal activity. That's what Reno's effort--the one you wish to duplicate--did.
And if you think that multiple charges against a defendant equals a harassment suit, there would never be trials of organized crime figures as they have been known to beat the charges.
Key difference: the government did not actively solicit the targets of these investigations to commit crimes. To generate criminal charges against enough employers to act as an effective deterrent, you're going to have to manufacture the cases in the same fashion that many drug cases are manufactured today.
The intersection of failed prosecutions and said prosecutions being based on undercover sting operations is very much frowned upon by the judiciary.
And finally, this is all assuming that you're right that juries were just rarin to nullify on illegal immigration cases. You rely first on supposed twenty year old cases that you cannot cite. Now, you point to polls that have not been taken.
Not every opinion poll is publicized for your edification, sir. Indeed, most are not disseminated to the public.
They're not going to cross the border for a $6 job in San Diego if you crack down on employers so none will offer an illegal a job.
How do you do that? Simple. Set up an instantcheck system for legal employment status verification at the DHS. Any employer who fails to utilize the system and hires an illegal gets severly penalized: $100,000 fine plus jail time. Possible seizure of assets under RICO if it's not a first offense.
What planet are you living on? THEY'RE REQUIRED TO RETURN HOME UNDER EXISTING LAW, yet they're not doing it. What makes you think they'd return home under this new law?
There will be two key differences:
1. The guest worker will have been registered and fingerprinted before entering the country, and will have a record of his whereabouts.
In case it escaped your notice, we don't have that with the current situation. It will make it much easier to catch those who are breaking the law.
2. The employer will notify the government when the worker is no longer in his employ.
Again, we don't have that with the current situation.
The illegal alien problem was a hell of a lot more manageable before 1965. Returning to the pre-1965 standard would be the best solution, IMNHO.
Yeah, I wonder if most voters voted for that last week?
Please remember we have amnest right now. Any illegal who can hide and stay out of violent felony trouble for ten years CAN and DO obtain amnesty.
We have amnesty now.
Any "guest worker" program should and must include provisions that the "guest" status is not convertable to permanent or citizenship status.
In adddition some change should be so that offspring of "guest" workers do not automatically become citizens nor should they become a drain on social services. (aka our tax dollars)
Agreed.
In adddition some change should be so that offspring of "guest" workers do not automatically become citizens nor should they become a drain on social services. (aka our tax dollars)
Again, completely concur.
This was a response to comment about "compasionate conservative." Kerry would've been far worse. Many people don't vote on the bases of "one issue" but take into consideration the entire "package."
You mean the Linda Chavez who was busted for employing illegals to clean her mansion?
It's a big country. It's very easy to get lost in it. If you think the government is going to keep track of every guest worker, and will no exactly where they are when they lose their jobs, you're living in a dream world.
In case it escaped your notice, we don't have that with the current situation. It will make it much easier to catch those who are breaking the law.
2. The employer will notify the government when the worker is no longer in his employ.
So you've got their fingerprints. Big deal. As soon as they lose or quit their job, they move. Then try finding them.
Again, we don't have that with the current situation.
The illegal alien problem was a hell of a lot more manageable before 1965. Returning to the pre-1965 standard would be the best solution, IMNHO.
I'd be very happy to return to the pre-1965 regime. Legal immigration was strictly limited to under 200,000 per year. The government was not afraid to launch massive deportation sweeps like operation wetback (that deported over 2 million people). Children of illegals were not granted automatic citizenship. And finally, but most importantly, guest workers had to apply before they arrived. If they were here illegally at any point, they were subject to deportation.
So yeah, let's return back to the pre-1965 regime. I'm all for it. This proposal, however, doesn't even come close to doing that.
In previous proposals of the prez, it was. He hasn't specified whether that's the case in the current proposal. We'll see. I doubt it very much, though.
It actually doesn't matter, though. So long as we automatically make the children of guest workers to become citizens, that gives them a sure road to citizenship.
You don't need perfection. If you ARE demanding perfection, then you're the one living in a dream world.
Big deal. As soon as they lose or quit their job, they move. Then try finding them.
They'd have to abandon things such as their cars.
And they'd have to have a perfect police record. ANY arrest would equal deportation.
And in the situation where it's relatively easy to hire a legal worker compared to now, fewer businessmen will take the chance of doing so. This will make finding the ones that do much easier, as their anomalous behavior will stand out against the background.
Illegals drive around without liscenses or insurance right now. What makes you think ti will be any different?
And they'd have to have a perfect police record. ANY arrest would equal deportation.
We don't deport the illegals we arrest right now. What makes you think that's going to change?
And in the situation where it's relatively easy to hire a legal worker compared to now,
It's not hard to hire legal workers now. You just have to pay them more than illegals. Plus if you pay them in cash, like a good chunk of illegals get paid, you don't have to pay unemployment insurance or FICA. You can even pay them below minimum wage. The same will be true after the amnesty is passed, and unscrupulous employers willing to save a buck by hiring an illegal today will be just as willing later.
The only provision that's going to ever work in keeping out illegals, whether or not you pass an amnesty, is mandatory employer verification of legal status and strict enforcement of that provision. But if you pass such a law, you don't need to give any amnesties or deportations. Without jobs, they'll leave. Problem solved.
Los Angeles has the same problem for a very long time. Property taxes, and special bond measures taken to provide bigger, and newer schools for people who really shouldn't be here in the first place.
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.