Posted on 11/30/2005 3:00:33 AM PST by dennisw
The late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it "boob bait for bubba" — tough-sounding rhetoric designed to placate conservative voters. Moynihan applied the phrase to Bill Clinton's 1992 pledge to "end welfare as we know it," which it later became clear that he had no intention of following through on when he became president (eventually, Republicans pressured him into it). President Bush is offering his own "boob bait" in the form of speechifying at the border about a crackdown on illegal immigration.
It's not that Bush doesn't intend to use better technology to police the border and end the "catch and release" policy that waves illegals into the country, as he is now saying. But these steps are primarily meant to diminish opposition to a new guest-worker program and what would effectively be an amnesty for illegal aliens. It's a crackdown as prelude to a letup; in other words, Rove bait for red-staters.
A Republican close to the White House has told Time how Bush wants to lull his conservative supporters into swallowing some sort of amnesty and a guest-worker program, i.e., a "comprehensive" approach: "Bush decided to give these guys their rhetorical pound of flesh. In return, he wants a comprehensive bill, which is what he has always wanted. He's just going to lead with a lot of noise about border security."
The idea is that the House, where conservatives have the most sway, will pass a bill with new enforcement measures, only to see the Senate pass a different bill with an amnesty and guest-worker program, which will be shoved down the throats of the House on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Supporters of tougher enforcement will have gotten their "noise," and Bush and the business lobby will have gotten their policy. Unfortunately for this strategy, conservatives aren't nearly as stupid as the White House political shop apparently thinks they are.
If the policy debate plays out the way the White House wants, we will have another iteration of a bizarre dynamic of American politics. Every time there is agitation about out-of-control levels of immigration, Washington acts — to preserve or increase current levels of immigration. As Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies notes, this is what happened in 1986, 1990, and 1996. The White House and the Senate want 2006 to be Act IV in the farce. Senator Arlen Specter's version of "reform" doubles legal immigration.
The enforcement measures Bush is advocating are welcome and he finally seems to get the public's dismay about the lawlessness of our immigration system. But the border itself is in some ways beside the point. We can put as many agents as the Minutemen could possibly want on the border and still have an illegal-immigration problem. Forty percent of illegals overstay their visas, meaning the border isn't an issue for them. Bush and fellow supporters of a guest-worker program are right about one thing: As long as there are jobs here for illegals, they will come.
The only way to address that is through interior enforcement, which Bush made a nod toward yesterday. The natural place to start is enforcing laws already on the books. Rosemary Jenks of the group NumbersUSA has compiled a partial list of currently unenforced laws that runs to four pages. The Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service have it within their power to inform employers when they have hired illegal workers, but don't. In 2002, the Social Security Administration sent out roughly a million "no match" letters to employers telling them workers had bogus or duplicate Social Security numbers, but business groups complained and the practice stopped.
Supporters of amnesty always ask the rhetorical question: "What are you going to do with the 11 million illegal immigrants already here — deport them all?" That is obviously impractical, but requiring employers to verify that their workers are legal would prompt many illegals to leave voluntarily and staunch the flow of new arrivals. Only after our immigration system is under better control should we discuss Bush's proposed guest-worker program and any kind of amnesty for those illegals who are entrenched in our society. Until then, don't take Bush's bait.
What are you saying is a reasonable wage?
When I was a teenager I could easily find a job at minimum wage and I have no doubt that any teenager could walk into any McDonald's and get a job 2 or 3 dollars above minimum.
I agree illegal immigration is a problem, but I'd like to point out that your son's problem is not so much illegal immigration as oppressive government regulations placed on employers. I don't know a teenage kid who's not willing to work for cash with no benefits, just like the Mexicans. However, an employer has much less chance of getting caught when the family, friends, and acquaintances of person being paid has no interest in turning the employer in.
Not that you would turn your son's cash paying employer in, but maybe his teacher or one of his friend's parents would. That's just not going to happen with Manuel with illegal ditch digger.
