Posted on 12/15/2004 7:26:47 PM PST by nanak
If President Bush is going to keep his promise to spend political capital on a bold second-term agenda, he should include comprehensive immigration reform that offers deserving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship.
To do so, he'd have to face down a noisy, but not large, anti-immigrant claque in the Republican Party that's determined to use the threat of terrorism as an excuse to, in effect, erect "Stay Out!" signs at the U.S. border, even to restrict legal immigration.
In reality, creating a process to legalize illegals would help homeland security by allowing law enforcement agencies to concentrate on border security and tracking down criminals and potential terrorists — rather than chasing after millions of ordinary undocumented aliens, especially Hispanics.
This logic seems to have impressed border-state Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has told immigrant-rights groups that comprehensive immigration reform is his top priority for the next Congress.
McCain has begun working on reform with Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., who favors granting legal status — and, eventually, citizenship — to illegals who have been in the country for several years, have jobs, pay taxes, maintain clean records, learn English and pay a fine.
Bush has a record of favoring immigration reform, but it remains unclear how far he's willing to go with it. In 2001, he seemed to favor a process that would allow illegals to earn their way to citizenship. This year, he's advocated a worker-permit program that may or may not lead to permanent legal status.
It's a good sign that the administration worked to exclude language sought by House Judiciary Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., from the intelligence reform legislation that recently passed Congress.
Bush will face a new test when Sensenbrenner's measure — which would bar states from giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens — comes back for consideration next year. He and other restrictionists argued that, because some of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists gained access to aircraft using drivers' licenses as identification, all illegal aliens should be denied them.
But this is simply a device to make life more difficult for illegal aliens. The 9/11 terrorists, or any terrorists, just as easily could have used their passports — or could use phony passports, or drivers' licenses — to board aircraft.
The commission that investigated the 9/11 disaster specifically declared that its report called for "strong federal standards for the issuance of birth certificates and other sources of identification, such as drivers' licenses, to avoid the identity fraud that terrorists can exploit. We did not make any recommendations about licenses for undocumented aliens. That issue did not arise in our investigation, as all hijackers entered the United States with documentation ... (and) were therefore 'legal immigrants' at the time when they received their drivers' licenses."
To foster humane and effective immigration reform, Bush will need to re-educate the public, which tends to hold (according to polls) that America would be better off with fewer immigrants, both legal and illegal.
In fact, most serious studies show that immigrants are a net asset to the country. Illegal immigrants tend to take menial jobs that Americans won't. They pay taxes. But because they live in the legal shadows, they often get exploited by unscrupulous employers.
On Sept. 6, 2001, with Mexican President Vicente Fox at his side, Bush said, "There are many in our country who are undocumented, and we want to make sure their work is legal."
Soon after, in a White House briefing, officials told immigrant-rights groups that the administration leaned toward allowing illegals to earn their way toward citizenship.
But all work on immigration reform stopped after Sept. 11. It resurfaced this year as Bush worked to expand his support among Hispanic voters. At one point, he called for a work-permit system for illegals and told the League of United Latin American Citizens, "We will keep working to make this nation a welcoming place for Hispanic people, a land of opportunity para todos (for all) who live here in America."
On the other hand, apparently in a bid to appease restrictionists in the GOP, administration officials also indicated that workers would have to return to their home countries when their work permits expired. This provision almost surely would discourage illegals from signing up.
Though analysts differ on the quality of exit-poll data on Hispanics, the Election Day numbers do indicate that Bush gained anywhere from five to nine points among Hispanics. Future growth for the GOP in this demographic depends upon who calls the shots on policy — Bush and McCain, or restrictionists such as Reps. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., Elton Gallegly, D-Calif., and Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif.
Even though Tancredo and company get wide publicity — and have been aided recently by anti-immigration television and radio hosts, such as CNN's Lou Dobbs — their legislative power in Congress has actually been waning.
In 1995, by a vote of 257-173, the House passed an amendment offered by Gallegly that would have required public schools to expel the children of illegal immigrants.
By contrast, this May, the House defeated, by a vote of 331-88, a Rohrabacher proposed amendment that would have prevented hospitals from being reimbursed for medical care provided to undocumented immigrants unless they reported them to the Homeland Security Department.
On the other hand, this November, Arizona voters approved ballot Proposition 200, a measure designed to squeeze illegal immigration, by almost 60 percent. (Its implementation is being held up in court.)
McCain cited Prop. 200 — plus vigilante action by Arizonans against illegals and the deaths of illegal border-crossers in the Arizona deserts — as his motivation for making immigration reform his top priority.
In the 108th Congress, McCain sponsored, along with Reps. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., legislation similar to Kennedy's that would have granted a path to citizenship to qualified illegals.
Kennedy's legislation, however, also would have expedited citizenship for the spouses and children of legal immigrants, clearing backlogs of five to seven years, depending on the country of origin.
It's not clear whether Bush will propose his own legislation next year or wait for Congress to act and get involved, as he often does, when House and Senate conferees are hammering out final legislation.
On this issue, though, having Bush's leadership early on would be welcome. He could also order the Homeland Security Department to use judgment before it summarily expels illegals who are parents of small children or locks up asylum-seekers whether they present a terrorist threat or not.
Restrictionists will charge that "amnesty" simply encourages illegal immigration. Bush can respond that "earned legalization" recognizes the reality that 9 million illegal aliens are not leaving — and that authorities should stop chasing them and focus on terrorists.
Amen.
Yes, and God bless you.
"Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me." Mark 9:37
Bush's proposal does not give anyone a head start on citizenship. There is a lot of misinformation being put out by the professional fund raising groups and repeated by the anti-immigrant chorus on FR.
Another keeper. Fatalis says Job = Slave.
I am kinda curious about the above little factoid you have been referencing that was in a Bush Approval Rating poll done by Gallup recently. On perusing Gallup's website it appears that one has to be a paid subscriber to get the details of their polls and the free summary said nothing about illegal immigration. I'm sure you are right on this but since you evidently have the data can you provide the details on the question about illegal immigration being ranked at 1% as a primary concern of the polled. Thanks in advance.
Then what was Buchanan whining about? Do realize how big our economy grew from 92 until now?
Nope. I said the illegal alien kids in the class don't speak much English (true) and are bringing in TB and Chagas from south of the border (also true.)
What do you dispute about this?
None of us want our children to do menial jobs for the rest of our lives. But we do want them to experience hard work in their youth, before moving up to better things. This will give them an appreciation of the value of those who do toil with their hands.
But you want our teenagers to lounge by the pool, while brown-skinned adult third-worlders toil around them, forever.
Do you think instilling hereditary "master and servant" values in our youth is good for America in the long run? A virtual caste system, by your own description? Where our youth consider themselves "too good" for even a couple years of hard manual labor? Where they are surrounded by older servants, locked forever in those manual jobs which are "beneath" our snobbish lazy youth?
If menial jobs are "beneath" our children, what makes them just right for Mexicans?
Most Americans are not aware that legal immigration takes years and does not fill the need for labor. When the demand for workers is met then the supply will dwindle. Work permits solve much of this problem.
OK, I see. Yes, I had the same experience. So can you reference where you got the details of that Gallup poll on the question of illegal immigration? I guess I'm just a sticker for details. I'm especially curious as to how the question was phrased. Thanks.
Fact is illegals get jobs and pay State, Federal, unemployment insurance, disability, and Social Security just like everybody else. They fear using those programs or receiving the tax refunds they qualify for because they do not want to be returned to their hellhole homeland. Most businesses that employ 18 MILLION illegals are legitimate businesses that pay the employer share of State, Federal, unemployment insurance, disability, and Social Security just like most every business.
The businesses who do not want these workers to become legal workers are the one who are paying under the table and exploiting these workers. They are on your side.
I don't know if it's a winning issue but an anti-immigration stance has always been a loser issue for at least 40 years. I can't cite a recent Presidential election where an anti-immigration position was the winning factor. Except for Pete Wilson in California in 1994, I can't cite an example of a statewide race where an anti-immigration stance helped win the election. The fact that rats are pushing amnesty and Dubya is pushing work permits indicates that elected officials in both partys think their election chances decrease by tightening the border. When the left and the middle want something even the right must consider if standing on principle is worth electing lots of rats who will pass the "2006 open border bill." Best I can tell the champions of border control are men whose sphere of influence reaches only as far as a US Congressional district. There is the example of Buchanan, and the fact that Dubya won election in 2000 and 2004 with a moderate stance on the issue.
Pronunciation: 'trE-z&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English tresoun, from Old French traison, from Latin tradition-, traditio act of handing over, from tradere to hand over, betray -- more at TRAITOR
Entry Word: fool
Function: noun
Text: 1 a person lacking in judgment or prudence.
Usage: stop acting like a fool!
"The" fact is, the only way they pay any type of tax is if they have fraudulent SS numbers...as you well know. And, at ten bucks an hour with no benefits, and likely a family to support, you know perfectly well that they don't come close to covering their cost to society. There was an whiny article here in the paper last week about a "poor" illegal teenager that needs a $40,000 surgery (not for a life-threatening problem); his father's "health benefits" at work won't cover it...because he has the job under a false name!
Those who hire them are, quite simply, felons...thieves. I don't particularly blame the illegals...I blame the worthless employers who pawn their business costs onto the rest of us. Furthermore, I blame the unethical, immoral politicians who allow them to get away with it.
Oh, good grief, don't bother with the agenda-driven liar. I'm sure it was a poll similar the the two that I participated in just prior to the election (one Zogby; one a private RNC deal). Both polls had the "which issue is most important to you?" question. You are then given a CHOICE of about 10 issues...none of which was illegal immigration; and none of which is "none of the above."
You actually have to ignore the choices given, and respond on your own with "illegal immigration" for it to be counted. The fact that ANYONE did this, should be seen as a positive.
Horse Manure!
From The Role of a Lifetime, by Lou Cannon, p. 461 Jul 2, 1991
Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico. This idea, largely overlooked or dismissed as a campaign gimmick in the US, rankled nationalist sensibilities in the neighboring nations. But Reagan was serious in his proposal. Though he traveled only once outside the North American continent during his first 57 years, he was neither insular nor isolationist. California has windows to the world in Asia, and Reagan thought of the US as a Pacific power as well as an Atlantic one. He also had a Californian’s consciousness of Mexico and an actor’s appreciation of Canadians, who are well-represented in the film community. The dream of a North American accord would drive the successful pursuit of a US-Canadian free trade agreement and a future-oriented “framework” trade agreement with Mexico
In 1986 Reagan passed an amnesty program he had thought about for many years, and when he left office he was unashamed of what he gave to America.
From Reagans farwell address to the nation
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
You probably think that is a masterful analogy, but it fails apart when you have to explain how the illegals risk their lives to come to America and not chained to a boat.
Another keeper. wku man's Ruby Ridge wet dream.
Jealous much?
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.