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.
Someone is "anti-Mexican" if they don't wish the USA to become just like Mexico? Then by the same logic the open-borders-unlimited-immigration who want to import all of Mexico and it's huge problems into the USA is anti-American.
If you don't believe in unlimited immigration from Haiti -- then are you anti-Haitian? Or if you don't believe in unlimited immigration by the French and turning our country into a country just like France --- are you an anti-French racist?
You posted that nonsense several times knowing it was at the least misleading and you were called on it. I'm not sure which thread because you repeated it so often. I'm not going searching for you, have one of your illegal friends do it. Buzz off.
What are you talking about? The exchange between WRine and myself, which you have jumped into, concerns a Gallop poll posted on FR several days ago.
At the time the thread was posted I posted a comment about one of its findings, ie., that consistently over time about only 1% of the respondents listed illegal immigration as their primary concern.
The Gallop Poll can no longer be accessed unless one wants to sign up for a 30 dat free trial subscription.
No one has denied that the Gallop Poll showed that illegal immigration consistently rates about 1%.
What basis do you have to claim that I am lying? Did you even read the poll?
This is the site of the Gallop Poll . To see the entire poll all you have to do is register for a free trial.
No one else needs to because you are the only one denying that it says what I said it does on the day when everyone had access to it.
I see plenty of them, maybe not teens but certainly 20s-40s.
Here the children tend to get their parents welfare checks and you don't see them doing hard jobs for low pay --- they're more inclined to hang out with gangs --- hispanic youth unemployment here is higher than any other group. Yet you see guys over 40 mostly doing the farm work --- definitely not the American born anchor babies.
Good point.
A skilled stone mason should be proud of his profession. But American kids are not taught to respect the value of skilled artisans. That's just one reason why there are jobs that Americans won't do.
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/Economic_Benefits.pdf
http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~GBorjas/Papers/Economic_Benefits.pdf
What a load of crap.
No. Anyone who thinks America can become just like Mexico is warped. Your hyperbole is ridiculous. We have a huge Latino population in the USA already. A worker program that meets the demand for labor will not reduce the number of Mexicans in America. What the anti-Mexican racists like Tancredo want is to remove all the illegal workers and not replace them. They do nothing to fix America's immigration system which makes it nearly impossible for legal immigrants to enter without waits of many years and document that are difficult to obtain for Mexican poor. We have a demand for labor and a supply of labor and only stupidity prevents us from welcoming the Mexicans into our land. It is a dark fear ingrained in our culture that surfaces when economic times grow hard. Our economy is improving and now is the last chance for the racists to obfuscate and obstruct the logical solution.
If we just changed the number of legal immigrants/guest workers allowed in the US they would be more attractive than illegal workers to legal businesses and they would displace the illegals.
Then by the same logic the open-borders-unlimited-immigration who want to import all of Mexico and it's huge problems into the USA is anti-American.
You must really think I'm a son-of-a-bitch and I hate my children. I hear that kind of crap from the liberal media everyday. Businesses want to pollute the land. Presumably because they want their children to drink poisoned water and breath filthy air. It is sad when I hear this communist claptrap on a "conservative" forum. Who wants to import Mexico to the US? Not me. I just want more American workers. If I own a business but I can't find qualified workers that I can afford to pay, then I would have to think about moving my business where I can make a profit. Now, I know many of the Buchananites think business is in business to provide jobs, with or without profit, but they are morons. Don't listen to them.
If you don't believe in unlimited immigration from Haiti -- then are you anti-Haitian? Or if you don't believe in unlimited immigration by the French and turning our country into a country just like France --- are you an anti-French racist?
If someone wrote to me and said he was practice target shooting to get ready for the next boatload of Haitians, or said they hated the French because they carry diseases then I assume they are what they appear to be.
Your math is flawed in oder for 10 million to be less than 3% of the population the population would have to be 335 million people. Assuming your figure in MS is truthful, your argument is flawed because you compare the 3% national figure to the figure of MS which you provide. I bet the home of Kennedy and Kerry has very lax identification standards and lots of welfare benefits. Their percent illegal population is likely greater than average. If you can find the % of illegals in MS and the % of illegal criminals then you would have a logical comparison.
I also reject the notion that my point of view, that we need to round up these ciminals -- and a good place to start is by checking those employed by current and former police commissioners -- and deport them permanently.
This is incomprehensible. If you would please correct it and try again I will respond to it.
And I'll be laughing.
Sadly he needs you to fight his battles for him. What in the hell does his service in the military have to do with anything I wrote. Westley Clark is a General. Yippee Skippy! He's still wrong and insane.
So there. You got schooled. End of discussion. No more starting discussion.
Travis, I didn't bring your service into this dicussion. My point is not to compare your service to country with Clark's. Thank you for serving. So far it is the only thing postive I know about you.
My point, which went right over your head, was that you have not got a clue what is involved in hiring employees and complying with the law. You have a very narrow view of how difficult it is to decyper immigration, labor, and tax laws, much less comply with them.
If they are here illegally they should be arrested and deported never to be given the opportunity to enter the USA again. Their employers should be arrested for breaking the law, made to appear before a court and if found guilty pay the price.
I disagree and it looks like most of our government disagrees with you. When you can convince the voters to vote for men like Buchanan then your side will see laws passed and enforced the way you desire. Until then there are only 2 things you can do about it:
1 nothing
2 like it
Well you can also whine.
Where do you get you figures for this statement?
Thank you hchutch. I've been reading your posts for a long time now and your approval means a great deal to me. I have your "in forum" page bookmarked and if I don't respond to much that you have written it is only because you argue your point so resourcefully that it rarely needs assistance.
When we do the interrogation/interview for their removal from the US, we ask a whole battery of questions and collect allot of good information.
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.