While there may be a select few jobs that Americans won;t do and illegals will, it is taking its toll on the job market for teenagers and many people trying to put themselves through college. A few years ago I can remember looking for a job after HS, and there was very little out there. Same thing with most of my friends. At the time, however, we did not know why this was.
Actually democrats do that.
Yes, I agree that a teen can get a job at McDonalds, etc., much of the times. But look at this way. How many City McDonalds do you walk into tehse days and find somebody who is not speaking to you in some sort of English jumbled with Spanish. It is my understanding that many of tehse restaurants are far more likely to hire somebody who speaks limited English but fluent Spanish than they are to hire somebody who just speaks English.
Secondly, for a teenager it is extremely difficult these days to find a manual labor job for one or two dollars above minimum, atleast in some parts of this country.
Sorry Dane, the effect to the economy would be minimal.
The National Review reads more like the New York Times every time I read it.
"A Republican close to the White House has told Time how Bush wants to"
This line does not belong in an article writen by any reputible journalist. However, as we say in the Miers nomination debacle, the editors at the National Review appear to be getting their guidelines from the New York Times these days.
An unnamed source, with an unknown relationship to the subject, told a third party something? The only purpose of such garbage is to spread gossip or to try and lend credibility to a story that doesn't have a credible source. It's the kind of writing that belongs in tabloids.
The author should be ashamed for using such techniques, and the editor should be ashamed for letting this be published by the National Review.
As for the content of the article, it's sensationalism that's only likely to make it considerably harder to pass any kind of immigration reform.
Let me make this simple for Mr. Lowery. Our unemployment levels are low.
We currently have a large number of illegal immigrants working in this country in legal and productive industries.
This number of employeed illegal aliens considerably exceeds the number of unemployed workers.
If we manage to accomplish reform in our immigration enforcement, but don't at the same time increase legal immigration, it's going to have a very serious, advarse effect on our economy.
Unless you think that rising inflation while the economy shrinks do to a shortage of labor is a good idea, a comprehensive approach is the only rational approach to immigration.
We MUST address both illegal immigration and legal immigration at the same time.
This is not a simple task, and there are many different special interest groups pulling in different directions.
Making it sound like the president has some devious plan isn't going to help matters. It definately isn't addressing the problems by addressing the facts, it's pulling the typical liberal tactic of emotionalizing the issue.
We need a program that includes an increase of legal immigration as goals in reducing illegal immigration are met. That's going to be difficult because the numbers are all estimations and everyone is going to estimate things differently.
People who keep calling this an amnesty program without offering solutions that address real labor needs are part of the problem.
There is still considerable leeway in how an increase in legal immigration could be handled.
Do we allow people who are in the country illegally to apply? My answer would be a resounding no. Even the suggestion of such would cause a surge in illegal immigration. We have a right and a duty to be selective in who we admit to work in our country.
Bush has remained consistent in his approach to this, his initial program would have allowed illegal immigrants to apply from within the US. However, he has not taken a hard stance on that and I highly doubt he would veto legislation over that. Therefore it's up to congress, since they're the ones that make laws, not the president.
Do we allow people who have been deported to apply for legal immigration?
This one is a bit harder for me. They are criminals, but they are basicly laws that are enforced about as stricty as speeding. They come from countries where law enforcement is arbitrary. It's hard to respect laws that are obviously not enforced.
Because of this I would go with a bit of a comprimise. I'd suggest that illegal aliens have 60 days after the law goes into effect to turn themselves in and be deported. If they do so they would be allowed to apply for the guest worker program. If they are apprehended during that sixty days, but do not fight deportation, they could possibly be treated the same as if they had turned themselves in. They would be deported, but not barred from reentry.
After that 60 days if they are caught in our country illegally, they should be barred from reentering the country for not less than 5 years.
If they committed crimes while they were in our country they should also be barred from entry. If they are unable to support themselves, they should be deported. The federal government should stipulate that illegal aliens or those here on work visas of any kind should not receive benefits from federally funded social programs. They pay their own way while they are here, or they get sent home.
The exception to this is that we should provide needed emergency medical care if they are unable to pay for it. However, if they cannot pay for it they should be deported after the necessary care is provided.
