The Bush Proposal (Interesting article by Linda Chavez on the Immigration Proposal)

Town Hall ^ | Jan 8, 2004 | Linda Chavez

[txdoda]

This makes immigrants a fiscal bargain for our country.>>>>>>

Where did you get THESE stats ??? If this were the case the CA economy would be 'booming' rather than BANKRUPT.

[SolutionsOnly]

***" "Prosecute those who hire illegal aliens and the problem will dry up at its source."


This solution hasn't worked yet... any other suggestions?"***

Yes. We should introduce a new concept - be serious about enforcing the law. People just might start to respect it then. You can never know unless you try!

[futureceo31]

That includes illegals but probably a larger amount of legals. I am definefly upset at this since I have to pay an arm and a leg for my health care. But if GW starts talking about health care reform, we would probably open up a bigger can of worms with the opposition saying that he wants to kills millions. Damned if he does, damned if he dont...

[livius]

The reason for the 1986 amnesty in the first place was that the illegal immigration situation had gotten out of hand.

We need rational immigration laws, but nobody has dared to touch this matter until now. We can't just go on giving amnesties when the problem gets too severe. We have got to create a new way of dealing with the situation, and I think this is what Bush is trying to do.

Remember, we used to have a guest worker program several decades ago, for agricultural labor, if I recall correctly. This is not a new concept.

[futureceo31]

I am not that thrilled to have myself subject to biometric identification when I have to go to the doctor or anything else. I am already not too happy that every Tom Dick and Harry has my SSN#.

[MainFrame65]

The fact is that the US-Mexican border is about 2,000 miles long. Part of it runs through urban areas, but most is rural, remote, and pretty rough territory. This border is now manned (protected doesn't describe it) by about 9500 agents, who use cameras, helicopters, and ground vehicles to patrol and monitor the border. Separately, almost 5000 personnel operate the authorized crossing points along the border.

Militarizing this border would probsbly require about 50 men per mile, plus support personnel, or about 100,000 more men total. Why so many? First of all, we need the equivalent of four shifts to provide full time coverage. This number would provide one squad of 12 men per mile, which is the smallest regular command structure. The actual coverage area for such a squad would vary according to the specific territory, but this is a reasonable average.

They would usually operate as 3 or 4 man patrols, armed well enough to present overwhelming force to any "coyotes" trying to sneak their clients in. Smaller patrol teams would invite violence against them as a way to penetrate the border.

But an army division is about 15,000, so we are talking about SIX divisions here. And we simply do not have, and cannot recruit, that many new soldiers in any reasonable amount of time.

And what about Canada, where the border is about three times as long? Again, to truly protect the entire border would require doubling the size of our active duty army, and we just cannot recruit the troops to do it. Could we draft them? Perhaps - for the duration of one administration.

[Not A Snowbird]

That includes illegals but probably a larger amount of legals.

Yes, you are quite right... I should have included them as well. The democrats constant screaming that x million people don't have health care is not true; what they don't have is health care insurance. Different things altogether.

GW is in a bind alright, on this and many other issues. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't, someone is going to be unhappy. My emotional self says I'd like to round them all up and ship them back to where they came from , then let them line up to apply for jobs. But my logical self says that's simply impossible, so let's try something new.

[Lady Eileen]

The message is: Shut up and pay your taxes.

[SolutionsOnly]

For each worker, how many non-workers will there be? (Children, dependents, etc). Minimum wage (if they get even that) won't be enough to support them. So there will be more cries to raise the minimum wage and create 'assistance' and 'outreach' and 'this-aid' 'that-aid' programs - further expanding the scope of government. It's the nature of the beast.

[txdoda]

Precisely. I'd bet a huge percentage of the 10 million illegals have kids who are US citizens. What would the curernt bomb throwers recommend? Split up these families and raise the kids at government expense?


Guess you think GWB's 'three year' guest workers won't take advantage of ALL the perks an "Anchor Baby" affords all illegals ??

[navyblue]

Okay! Thats good for immigrants!

Now please give us the figures for illegal immigrants, or more properly said, illegal aliens!

And please don't give us the figures from La Raza, Lulac, Maldef or Mecha. Try something like Numbers Usa!

[epow]

There is no way that the United States can find and deport 8-12 million illegal aliens in this country, and even if we could, we would do more harm than good.

OK, so immigration laws are very difficult to enforce and we can't catch all the offenders, so let's just change the immigration laws so we don't have to try? How would Mr. Bush and Ms. Chavez feel about changing our drug laws in that manner? We obviously can't catch all the dope dealers and it's extremely difficult and expensive to catch even a small portion of them. So what the heck, let's just make drug dealing legal, give amnesty to all current dealers, and presto chango the drug problem is solved!! That isn't governing, it's abdicating responsibilty.

