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.

[Pubbie]

I like Bush too, but this plan MUST be defeated or severely watered down or else the GOP will be the minority party for the next 50 years.

[Pubbie]

"It's a non-starter because there isn't much IN there."

What do mean? I thought Bush gave detailed proposals (Though he isn't sending a specific bill to Congress)

[rintense]

Well, I am vehemently opposed for any blanket amnesty. That didn't happen. I do have a problem with rewarding those who are already illegal with another three years. There are just too many unanswered questions about this proposal. And I know we can count on Congress to screw it all up anyway. So I'll take a wait and see approach until the details are revealed.

[CaptIsaacDavis]

VIVA EL PRESIDENTE! VIVA EL COMMANDANTE JORGE!

[futureceo31]

Wish everyone else would see this the way you and I do. As the speech indicates, Congress HAS TO WRITE the legistlation. I dont see anything coming out of it...

[CaptIsaacDavis]

THE SCHEME SETS UP A STRUCTURE TO LET COMPANIES PUT LABOR OUT THE LOWEST BIDDER!

[AuH2ORepublican]

I'm as opposed to illegal immigration as the next guy, and agree that amnesties end up rewarding those who broke the law instead of waiting for their turn to emigrate legally, but I think a guest-worker program, in theory, is a great idea. You give them permission to work for, say, 24 months, and they can apply for permission to work for another 24 months; if they don't follow the rules, they get deported. But guest workers' time in the U.S. would not count towards the time required to become a citizen; if they want eventual citizenship, they would need to apply for a visa and then pay their dues just like everyone else. And their "social security" money would be deposited in a Mexican bank, which they would only be able to access when they go back home when their guest-worker permit runs out, so they wouldn't be able to stay in the U.S. living off their savings. The hardest part would be what to do with their family, since if we let their wives join them in the U.S. any children born north of the Rio Grande would be U.S. citizens pursuant to the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment. I would prefer if their family has to stay in Mexico, and they can send them money and visit them once in a while. Americans who are stationed in an aircraft carrier or in the Korean DMZ can't bring along their wives, so I don't see why we can't expect guest workers to live away from their families for 2 years or so.

Most Mexicans come over to the U.S. to work, not to try to collect welfare. And we certainly need workers for many industries in which native-born Americans refuse to work. I don't see why we can't accomodate Mexican guest workers, while protecting our right to decide who can enter our country and who can become a U.S. citizen.

[JoeSchem]

"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.

Oh, no, but it's not an amnesty. George W. Bush says it's not an amnesty, so therefore it's not an amnesty.

I think the problem is that the President thinks that all those illegals are going to herewith obey the law, which is the only way the program would work. Otherwise, they'll milk the benefits and continue to take money under the table and our borders will be overrun in even greater numbers of illegals.

[StoneColdGOP]

You'd think California Republicans, if any at all, would understand the scope of the illegal alien problem.

Thank God Elton does, but so many others have gone the way of David Dreier and are "establishment", they go along with Bush and sell out.

Hopefully enough Republican voters will remind them all who their real bosses are and demand they not support amnesty, or they lose their next election.

[Pubbie]

Those Immigrants will become citizens in a couple of years under this plan - and when they are citizens they will vot 80% Democrat and the Republicans will be WIPED OUT as a political force in the country.

[navyblue]

VIVA EL PRESIDENTE! VIVA EL COMMANDANTE JORGE!

Shut up, Subcommandante Marcos!

[IGOTMINE]

Yes. The Republicans in Congress will stop this...just like CFR. Or, they will indeed stop it, and be painted as racist xenophobes by the Democrat media.

Karl Rove's genius has failed here.

[CA Conservative]

"1. Federal and State income tax is withheld. "
It would have to be, just like everyone else.

"2. Medicaid fees are added as well as local town taxes to cover uninsured medical services."
Ditto for Medicaid.

"3. A foreign worker payroll tax taken by local towns to cover the cost of educating the children. "
This is one of those common misconceptions. Schools are usually paid for with property taxes or state revenues. So even now, if the worker is renting or buying a home, he/she pays local property taxes (taxes are figured into rent, believe me). You might have constitutional problems with additional taxes focused just on foreign workers for the same services everyone else receives; they would be paying twice for the same service.

"In theory, this will help to pay for the "free" services given to illegals. "
Under this program, they would not be "illegals", they would be here legally; and they would already be paying for those "free" services the same way you do - through income, property and sales taxes.

[texasflower]

This may not be what we all want, but it's not as bad as some had thought it would be. From a homeland security aspect alone, this helps in my opinion.

The workers are going to find a way to be here anyway. This at least will help to know who they are. (the ones that legally participate anyway.) I would rather see it happen this way. I have been on scene when one of those trucks full of dead men who just wanted to work, were found. It is a heartbreaking sight.

My ex-husband is a Border Patrol agent, with a high level homeland security position and he says it will help. I believe him. He has a strong tendency towards negativity a lot of issues. So, if this doesn't raise alarms in him, I'm not going to let it alarm me.

[1stFreedom]

>> You might have constitutional problems with additional taxes focused just on foreign workers for the same services everyone else receives; they would be paying twice for the same service.

Not really. Non-citizens don't enjoy the same rights as citizens -- though the 14th amendment does give them some level of rights.

[CA Conservative]

From the remarks I heard on talk shows dem's are all for this proposal and actually support it.

Then you and I listen to different talk shows. The Dems hate it because it doesn't grant permanent residency, citizenship or voting rights to these people. By registering these people as foreign workers, it identifies them, and makes vote fraud that much more difficult.

[org.whodat]

No one said Bush isn't smart

You can't be serious?? Bush gone in four is a smart move??

[CA Conservative]

THE SCHEME SETS UP A STRUCTURE TO LET COMPANIES PUT LABOR OUT THE LOWEST BIDDER!

And the problem with that is...???? I belive that is called "capitalism", a very conservative concept.

[futureceo31]

The supreme court let us down on CFR. Remember McCain was all for it and if this hadnt happened, there is no telling what he might have done. Enough idiots still support him and he might have run in the primaries. Suffice it to say that the legislation as per what Bush said, HAS TO BE WRITTEN in Congress and this is not coming from the senate.

[KantianBurke]

"makes vote fraud that much more difficult."

Are you kidding? You hear that part when Bush said they can "travel freely" and "documents that we take for granted?" He meant Drivers' Lisc. In most states all you need to vote is to show ur Driver's Lisc. Thank you for playing.