I have heard suggestions that all immigrants should be required to attain some level of health insurance to work in our country, I think that is an exellent idea. It could be provided by the companies that employ them, by thier home country's government, or they could pay for it themselves.
The problem of illegal immigration is not goingt o be solved through rhetoric about amnesty. If you require people to apply from their home countries, how are you offering illegal aliens amnesty? Yet that's exactly how Senator Cornyn's plan was described.
These people are not helping fix this problem. Fixing the problem can only be done by dealing with the facts, not by stirring up emotion with half truths.
So you weren't willing to take a job at McDonald's. When I was 16 I took a busboy job at a chain steakhouse, and probably the most disgusting one I ever had. People are pigs, that's why to this day whenever I'm done with a meal at a restaurant, I make sure to try clean up the table as much as I can, and that includes positioning the plates and utensils, and napkins in a way to make the job easier for the busser.
To be completely honest, I would have rather found a job working with my hands then working at McDonalds. Secondly, I actually do that same thing at restaurants myself, lol.
Republican free traitor open border globalist do so as well. I just got the tax bill from the county. Hospital district taxes went up, lots of illegals go to the county hospitals here in Haris county. Just one example.
From the first day, learned the the two tub method of bussing. One tub for uneaten food and trash(arghh those cracker wrappers were everywhere, especially if there was a baby, and don't get me started how many times I had to clean up baby puke) the other tub for dishes, glasses, and utensils.
Right on!
Huh still no mention by you of the trial lawyers who are raising health costs on all of us.
We do? That is only your opinion for which you'll find many disagreeing with. The last 40 years have seen us take in over 40 million people, and that's just legally. Even if all immigration were to completely stop tomorrow there are more than enough ample studies which demonstrate the birth rate would continue to increase for the next 50 years.
So then why do we need more legal immigration than the current 1 million annually we already take in? Will our economy collapse without it, will the third world become unstable if we refuse to take in their masses any longer, what is the motivation driving this constant push to raise immigration levels, particularly in DC?
Nice straw man you got there. But the illegals who do not pay the bills (about 1/4 of all patients in the hospital district) for their care are a more pressing problem then any ambulance chaser.
At the the rate Jorger Arbusto is goign he is starting to amke Jimmie Carter look ok.
Back in the 70s Carter proposed building a wall on the southern border and stated correctly that illegals were taking jobs from Americans. I'm afraid on the issue of immigration anyway Bush already makes Jimmy Carter look good.
LOL, who is attacking the messenger now, especially with the customary over the top hyperbole.
OK Dane, lets play!
Given: Illegal Infiltrators cross the border Illegally, regardless of the reason. Choose on...(Y/N)
Since we have evidence of Terrorists crossing the border Illegally, we do have Illegal Infiltrators that are terrorists. Choose one...(Y/N)
We do have evidence of Illegal Infiltrators committing Robbery, Rape, Arson, Murder, and Drug Trafficking and Production. Choose one...(Y/N)
Is illegally entering the United States against the law? Choose one...(Y/N)
Is obtaining fraudulent documents Illegal? Choose one...(Y/N)
Is illegally obtaining employment with fraudulent documents illegal? Choose one...(Y/N)
Is obtaining work illegally without proper Social Security /Green Card ID illegal? Choose one...(Y/N)
Is knowingly hiring an illegal without proper papers/Green Card illegal? Choose one...(Y/N)
Is avoiding income taxes by working "under the table" illegal? Choose one...(Y/N)
Is obtaining Gub'Mint services illegally by presenting fraudulent documentation/ID illegal? Choose one...(Y/N)
Now, please answer these points carefully and accurately.
Oh, and I "attack" you because you are an OBL shill, a disrupter, a proven fool, an apparachik, and you believe Illegal Infiltrators have some excuse/escape clause from the Laws of the United States because you loves you some "cheap lettuce", and finally; you are no Conservative, you fraud!
That is truly a feet.
With some liberties taken, perhaps now it's not a personal attack, bump.
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.