[WOSG]

Not addressing EOIR could defeat the very verbiage you mention ... " unless an order of an immigration judge expressly finds that the alien is not a flight risk and is not a threat to the United States" What the EOIR and BIA are doing is taking the word of ACLU and immigrant-friendly lawyers and letting them undermine the law with loopholes. That verbiage above - that's a loophole... These judges would simply declare everyone in the system "not a flight risk" and presto - free on no bail. If you read the details, you would be shocked at how flagrantly these judges are violating the intent of the law. then again, maybe not, the ACLU is involved.

[PuNcH]

Give it to the DIMs and they advocate total amnesty with ability to get welfare, citiezenship rights and fast track to citizenship... The difference is clear as night and day.

You understand that we have the illegals here and more are always coming. It doesnt matter whether they have total amnesty or not. Bush's proposal will bring in more and so will the democrats. If the democrats can show that the guest workers are second class they will get more of what they want one way or the other. There is little difference.

[dano1]

But "earned legalization" is probably the best solution to a largely intractable problem. There is no way that the United States can find and deport 8-12 million illegal aliens in this country, and even if we could, we would do more harm than good.

Chavez is all wrong about this and the President is correct. Bush is proposing TEMPORARY guest worker status, so any current illegal immigrants who moved into the new system would AT BEST only be able to stay a short while longer. The so-called "earned legalization" plans are completely stupid and wrong-headed. How can you "earn" a benefit by breaking the law???? It is a system which tacitly instructs people to cheat. Giving the so-called "earned legalization" to current illegal residents is a strong message to those still outside of the U.S. to please break our laws and evade the border patrol so that they too can begin to "earn" their citizenship in the next amnesty. No, Chavez is completely wrong on this one, (although I admire her ability and values greatly in general). President Bush has the far better legalization plan.

[Diva Betsy Ross]

Yes, I like President Bush, and I trusted him. I have been let down by many of his policies. Some were really big issues to me. I let some things go,thinking it was politics and necessary, and that I had to be fair. A president has to represent all of the people and I will never agree with one 100%.

But at some point I am going to have to listen to what he says , and take it on face value.

Where do people like me draw the line? How much are we going to be asked to accept in the name of politics?

At some point President Bush is going to have to come out and say "I am not a leftist", even if it is at some cost to him.

The things he says, even if you and I know it is not going to really materialize, shapes public opinion and perpetuates , what I believe, is a myth. That being the Democrats are really powerful.

I believe the public is more right than left, I think they are looking for leadership in that direction.

IMO, offering confusing statements and platforms, does not help our efforts as Conservatives or Republicans. I don't think it is going to help him get reelected to stand in front of the world and degrade Americans the way he did yesterday, either.

I think it was a wrong move, and it is especially painful to me because it comes after what I think are three big, bad moves in a row.

I don't think we have to worry about Dean or Clark. I think we need to worry about Liberman and Gephardt.

[deport]

And what about Canada, where the border is about three times as long?

---

And don't forget the Gulf Coast, East Coast and West Coast water borders...... boats coming in at desolate locations along each of them.....

[WOSG]

Actually, not "precisely".

there is no need for the children of illegal aliens to be considered US citizens. Change the law so that only the chidlren of permanent residents, citizens and legal long-term visa holders are citizens.
The 14th amendment is clear that people under the jurisdiction of the US born here are citizens. But it was not intended to apply to illegal aliens or other aliens in our country having kids, and illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of their country of citizenship not ours.

Do you think the children of US diplomats in China should be considered Chinese citizens and subject to the draft of the Chinese govt when they turn 18???

So the solution: The law (or stupid custom) granting automatic citizenship to the children of
illegals must end.
Children born here of foreigners would not automatically become US citizens
nor residents, unless their parents are *legal* residents of this country.

[PuNcH]

If it were that simple, we wouldnt be here discussing this issue and we would have law enforcement taking care of the problem.

LOL, law enforcement? There is no enforcement! If they are going to enforce employers under this proposal then they could start enforcing the law right now without the proposal. It is alot of contrived BS.

The proposal should include jailtime for employers and bounties for workers who turn in their employers. Now why do we need the rest of the proposal except that the govt is simply forcing it's will against the wishes of the American citizen?

[livius]

Why import more lower social class, with no education, no skills, with little earning potential who will likely end up on assistance?

That's exactly what many people said about the Irish, the Italians, the Jews, and just about every group that came to this country in the 19th and early 20th century. In fact, one of the foundations of Planned Parenthood was Margaret Sanger's desire to halt these undesireables from reproducing (you can read it her works - she wasn't bashful about saying it!). Yet I think the Irish, et al., have turned out to be pretty good citizens, don't you?

One thing I do think we should do is bring back meaningful citizenship or Americanization classes. In the 19th and 20th centuries, children in public schools were taught in English, regardless of their parents' native language, and were taught about the history of this country, its political foundations and ideals, etc.

I think many immigrants, judging from my contact with Latin American immigrants in NYC, where they were suing to get their kids OUT of bilingual education, would be very happy to learn English and adopt American values. But with our crummy, left-wing, Dem-dominated educational system, their chances are not as good as they were in the 19th century, alas.